Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 April 6 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Redirect to Gwar#Videography. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Tour de Scum

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

Video with no notability or refs either Wgolf ( talk) 23:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
LOL@ Bearian-though you might want to bold delete or else they might count your vote as keep. Wgolf ( talk) 21:13, 7 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Jaap van Till

Jaap van Till (  | 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. Fails WP:GNG The Banner  talk 23:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 5 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) Esquivalience t 00:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Gabba (band)

AfDs for this article:
Gabba (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)

A tribute band, article padded out with self-references and trivial passing mentions, no actual evidence of significance. Guy ( Help!) 23:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I wish the article didn't look like someone's garage band, with references normally seen for three kids in a classroom. That's why it keeps getting nominated: people want the article, but nobody gives enough of a shit to fix it up. Guy ( Help!) 13:01, 6 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 argued in the discussion, even though the player was in a USL Pro match, the match was considered a "Reserve League" match for the FC Dallas team of which he was a member. Nakon 01:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Jesse Gonzalez

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

Recreation of article that was deleted via PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. That concern remains the case right now. – Michael ( talk) 22:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael ( talk) 22:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
That was an interleague match between a USL Pro team and an MLS Reserve League team. And the reserve league isn't fully pro, so that doesn't meet NFOOTBALL. – Michael ( talk) 02:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Which counted as an official USL Pro match, counting in the USL Pro standings. It wasn't a reserve league match, it was a USL Pro match. As such it meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz ( talk) 04:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
FC Dallas never fielded a USL Pro team. It counted as a reserve match for Dallas. So it still fails. – Michael ( talk) 05:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
It was an official match for a fully-professional league. Which Dallas player wasn't a professional? Nfitz ( talk) 01:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Yeah it was an official match, for Rochester. But it counted as a Reserve League match for Dallas. – Michael ( talk) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't understand how the policy is too low. Can you please explain why you say that? Also, players don't hit the standard by making appearances for a reserve team. – Michael ( talk) 08:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Bryce Carmony: - as Michael points out, he doesn't meet NFOOTBALL... Giant Snowman 09:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:NFOOTBALL clearly states that a player has to play in a fully pro league match or senior international match to meet the standard. This player hasn't done that. – Michael ( talk) 17:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I'd disagree with. Nfitz ( talk) 01:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
He has Zero minutes of gametime and the guideline does say match, so while I still think the standard is too low, this article doesn't meet the standard so I changed my view to delete. Thanks for pointing out my misread of WP:NFOOTBALL. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 06:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
From wikipedia "Since 1996, Major League Soccer (MLS) has been the only sanctioned USSF Division I men's outdoor soccer league in the United States." notability says tier 1 ( which I will accept division 1 ) MLS reserve isn't stated to be also a tier 1 league so I go with the guideline and suggest a delete. No doubt the player has a bright future ahead of him, but he isn't notable in an encyclopedic sense. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 12:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Why do you User:Bryce Carmony say that "notability" says tier 1. The notability standard is WP:NSPORTS where if you go down to WP:NFOOTBALL it talks about tier 1 international matches. For leagues the standard is to have played "in a fully professional league" and then refers to a list of such leagues at WP:FPL which USL Pro is listed. They game was part of a fully-professional league. Nfitz ( talk) 15:21, 11 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. WP:SNOW keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

SolaRoad

SolaRoad (  | 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 bike path is not more than a prototype with no guarantee that it will ever get a wider use. WP:TOOEARLY applies here. The Banner  talk 22:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep because -
(A) WP:NOTABILITY policy trumps unrated essays like WP:TOOEARLY
(B) WP:TOOEARLY discusses only people and films, nothing else. Certainly nothing about the actual completion of an engineering feat widely reported in international news.
(C) We have lots of prototype articles, many of which exist only on paper. Examples of our articles include
QUESTION, Is there a reason to delete, other than someone thinks there's a community consensus to strip internationally-reported engineering feats of their NOTABILITY just because they are prototype or proof-of-concept projects? Is that claimed consensus to be found anywhere other than at TOOEARLY?

NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Don't forget to tell the world that you wrote this article. The Banner  talk 23:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
It would have been professional for me to think to mention that, I agree. On the other hand, show me where it says that AFD closures turn on who makes the best ad hominem? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a well-referenced article about an operating prototype of a notable technology. I read the Phys.org and PC Magazine sources, and they are clearly significant coverage. Mentioning an essay which doesn't discuss this type of article is not a valid argument for deletion. Nor is pointing out that the article's creator favors keeping it, as that is unsurprising and in no sense improper. Thanks to NewsAndEventsGuy for writing the article and defending it here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Generally, people who write articles will defend them from deletion, so that's a non-attack. Also, if this prototype fails, having that recorded here is useful, though later on it would make sense to combine it with other prototype-but-not-quite-there technologies. If we find that PC Magazine's article is simply regurgitating any press release from SolaRoad (which it doesn't appear to be, based just on the images alone, but someone will likely need to vet that) and there don't appear to be any other articles regarding this actual in use thing (which, there are a fair amount based on a quick Google search - and even a case study) then we can delete the article and maybe incorporate its content in some other more general article about roads built with solar panels. I don't see any reason to delete. Maybe combine it because we don't necessarily want to serve someone's advertising purpose here. But generally keep. Hires an editor ( talk) 23:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
someone will likely need to vet that I did. At least, I tried to. Same goes for all the sources I used, and there are other sources I did not use which struck me as overly promotional. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:38, 6 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. Michig ( talk) 07:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Mher Khachatryan

Mher Khachatryan (  | 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 for notability a/c WP:CREATIVE. No art work in permanent collection of major museum. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply

"'Keep"' He is notable. His art work has been published in several prestigious magazines and newspapers of America and Armenia. His work has been kept in various art gallary and museum. Lots of exhibition and workshop has been conducted by himself. Jeeteshvaishya ( talk) 17:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Question: in what galleries or museums has his art been kept, and what's the evidence? DGG ( talk ) 09:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - His work is mentioned all over the net, and on self-published sites, but as for articles about him in reliable sources I was only able to find this one article. Magnolia677 ( talk) 14:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Answer - Sir You can find thse things in his official website.

Keep - His work is widely published in several art magazines and newspapers. Collection of his paintings can be found in several gallerias and museums in USA. his initiative Art To Thank is widely appreciated. Artist is notable. His page should be not deleted. I tried to add more about him and tried to improve the article. Thank you. -- Jeeteshvaishya ( talk) 16:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I still see no reference to the work being in any major museum's permanent collection. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Info can be found in his official website. Well, I have added some links to the page. I'm trying to improve the article. Thanks-- Jeeteshvaishya ( talk) 12:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - The artist is renowned Armenian painter. Reliable sources can be fount in article.-- Indianbloomer ( talk) 14:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC) — Indianbloomer ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

I found these sources,
I thinks it's enough. Keep this article. -- Indianbloomer ( talk) 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply
None of these are reliable sources. freshacconci talk to me 20:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I see no evidence that this painter meets WP:ARTIST, and in particular, no evidence that his paintings are part of any museum collection. I also see no significant coverage in any publication with a reputation for serious coverage of contemporary art. The references include low quality sources and passing mentions, such as listings of his name in advertisments for local art shows. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Mher is well known for his painting dedicated to Armenian genocide. As no other artist in the world doesn't do the project through traveling show in Art to raise awareness about the Genocide. These things are which make him different from other painters. --Rahul 10:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratunj Tripathi ( talk • contribs) — Ratunj Tripathi ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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 redirect to List of Pokémon (650–720). SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar  ⨹ 01:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Volcanion (Pokémon)

Volcanion (Pokémon) (  | 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, run of the mill Pokemon. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Changing my opinion to Redirect and wondering why I didn't think of that...(embarassed). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 23:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:30, 5 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. Michig ( talk) 07:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Josh Coffman

Josh Coffman (  | 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 couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 21:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (chat) @ 20:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 19:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of independent reliable coverage. Not surprising; the person on the back side of the camera taking a celebrity photograph is rarely the one who gets the notice. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:45, 6 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Role of acoustic emission sensors in tool condition monitoring

Role of acoustic emission sensors in tool condition monitoring (  | 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; essentially an essay or paper. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per WP:NOTESSAY. PianoDan ( talk) 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete but I actually think this is pretty close to G1--the subject is so poorly defined that one has no idea what's being talked about. What kind of tool? "Machine tools" helps, but only if you know what "machine" means here, and the whole acoustic business is not well explained. Add to that the lengthy title and the vagueries of "role", and we have NOTESSAY at best. Drmies ( talk) 02:27, 7 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Dana Carpenter

Dana Carpenter (  | 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 couldn't establish that he meets WP:Notability (sports) or WP:GNG. Pinging creator, plus Backslash Forwardslash who declined speedy, Tim Pierce who tagged it for speedy deletion and Crecy99 who tagged it for notability. Has been tagged for notability for 6 years. Boleyn ( talk) 18:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:45, 5 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Charles Byron Andrews

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for six years, hopefully we can now resolve this. Pinging creator, pplus RHaworth and Kittybrewster, who both tagged it for notability. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 18:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:21, 5 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Lynn Kitch

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

Actress who I can't find much notability for-in her life she only had a few roles it appears. Wgolf ( talk) 18:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:53, 5 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 and salt. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Mahinda Pathegama

AfDs for this article:
Mahinda Pathegama (  | 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 declined CSD G7 on this article as it is probably no longer eligible under that guideline. A previous version of this article was deleted at AfD, however, I do not believe CSD G4 is entirely applicable either. Therefore, I am taking back into AfD and invoking the argument from that AfD, that he does not satisfy WP:PROF. Safiel ( talk) 17:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He has the same birth date as Einstein! Delete. Pathegama has a GS profile, showing his works have been cited a bit more than last time this was up for AfD. However, the grand total (95 citations) and h-index (3) are miles below what we usually take as indicating notability at academics AfDs. There's a ton of links in the article, which is one of the most drummed-up puff pieces I have seen in a long time. Perhaps some of those links would make him pass GNG, but, frankly, there's too much to go through and the article is so bad, that even in the unlikely case that he meets GNG, WP:TNT applies. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Actually, that GS profile seems to suffer from the same puffery as this article... The most-cited article (51 hits) actually does not even list Pathegama as an author! That leaves a total of 44 citations and an h-index of 2. Given this pattern, I think we should salt this. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per Randykitty's findings of false entries (there is more than one) on the Google scholar profile, I don't think it's appropriate in this case to consider sources affiliated with the subject to be reliable (as we often do for purely factual material concerning subjects of biographies). In any case the student prizes and committee memberships listed don't add up to notability. The article creator has also tried to blank the old AfD notice from the article's talk page [7]; I strongly suspect an autobiography, so page protection after this repeated recreation would probably be a good idea. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Barnes and Noble, 2010, "Sri Lankan Scientists", General Books LLC, ISBN  9781157343691 : There is no book by this ISBN:
  • Most of the references are from local news paper articles and has no "scientific" validity.
  • Google scholar site for the : https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mxuxRAcAAAAJ&hl=en has many articles not authored/co-authored by the person. And counts only 35+ citations, clearly indicating that it fails the notability criteria. You may consider the previous 3 deletions of the same article.
  • There is no scientific articles cited in the wiki: listed below >

=Use of thermal imaging techniques in identifying target object characteristics =Remote system for microscopic cell analysis =Quantitative recognition of feature morphogenesis of SARS-CoV in diagnostic electron microscopy =Remote analysis of morphological features in diagnostic electron microscopy of SARS-CoV =Remote System for microscopic cell analysis =Biological cell interaction process due to electromagnetic radiation =Given the scale of population demographic shift, what are the practicalities of applying knowledge in a meaningful way for an ageing population? =Automated Sports-Talents Identification System and the establishment of National Sports Surveillance

  • this citation ( Division of IT, engineering and the environment, BEng Electrical & Mechatronics Engineering Graduates, University of South Australia, [16] Retrieved 22.04.2001) just links the university website.
  • This citation (University of Moratuwa, Alumni, [17] Retrieved 19.12.2001) just links the university website.
  • duplicate citations: 1,22,36,92: 9,60: 21,84:
  • many of the citations has no links to back up, just text.
  • The breakthrough said to have been made by the wiki "Frequency-forced Digital Processing" is nowhere to be found online or in scientific articles. Clearly a topic without scientific basis.
  • Citation "Creating Future Scientists Program, 'Profile of Scientist Mahinda Pathegama', 2015. [40] Retrieved 28.02.2015" refers to his own website. COI
  • CItation " http://www.yatedo.fr/p/Mahinda+pathegama/famous/6ca706f6a16ccaa786ca3e202b366fdf" is an article appeared everywhere online shows some similarity to the wiki indicating some COI.
  • The official website has nothing scientific but reiterating and re-directing to NASA website to which the person in wiki has no connection to. Surani Alwis ( talk) 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Highly promotional article for non-notable academic. `DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 19:57, 12 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 redirect to IUCN Red List#Possibly extinct. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Possible Extinction

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

Unsourced definition/theory. Author inserted concept into IUCN Red List in attempt to make it seem plausible. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:26, 5 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 redirect to David Tsugio Tsutada. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Grace Tsutada

Grace Tsutada (  | 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 classic example of the Wikipedia concept that "notability is not inherited." Ms. Tsutada's father was a very famous Methodist missionary; with all due respect, she has gained no such independent published coverage in following in his footsteps. Fewer than 500 Google hits searching for "Grace + Tsutada," most of which are attributable either to this WP page and its mirrors or to hits actually related to her father. Carrite ( talk) 15:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:49, 5 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 redirect to Phillip Hughes#Memorial match. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Phillip Hughes Memorial Match

AfDs for this article:
Phillip Hughes Memorial Match (  | 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 match fails to meet notability standards for a cricket match. It is not of List A standard or its Twenty20 equivalent and it is to be played amongst players from the non-ODI Nepalese team and state level Australian players. The result or a description of play from this match will have no historical significance. The sole historical significance attributable to this match is the fact that it is a tribute to Phillip Hughes; that alone is not sufficient to justify giving the article its own page ( WP:INHERIT), and that piece of information about the tribute can be captured in a single sentence in Hughes' personal page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirex ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 5 April 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
"There's no doubt it is one of the most notable cricket matches played." - I'm pretty sure it isn't. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:30, 11 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 delete by Athaenara ( talk · contribs) ( WP:CSD#G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: more at User talk:Muhammad Is'ad)

Muhammad Is'ad

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

Autobiography of completely non-notable student. Speedy tag removed by obvious sockpuppet, hence the AFD. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 14:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I unblanked the article, per AfD instructions. It is still CSD tagged though, for self-deletion.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:26, 7 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 keep. Withdrawn, my error. A category does in fact exist at Category:Fictional characters with plant abilities. North America 1000 12:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

List of fictional characters with plant abilities

List of fictional characters with plant abilities (  | 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 topic does not appear to meet WP:LISTN, and no category exists to qualify the topic per WP:NOTDUP. North America 1000 12:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 5 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

MataHari: Eye of the Day

MataHari: Eye of the Day (  | 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 would have liked to have found that this met WP:ORG or WP:GNG, but few Ghits and no Google News info. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years, unresolved. Pinging Tkn20 who tagged this for notability, as well as the WP:SPA ( WP:COI?) creator. Boleyn ( talk) 11:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as a non-notable organization. Only one source cited in the article, that being the org's website. The only sources I found on Google [8] [9] definitely prove the organization exists, but the sources were some news articles that only happen to mention the organization. The first is a march that had the org, the second was a news article about someone that happened to be a part of the org. Other than that, I couldn't find anything that would give this organization notability. Aerospeed ( Talk) 12:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete – No indication of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 00:13, 6 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. Nakon 01:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Local Live

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

Seems to be a locally produced music competition aired on a regional public-access cable channel. Fails WP:GNG, no sources listed, cannot find any coverage, only hits are their own facebook, etc. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Hi ☾Loriendrew☽, I am in the process of buliding Local Live. Please allow time to complete full article before discussing the article so that I can ensure it meets all policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Kindly, Senceso1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senceso1 ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 06:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I'm not sure it fails WP:GNG. It has some secondary sources that, while not all explicitly about the topic, give it more than a trivial mention. I say weak because, in spite of that, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it may be more appropriate to include in another article, rather than as its own article, but I'm not familiar with the topic, most of its links are red, and so I doubt that's a likely possibility. I side with keep because it may be notable, and, if there is an article it can be merged with in the future, I think we can revisit it as a merger, but delete seems a little over-the-top at the moment. Wugapodes ( talk) 14:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Too early in article's life to warrant deletion. Keep for now, but might revisit this discussion if article is not expanded. Suttungr ( talk) 19:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources provided by Northamerica1000 ( talk · contribs).

    For example, this article from Orillia Packet says:

    Expanding from its Barrie-based roots, Local Live, Simcoe County’s idol-style competition, is on the hunt for talented local musicians who write and perform their own material.

    For the past two years, Local Live, now in its fifth season, has aired on Rogers TV in Barrie. The fifth season will be aired across Simcoe County in Orillia, Barrie, Collingwood, Alliston, Borden and Midland.

    “Because … we’re expanding and we’re putting it on all the different stations across Simcoe County … we thought it would be important to actually reach out to the cities and go to the individual cities,” said show host and creator Steve Major.

    Local Live V is holding an open audition in the Orillia Opera House’s Studio Theatre Oct. 5 beginning at 10 a.m.

    Local Live is loosely based on the TV talent shows American Idol and The X Factor.

    This is detailed and encyclopedic information about Local Live that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline's definition of "significant coverage").

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

    Cunard ( talk) 23:21, 14 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 redirect to Barrhaven#Elementary_2. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

St. Emily Catholic School

St. Emily Catholic 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)

Unsourced and virtually no content. No evidence of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:48, 5 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. Michig ( talk) 07:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Embassy of Nepal, Canberra

Embassy of Nepal, Canberra (  | 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:ORG. All this article does it confirms the embassy exists. It does not establish any notability through significant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 06:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:49, 5 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 redirect to Tan#Geography. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Tân

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

Looks like the page has been created in error during a mass creation of articles. There are five village in the district which start with Tân with corresponding articles it the Vietnamese wikipedia and the population statics, but no entry for just Tân.

I'd guess that it should be a dab page, Vietnamese wiki has a dab page on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 11:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 11:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 06:02, 5 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 and redirect to Music_of_Badakhshan#Vocal_music. Nakon 01:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Madah

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

No indication of notability. It's just a word. WP:NOTDIC. Pax 10:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
You're not providing evidence of sufficient notability for retention on the English wiki. Pax 00:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 11:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 06:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Prayer, which covers the sense of "praise" this word seems to mean (roughly -- as opposed to praise). If it means the same thing in a different language, it should redirect to the English language concept. If it's a bit different and sources say as much, it should be included in the prayer article rather than have its own. The possibility for a stand-alone article would seem to be as a form of poetry, but poetry, too, is touched upon in the prayer article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Rhododendrites, If it means the same thing in a different language, it should redirect to the English language concept. The usual practice at RfD is to not redirect from foreign languages. czar  ⨹ 20:46, 15 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. w/o prejudice to future discussions (as postdif describes) about refactoring to Oregon more generally j⚛e decker talk 15:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

List of songs about Portland, Oregon

List of songs about Portland, Oregon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced trivia extravaganza. Portland is swell and all, by why not "List of songs about drinking" or "List of songs mentioning tractors"??? Carrite ( talk) 05:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. This is pure unsubstantiated original research. The only blue link relates to a media epithet and an event that happened somewhere in the air between Portland and Seattle. Portland might be the greatest city in the world, but this list is letting the side down. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Anythingyouwant:. Sorry, but I can't see what you have done that helps your cause. You have blue linked the songs to the albums which is misleading and you have confirmed that many of the songs are listed in an article - not that the song is actually about Portland. We are now left with a list of word association games with the word "Portland" -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
It seems unobjectionable to pipe link a song to the album article that mentions it, at least until there's a separate article about the song (which there already is for at least one). I don't claim that a pipe link proves the song is appropriate for the list. Rather, the footnotes should do that. Are you saying that all of the present footnotes are inadequate for that purpose? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 11:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Anythingyouwant:. If I see a blue-linked song I am expecting to be taken to that song article with an explanation of what reference to Portland is contained in that song. I do not expect to ask myself, “What am I doing here” when I find myself at an album which probably does not mention Portland at all.
The references you have found shows that the song has been contained in a “List of songs about Portland, Oregon,” not why it should be included in such a list. Your references are good enough for “List of lists about Portland, Oregon” but not to claim any definition that a non-notable (none of them have articles) song is ABOUT Portland.
I Left My Heart in San Francisco is NOT about San Francisco, it’s about the singer’s heart.
I checked, I've Been Everywhere does not mention Portland. But it clearly shows that adding a song into a list just because a town is mentioned is not beneficial to an encyclopedia. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 14:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, "I Left My Heart in San Francisco" is listed at List of songs about California, and I have no problem with that. I don't know why you mention "I've Been Everywhere" which is not on the list of Portland songs. I agree with you that mere mention of Portland is not enough for a song to belong on this list, as I already indicated at the List's talk page. Anyway, how about if we kick back and see what others think? Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Andrew Davidson:. D'oh. That belongs in List of songs using tractors as euphemism. It is not about a tractor. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree with Rich. See also " She Cranks my Tractor". Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
One is a list of non-fiction books specifically about the Napoleonic wars, what we are discussing here a list containing a bunch of songs that mention a place, whether in reality, or in fiction, or as metaphor, or as allegory, or merely in passing or for whatever other reason that is never quite clear because we have no references. Quite a difference, right? The "Outer Space" list suffers similar problems, although not quite as pronounced. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 21:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I've added this at the top of the list: "This is a list of songs that are notably about Portland (though they may additionally be notable for other reasons), and therefore this list does not include notable songs that merely mention Portland in passing." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
One of the quotes in the article is "every town is all the same/when you've left your heart in the Portland rain" That is not notable, not *about* Portland and not referenced. Just from that fragment you could include the song in Lists about hearts, rain, towns... I repeat because a word is used does not make it defining, nor about. What you should have written is "below is a list of songs which have appeared on lists of songs purporting to be about Portland..." -- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Isn't that quote referenced to a thesis available online from Portland State University? It's in the title of the thesis, as well as discussed within the thesis. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Herein lies the confusion, I am not arguing whether the thesis is notable, if it is, it does not follow that all it's contents (i.e. songs) are notable. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC) PS. Might be worth checking WP:RS at this stage. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Seems like a reliable source to me, at least for purposes of identifying relevant source material. "Although the thesis is not required to show original results, it must reveal independent investigation, including the knowledge and application of the accepted methods of scholarship and research methodology. The thesis represents the independent work of the student and must be developed under the direction of the thesis adviser. The thesis committee must be approved by the Office of Graduate Studies using the GO-16M form in advance of the thesis defense." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 11:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, it's standard to index cultural works by subject or theme, and there's no real argument as to whether there are songs that are verifiably and substantively about Portland (i.e., that more than merely mention it). Sometimes this will be evident from the lyrics themselves and require no interpretation, other instances we should expect secondary sources to confirm, but disputes over individual entries never invalidates the very idea of having a list unless the organizing concept itself is unworkable (which ["song" + "about Portland"] is not). And provided the list is limited to 1) songs that are independently notable, 2) songs that are part of notable albums, or 3) songs by notable recording artists, there's no genuine concern of this getting indiscriminate or untethered to notability. If editorial judgment determines that there aren't very many songs about Portland that satisfy any of those criteria, then retitle and expand to List of songs about Oregon, which should exist regardless of whether this city merits a standalone list. postdlf ( talk) 17:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a standard type of article, and justified in the same way as similar articles about large cities, or at least large cities with enough of a music presence to provide enough content. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 20:02, 12 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Chia Hong v. Facebook

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

Fails WP:GNG, lawsuit was just filed, individual is not notable enough for their own article either. Mrfrobinson ( talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete/Userfy WP:TOOSOON to know if any lasting impact to warrant notability. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 07:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete for now. While it needs work, the article does not violate WP:GNG. This lawsuit is significant, just by its existence. How that should be reflected in Wikipedia is a broader issue. This suit, the Ellen Pao suit, and the Tina Huang suit against Twitter - also quite recently filed - are all part of a notable emerging trend of women who have come forward to challenge what they - and many observers - see as a "boys' club" atmosphere in many Silicon Valley companies. Some of these lawsuits (Pao's was not) are being brought as class actions, which adds to their notability. This emerging trend has drawn commentary nationally, see for example note in Fortune magazine ( http://fortune.com/2015/03/18/facebook-sex-discrimination/) and even from as far afield as the London press. What is probably needed is a single article that discusses this trend, provides cites to these lawsuits, and provides cites to the wide and interesting range of comments that they have elicited. A number of scholars of gender discrimination in employment have seen these lawsuits as drawing attention to a real and important problem of bias in some very prominent high tech companies and the VC's who invest in them. -- Pechmerle ( talk) 11:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. For all the reasons explained by Pechmerle and in anticipation of being able to merge with the other lawsuits. I'll be able to add to the references and add content based upon the references already provided. Best Regards,    Bfpage | leave a message  16:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per Hisashiyarouin, without prejudice to recreation down the road if new sources and developments merit. It's because of articles like these that we have WP:NOTNEWS and expect WP:LASTING coverage of a topic. At this stage we accomplish little more than creating an echo chamber for the allegations, without any indication of their substance or likelihood of surviving even preliminary legal proceedings. Most lawsuits, even those that get some initial press and/or are against prominent companies, do not ultimately satisfy GNG, so there's no reason to give it the benefit of the doubt unlike with some other current events. And no, Pechmerle, whether a lawsuit is a class action (not that this lawsuit is, anyway) has nothing to do with whether it merits an article. Whether the lawsuit might merit a mention within another article, however, is a separate question (though don't forget WP:UNDUE). postdlf ( talk) 23:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. There should also be a place for Huang v. Twitter. These cases are getting and going to keep getting significant coverage, like Pao v. Kleiner Perkins. Let a little time pass and then decide whether best for them stand alone as separate articles. Or merge into Sexism in the technology industry. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is one of the two cases associated with Pao v. Kleiner Perkins, this one filed by counsel in that case, Lawless & Lawless. The extent of press coverage remains uncertain, however, and it make take a year or more to come to trial if it is not settled. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Well the only reference currently is a copy of the filing hosted on scribd, a Google search reveals a few, brief news articles about the filing. The person is question is not notable enough to stand on their own either. Please explain how this passes WP:GNG. Mrfrobinson ( talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Commen: The problem with covering lawsuits as they happen, is that at the lawsuit's onset, most of the source material is focused on the accusations, which often turn out to be bogus, misleading, trivial, legal harassment or even hoaxes in retrospect. The finger in Wendy's chili is a good example, where our article would have had gross errors and far from NPOV at the onset, and could only possibly be correct after courts, experts, the public, press, etc. get the facts right themselves. For now, while covering recent events like this is discouraged it is allowed and I'm not sure I see a good common sense reason Wikipedia would benefit from removing it. CorporateM ( Talk) 00:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ CorporateM: Thanks for commenting -- your comment relies on the following assumptions:
1. Causes of Action often turn out to be bogus
2. A report of a court filing cannot be evaluated WP:NPOV before it goes to trial
Can you please tell us:
1. How you determine that Causes of Action are often bogus — are you relying on unbiased information? If so can you link to an article on Wikipedia that supports your assertion?
2. At what point should a wiki-article be started:
  • Before the trial starts and if so when?
  • When the trial is underway?
  • After closing arguments have been reported?
  • After the judge/jury make a decision?
  • Not before the Supreme court renders a decision?
  • Else? Ottawahitech ( talk) 07:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Ottawahitech:
  1. They actually do often turn out to be bogus. Millions of such lawsuits are filed every year. Even if that were not the case, a filed lawsuit only contains the POV of the filer, and it's therefore a violation of WP:NPOV.
  2. A wikipedia article should be started when the case is notable. It isn't. Facebook is notable, and this article is only mentioned anywhere outside of court schedules because of Facebook's notability. When the case is concluded, it may be noteworthy enough to include in Criticism of Facebook. ―  Padenton| ✉   00:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
a filed lawsuit only contains the POV of the filer, and it's therefore a violation of WP:NPOV. -- Goodness gracious, no! That is absolutely not how NPOV works. The neutral point of view is always and only determined with regard to the published sources, not with regard to the subject matter itself. From WP:NPOV's intro: NPOV [...] means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. -- 89.0.225.182 ( talk) 02:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The lawsuit isn't a reliable source for information on Facebook, which is how it was being used in the article. And per your quoting of NPOV's intro, this article has no information on Facebook's response to these claims, which is a violation of WP:NPOV and the sentence you quoted. ―  Padenton| ✉   02:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
this article has no information on Facebook's response to these claims -- The article doesn't need any mention of Facebook's response in order to be perfectly NPOV -- unless Facebook's response is covered in published sources. If it isn't, too bad for Facebook, but absolutely not a violation of NPOV. -- 89.0.225.182 ( talk) 02:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Except it is covered in published sources, which you would know if you had looked. ―  Padenton| ✉   02:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Simple case of WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet WP:GNG either, as there are no sources independent of the subject. All claims attributed to sources are only included in those sources quoting Chia Hong or Chia Hong's complaints. Since that sentence is somewhat convoluted and I can't think of a better way to word it, allow me to provide an example (albeit an absurd one): Jack Johnson files a lawsuit against the US government alleging that lizard people invaded his mind on the orders of President Obama. I'm sure we can agree reliable sources would have an article or two on that case. The case would easily make WP:GNG based on the arguments above, should we have an article on that too? ―  Padenton| ✉   00:41, 14 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. Michig ( talk) 07:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Per Wickstrom

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

Comes across as a self promotion. Granted there are some reliable sources though on the other hand. (I'm even iffy about putting up this AFD) Wgolf ( talk) 19:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: There are quite a few verifiable references. Should the page have additional information, rewritten with a more neutral point of view and add more citations, it could be notable enough to remain. Foxyhues ( talk) 17:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this article, as it clearly tries to establish that a scientologist is a drug rehab specialist, which is promoting the Narconon fraud; if there are reliable independent sources looking at his business (i.e. not the recycled press releases and self-promotion that it currently contains) then fine, but this article is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Any source discussing Narconon or its practitioners which does not draw attention to the fact that Narconon is a scam, is not a reliable independent source. Guy ( Help!) 15:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the links above provide so far as I can tell only 2 links to a local newspaper, which don't establish notability, and a lot of press releases, none of which are necessarily sufficient to establish notability by our terms. John Carter ( talk) 16:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete Local businessman being used as a Narconon WP:COATRACK. Mangoe ( talk) 17:25, 9 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. Michig ( talk) 07:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Ahmed A. Moneim

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

Interesting read here-though I'm not quite sure if this guy is notable. Almost sounds like this guy has done some great stuff. Though he did write a book and some other things, but is it enough for Wiki? Wgolf ( talk) 19:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:52, 5 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 no consensus. Closing as NC due to lack of input. Not going for a soft delete due to the lack of a clear argument for deletion in the nomination. Michig ( talk) 07:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Expression (architecture)

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

Unnecessary content fork, could possibly be merged JMHamo ( talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (state) @ 20:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:51, 5 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. Only one good argument here and that's for keeping. Michig ( talk) 08:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

XI The Days Before Tomorrow

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

Album that has been marked for notability for 3 years now Wgolf ( talk) 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 20:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:51, 5 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 Soft delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Tony Cashmore

Tony Cashmore (  | 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 couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 21:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 20:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:BIO. The tone is also very promotional. BenLinus 1214 talk 18:36, 5 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Thirty Days of Night Records

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

User:Ceyockey attempted to PROD this article, however, as it has been contested for PROD before it is not eligible for that process. Therefore, I'm opening an AFD on the article on behalf of Ceyockey with his stated reason: Created in 2007 and having between 250 and 500 edits, it appears that the article has never been supported by reliable sources, suggesting the topic has insufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 20:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:50, 5 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 Redirect to Lennie Gallant. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Le Vent Bohème (The Gypsy Wind)

Le Vent Bohème (The Gypsy Wind) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Album with no refs and nothing linking to it-I think the best be to redirect to the singer. Wgolf ( talk) 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (interact) @ 20:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Lennie Gallant. Fails WP:NALBUMS. BenLinus 1214 talk 18:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It won an East Coast Music Award in the Francophone Recording category and was nominated for Album of the Year. However, all the articles I see are more about the artist than the album. I don't think this meets WP:NALBUMS's threshhold for "major music award" or "notability is not inherited". WP:NALBUMS states "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". "Le Vent Bohème" may be possible for a redirect since that is the album title, but the "(The Gypsy Wind)" part doesn't belong there (it is the English translation, not part of the title). maclean ( talk) 23:07, 10 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. Michig ( talk) 07:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

El Ka Bong

El Ka Bong (  | 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 band. Appears to fail all criteria in WP:notability (music). GermanJoe ( talk) 18:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (chatter) @ 20:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:40, 5 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

To Trend on Twitter

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

doesnt meet WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (announce) @ 20:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:39, 5 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 all. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Drunk, Dirty and Disgraceful

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

Also Nominating

Tavern Tour
Tube Bar (album)
Tube Bar Collector's Edition
Tube Bar Prank Calls 35th Anniversary Complete Collection
Tube Bar Red's Bootleg Tape (Remastered)

A group of albums that collect a series of prank calls. Whilst the Tube Bar prank calls may be (barely) notable that does not extend to these albums. All are not notable. There is a lack of coverage about these releases. No reviews, charting, awards. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 20:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 20:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (visit) @ 20:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:38, 5 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. MBisanz talk 03:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Sean Romin

Sean Romin (  | 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 notable. Lacks any notability independent of any of his bands. Only one has an article and he only appears to have joined them for a short period very late in their history, not exactly a prominent member. He is a prominent member of Schleprock but that's just one band. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (pitch) @ 20:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:38, 5 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 redirect to Earwolf. MBisanz talk 03:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Sean Clements

Sean Clements (  | 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 couldn't establish that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 10:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (address) @ 20:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:37, 5 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Canstar

Canstar (  | 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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. A Google search showed up other companies called this plus this company's website. WP:SPA creator seems to just have created an advert. Boleyn ( talk) 09:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 20:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:35, 5 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 redirect to Feluda. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Golokdham Rahasya

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

Appears to be a short story in Bengali language but I'm worried that this doesn't meet GNG. I can't see any coverage in RELIABLE third party sources. Jim Carter 07:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:34, 5 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. MBisanz talk 03:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Tobi Bakare

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

Does not meet WP:ENT WordSeventeen ( talk) 06:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

He's an film and television actor who been working for years. He's currently in the main cast of a TV show. Trcunning ( talk) 12:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment As WP:ENT states "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:
  • 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.

Bakara does not meet any one of the three guidelines. WordSeventeen ( talk) 12:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (palaver) @ 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:34, 5 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 no consensus. Michig ( talk) 07:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Maharathi (warrior)

Maharathi (warrior) (  | 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'm not convinced this needs it's own article. Couldn't this be a part of an article about Hindu Epics overall? Like we don't have an article about the archetype of the greek hero, or other culture's hero stereotypes in ancient fiction, as far as I'm aware. I think most of those are within other articles. Is this WP:Notable? Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 04:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The Indian mythology coins the term Maharathi extensively all over in the epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata. Maharathi is a widely searched page in google and its a very good idea to keep it.I already added few links and references.I believe if maharathi page is properly linked to other articles other editors will surely add new references and new datas.I stronlgy reject the idea of merging it with other pages because if we do so the entire concept will be lost.So better keep this page and promote the link to this page so others may contribute and make it better. Arjunkrishna90 ( talk) 04:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I heavily dispute that the content will be lost if merged with an article such as Hindu Mythology or Sanskrit Epics or Sanskrit Literature. I think such a merge would place the content in a more central location, and also would be easily googleable if a main subheading.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:20, 5 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) 22:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Renee Whitney

Renee Whitney (  | 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 actress may have appeared in 53 films, but was uncredited in all but a handful of them and was somewhat low in the billing order, e.g. Footlight Parade. She doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 05:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 05:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (say) @ 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not a notable actress in the encyclopedic sense editors could look at improving the IMDB page if they wanted to go extracurricular but the subject isn't notable for wikipedia. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 11:12, 6 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) Esquivalience t 00:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Emeline Piggott

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

She has some mentions in sources, but not enough to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Tagged by Bearian for notability 7 years ago. Boleyn ( talk) 20:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:37, 5 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. Michig ( talk) 07:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The Flywheel

The Flywheel (  | 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 first novel. Worldcat shows it in only 37 libraries. Unwisely accepted from AfD. (ann article on a first novel ought to be a warning sign to check further before acceptance) DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I think that the reason for acceptance was likely due to the award, which initially sounds impressive (since it's by a large publisher) but doesn't appear to really be all that notable. A search for the award doesn't bring up anything and at best this may be considered something that may give slight notability but not complete notability (in other words, not a major award). In all fairness, this is something that's frequently the source of a lot of confusion since Wikipedia's standards for award notability are extremely strict out of necessity (since there are just so many awards out there). That said, I can't really find any coverage for this book in reliable sources. There are some blog reviews, but not even really a whisper of news coverage. It's possible that there are more articles out there, but the lack of libraries holding the book is usually a fairly big tell when it comes to whether or not coverage is out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The Kill Your Darlings might be reliable, but the the other sources are either primary or very brief. I didn't find anything else, so there isn't enough sourcing to establish notability or write an article around. Pinging @ Oo7565: who accepted this at AfC for input. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above, sources do not indicate notability, and the award is from the publisher which makes me think it's just promotional. Primefac ( talk) 15:51, 11 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. MBisanz talk 03:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

DaRayl Davis

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

Promotional and non notable. One self-published book. Unwisely accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - the first source is pretty good, but the rest are either not independent (by the subject or bios of him by places he spoke) or brief mentions in news stories about something else where he is quoted as an expert. That is an indication of some real world importance, but is not sufficient to write an balanced article with. Pinging @ Oo7565: who accepted this at AfC for input. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Significance is established and supported by independent references from national media outlets who seek Davis' financial commentary and expertise. Video footage/article inclusions are referenced from independent sources. (NBC's The Today Show, Fox Business, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Times, FederalNewsRadio.com). Davis has made unique contributions through his involvement in local, national and global financial literacy initiatives, all independently cited. Sma20746 ( talk) 22:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom, sources are either primary or one-sentence mentions. No indication of notability. Primefac ( talk) 15:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete trivia; local references only. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 20:06, 12 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf ( talk) 20:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Christian Football Players

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

There is no clear basis for selection; there must be a great many more footballers who are Christian than these, but almost none of the articles on them even mention their religion, and even with those that do, such as Lionel Messi, I do not see any influence of religion on their notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - yes an unsourced BLP nightmare, but even if it was referenced it would still likely be non-notable. Giant Snowman 21:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - good grief. How would one even tell? Nfitz ( talk) 01:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Religion is a trivial and non-notable characteristic of any athlete, nevermind drilling down to specific sports. Tarc ( talk) 14:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Religion of sports players is not notable, also this list is ridiculously incomplete, and would need better sourcing. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Religion and sport is a trivial intersection. Since the majority of people of European ethnicity are at least of Christian heritage, a complete list would be utterly unwieldy. If it were practising Christians, there would be a POV-issue as to how active it was necessary to be to qualify. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete These people are notable for their sporting achievements, which their religion doesn't affect. Unless they are like Kaka, who is one person, this is unnessecary, their religion if known can be listed on their individual page. This is Mkbw50 signing out! 13:25, 9 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. Notability is not temporary, cear consensus to keep ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Wintel

Wintel (  | 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 term "Wintel" is irrelevant in a modern day context. A vast majority of Microsoft Windows devices today use Intel processors. AMD and Windows RT are pretty much obscure - very few people continue to use them at this time. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 03:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:17, 5 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. Closing early ( WP:SNOW) to put an end to the disruptive editing. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Ken Alfonso

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

Has had the BLP prod removed a couple times (which normally I wouldn't put this up right after) but anyway-no notability at all is to be found. Wgolf ( talk) 03:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Pinging MrX and Jbhunley who put up deletion tags for Kennedy Alfonso which this is a duplicate article of. Wgolf ( talk) 14:58, 7 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. Michig ( talk) 06:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

By Chance Milta Hai Chance

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

Film with questionable notability. It has apparently been listed as being in production on here for nearly 5 years now! Wgolf ( talk) 02:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Ah, thank you. I'd long forgotten about this one. It doesn't look as though much improvement has taken place. I'll need to conduct WP:BEFORE before making a recommendation. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Well, it appears to have been released in August 2011 and is more commonly titled "Milta Hai Chance By Chance". A search for reviews by that title find none in reliable sources. The film is listed on IMDB and BollywoodMDB but there's nothing there to help us find any reviews or coverage or to indicate any awards. A search of the Time of India site produces lots of photogalleries of what appears to be the music launch for the film but nothing else. In the absence of any significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find, I have to say that it fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC) P.S. There is one external link on the page but it's a dead link and the Wayback Machine just throws up a HTTP 302 response. reply
Alt:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: "Milta Hai Chance by Chance"
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. Article meets the general notability guideline for inclusion. Nakon 01:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq

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

Back on the 27th of February, during my Delete !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Kawthar Academy (where the Abu article had been ventured as a merge partner), I opined that both articles ought to be junked. (Two weeks have gone by without any defense appearing at that AfD.) This article contains three dozen sources, not one of which I would describe as a solidly independent RS, and it is written (as I note is typical of these cleric pages created by SPAs) in a florid OR style cribbed from press-releases and pushing the limits of copy-vio (e.g., the first sentence of the "Education" section was pulled from here.). Pax 05:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

(Noted. I've stricken that word from the rationale so as to not distract discussion from the merits, or lack thereof). Pax 10:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Meh. He hasn't done anything to be notable, but all it takes is for one media outlet to attack one, and you become notorious. As currently written, it is far too much, too promotional, too unreliable. Bearian ( talk) 04:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
You're !voting keep, strongly, despite not being able to find suitable sources for the article? Pax 22:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Being "edited by experienced editors" is quite frankly bollocks - We judge an article on its notability ... Not on whether an experienced editor's edited it or not. – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 11:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 00:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You can't !vote twice, He's not notable at all - If he was I'd of !voted Keep.... – Davey2010 Talk 18:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Here's a note: Notability is based on coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject (see WP:GNG), not in the traditional sense (i.e. popularity). There's also WP:PROF (which is pretty much a general exception to the general notability guideline for academics that have significantly contributed to his/her field), but I don't think it meets WP:PROF either. Esquivalience t 22:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, have gone through the article's (at present) 36 refs, unfortunately not all readily accessable, most are trivial, don't mention or mention him in passing and/or WP:PUFF. Those that are(?) notable plus more from a google search are: [ [46]] - The homegrown cleric who loathes the British, { [47]] - Moderates attack ‘fundamentally wrong’ approach to teaching Islam, [ [48]] - Riyadh ul Haq sermon on ‘Jewish Fundamentalism’ in full; These are articles from The Times, also [49] one of the Times reporters, Ron Liddle, called him "not just any old Islamic scholar, but perhaps the most important one in Britain today." [ [50]] - biography, [ [51]] - article discussing Ul Haq in Leicester - "The most influential Muslim in Leicester is Shaykh Abu Yusuf Riyadh-ul-Haq, a hardline Muslim cleric who runs the Al Kawthar Academy, a well-known Islamic school in the city." [ [52]] - discussing him visiting Canada and the USA, [ [53]] - Foundation for Islamic Education in Villanova hosted pro Taliban Imam banned from Canada linked to UK mosque murders -Riyadh ul Haq Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:42, 10 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 merge to Polish Scouting and Guiding Association. North America 1000 08:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The Cub Scout and Brownie Law

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

Completely translated from PLWP pl:Prawo zucha. Appears to be excessive indiscriminate info than Cub Scouts and Brownies, and at best wouldn't warrant its own article anyway. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 00:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Hisashiyarouin: Why do you find this article is qualifying to be deleted? Isn't enough to add short information, that this article is about Polish Scouting? Then the article won't be indiscriminate. Superjurek ( talk) 10:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
To be more precise I've changed the title, which informs that the text is about wide part of Scouting. Superjurek ( talk) 10:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
As I know literal translating of other language Wikipedia projects isn't enough reason to make immediate deletion... Superjurek ( talk) 10:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Hi. My concern is that Wikipedia is not a place to just store the full original text of the set of laws. There has to be encyclopedic discussion, supported by significant reliable sources that specifically and extensively talk about the laws (e.g. the history of how they come by, statistics of how widespread they are, etc.). Also there is also not much evidence that the law is separately notable from, say, Scouting and Guiding in Poland.
Admittedly that I cannot read Polish means I could be too narrow in this judgement. I am happy to be proven wrong and reconsider my stance with more RS incorporated (especially those in Polish). 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 11:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Hisashiyarouin: Well – I agree with you. Wikipedia shouldn't store text as a book but essentially as an encyclopedia (so describe the genesis, features, meaning, praxis). It is comprehensible. However I translated an article which has been freely existing on PL-WP. They also have strict rules about maintaining articles and nobody has removed it for 12 years... Exactly the fact that the same article after translating onto EN-WP is being attacked is incomprehensible. Are you sure that immediate deletion is suitable??? Otherwise in the article could stay the intro-description without translated points of The Cub Scout and Brownie Law. The inter-PL-EN-WP would stay without deletion. When it comes to the content of The Cub Scout and Brownie Law I may move it onto Wikisource, where such a text is welcome. What do you think about it? Superjurek ( talk) 15:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

This article is admittedly controversial as a separated article, but a better option is to merge it. Then the citation in Wikisource could be maintained. Superjurek ( talk) 20:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Moreover I added reference to source. Superjurek ( talk) 21:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:20, 5 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 04:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Nora O'Murchú

Nora O'Murchú (  | 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 do no see any independent references for notability. The two refs do not give any useful information. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:42, 5 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 04:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

2014 Joué-lès-Tours attack

2014 Joué-lès-Tours attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

clear BLP 1E. A single event, with the perpetrator killed by the police. . No apparent encyclopedic interest DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Merging the articles will not make them any more notable. They must be deleted (not another !vote). RGloucester — ☎ 01:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Ok RGloucester. Delete per the basis of WP:NOTNEWS. ///EuroCar GT 03:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.

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

The result was merge to Chattanooga FC#Supporters and attendance. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Chattahooligans

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

I don't find this fan group (not even an actual organization) to be notable. Fails WP:ORG for lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The only detailed coverage I found about them was one story by a local TV station. Could be merged/redirected to Chattanooga FC. MelanieN ( talk) 00:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
"Delete and merge" isn't an option because of our licensing terms. I'm also not sure why you wouldn't want the redirect to remain in place. As such, I think maybe you didn't realize voting "merge" is an option? -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 14:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:18, 5 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_April_5&oldid=1142626838"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 April 6 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Redirect to Gwar#Videography. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Tour de Scum

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

Video with no notability or refs either Wgolf ( talk) 23:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
LOL@ Bearian-though you might want to bold delete or else they might count your vote as keep. Wgolf ( talk) 21:13, 7 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Jaap van Till

Jaap van Till (  | 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. Fails WP:GNG The Banner  talk 23:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 5 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) Esquivalience t 00:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Gabba (band)

AfDs for this article:
Gabba (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)

A tribute band, article padded out with self-references and trivial passing mentions, no actual evidence of significance. Guy ( Help!) 23:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I wish the article didn't look like someone's garage band, with references normally seen for three kids in a classroom. That's why it keeps getting nominated: people want the article, but nobody gives enough of a shit to fix it up. Guy ( Help!) 13:01, 6 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 argued in the discussion, even though the player was in a USL Pro match, the match was considered a "Reserve League" match for the FC Dallas team of which he was a member. Nakon 01:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Jesse Gonzalez

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

Recreation of article that was deleted via PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. That concern remains the case right now. – Michael ( talk) 22:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael ( talk) 22:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
That was an interleague match between a USL Pro team and an MLS Reserve League team. And the reserve league isn't fully pro, so that doesn't meet NFOOTBALL. – Michael ( talk) 02:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Which counted as an official USL Pro match, counting in the USL Pro standings. It wasn't a reserve league match, it was a USL Pro match. As such it meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz ( talk) 04:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
FC Dallas never fielded a USL Pro team. It counted as a reserve match for Dallas. So it still fails. – Michael ( talk) 05:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
It was an official match for a fully-professional league. Which Dallas player wasn't a professional? Nfitz ( talk) 01:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Yeah it was an official match, for Rochester. But it counted as a Reserve League match for Dallas. – Michael ( talk) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't understand how the policy is too low. Can you please explain why you say that? Also, players don't hit the standard by making appearances for a reserve team. – Michael ( talk) 08:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Bryce Carmony: - as Michael points out, he doesn't meet NFOOTBALL... Giant Snowman 09:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:NFOOTBALL clearly states that a player has to play in a fully pro league match or senior international match to meet the standard. This player hasn't done that. – Michael ( talk) 17:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I'd disagree with. Nfitz ( talk) 01:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
He has Zero minutes of gametime and the guideline does say match, so while I still think the standard is too low, this article doesn't meet the standard so I changed my view to delete. Thanks for pointing out my misread of WP:NFOOTBALL. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 06:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
From wikipedia "Since 1996, Major League Soccer (MLS) has been the only sanctioned USSF Division I men's outdoor soccer league in the United States." notability says tier 1 ( which I will accept division 1 ) MLS reserve isn't stated to be also a tier 1 league so I go with the guideline and suggest a delete. No doubt the player has a bright future ahead of him, but he isn't notable in an encyclopedic sense. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 12:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Why do you User:Bryce Carmony say that "notability" says tier 1. The notability standard is WP:NSPORTS where if you go down to WP:NFOOTBALL it talks about tier 1 international matches. For leagues the standard is to have played "in a fully professional league" and then refers to a list of such leagues at WP:FPL which USL Pro is listed. They game was part of a fully-professional league. Nfitz ( talk) 15:21, 11 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. WP:SNOW keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

SolaRoad

SolaRoad (  | 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 bike path is not more than a prototype with no guarantee that it will ever get a wider use. WP:TOOEARLY applies here. The Banner  talk 22:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep because -
(A) WP:NOTABILITY policy trumps unrated essays like WP:TOOEARLY
(B) WP:TOOEARLY discusses only people and films, nothing else. Certainly nothing about the actual completion of an engineering feat widely reported in international news.
(C) We have lots of prototype articles, many of which exist only on paper. Examples of our articles include
QUESTION, Is there a reason to delete, other than someone thinks there's a community consensus to strip internationally-reported engineering feats of their NOTABILITY just because they are prototype or proof-of-concept projects? Is that claimed consensus to be found anywhere other than at TOOEARLY?

NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Don't forget to tell the world that you wrote this article. The Banner  talk 23:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
It would have been professional for me to think to mention that, I agree. On the other hand, show me where it says that AFD closures turn on who makes the best ad hominem? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a well-referenced article about an operating prototype of a notable technology. I read the Phys.org and PC Magazine sources, and they are clearly significant coverage. Mentioning an essay which doesn't discuss this type of article is not a valid argument for deletion. Nor is pointing out that the article's creator favors keeping it, as that is unsurprising and in no sense improper. Thanks to NewsAndEventsGuy for writing the article and defending it here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Generally, people who write articles will defend them from deletion, so that's a non-attack. Also, if this prototype fails, having that recorded here is useful, though later on it would make sense to combine it with other prototype-but-not-quite-there technologies. If we find that PC Magazine's article is simply regurgitating any press release from SolaRoad (which it doesn't appear to be, based just on the images alone, but someone will likely need to vet that) and there don't appear to be any other articles regarding this actual in use thing (which, there are a fair amount based on a quick Google search - and even a case study) then we can delete the article and maybe incorporate its content in some other more general article about roads built with solar panels. I don't see any reason to delete. Maybe combine it because we don't necessarily want to serve someone's advertising purpose here. But generally keep. Hires an editor ( talk) 23:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
someone will likely need to vet that I did. At least, I tried to. Same goes for all the sources I used, and there are other sources I did not use which struck me as overly promotional. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:38, 6 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. Michig ( talk) 07:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Mher Khachatryan

Mher Khachatryan (  | 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 for notability a/c WP:CREATIVE. No art work in permanent collection of major museum. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply

"'Keep"' He is notable. His art work has been published in several prestigious magazines and newspapers of America and Armenia. His work has been kept in various art gallary and museum. Lots of exhibition and workshop has been conducted by himself. Jeeteshvaishya ( talk) 17:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Question: in what galleries or museums has his art been kept, and what's the evidence? DGG ( talk ) 09:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - His work is mentioned all over the net, and on self-published sites, but as for articles about him in reliable sources I was only able to find this one article. Magnolia677 ( talk) 14:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Answer - Sir You can find thse things in his official website.

Keep - His work is widely published in several art magazines and newspapers. Collection of his paintings can be found in several gallerias and museums in USA. his initiative Art To Thank is widely appreciated. Artist is notable. His page should be not deleted. I tried to add more about him and tried to improve the article. Thank you. -- Jeeteshvaishya ( talk) 16:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I still see no reference to the work being in any major museum's permanent collection. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Info can be found in his official website. Well, I have added some links to the page. I'm trying to improve the article. Thanks-- Jeeteshvaishya ( talk) 12:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - The artist is renowned Armenian painter. Reliable sources can be fount in article.-- Indianbloomer ( talk) 14:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC) — Indianbloomer ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

I found these sources,
I thinks it's enough. Keep this article. -- Indianbloomer ( talk) 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply
None of these are reliable sources. freshacconci talk to me 20:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I see no evidence that this painter meets WP:ARTIST, and in particular, no evidence that his paintings are part of any museum collection. I also see no significant coverage in any publication with a reputation for serious coverage of contemporary art. The references include low quality sources and passing mentions, such as listings of his name in advertisments for local art shows. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Mher is well known for his painting dedicated to Armenian genocide. As no other artist in the world doesn't do the project through traveling show in Art to raise awareness about the Genocide. These things are which make him different from other painters. --Rahul 10:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratunj Tripathi ( talk • contribs) — Ratunj Tripathi ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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 redirect to List of Pokémon (650–720). SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar  ⨹ 01:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Volcanion (Pokémon)

Volcanion (Pokémon) (  | 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, run of the mill Pokemon. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Changing my opinion to Redirect and wondering why I didn't think of that...(embarassed). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 23:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:30, 5 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. Michig ( talk) 07:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Josh Coffman

Josh Coffman (  | 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 couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 21:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (chat) @ 20:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 19:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of independent reliable coverage. Not surprising; the person on the back side of the camera taking a celebrity photograph is rarely the one who gets the notice. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:45, 6 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Role of acoustic emission sensors in tool condition monitoring

Role of acoustic emission sensors in tool condition monitoring (  | 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; essentially an essay or paper. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per WP:NOTESSAY. PianoDan ( talk) 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete but I actually think this is pretty close to G1--the subject is so poorly defined that one has no idea what's being talked about. What kind of tool? "Machine tools" helps, but only if you know what "machine" means here, and the whole acoustic business is not well explained. Add to that the lengthy title and the vagueries of "role", and we have NOTESSAY at best. Drmies ( talk) 02:27, 7 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Dana Carpenter

Dana Carpenter (  | 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 couldn't establish that he meets WP:Notability (sports) or WP:GNG. Pinging creator, plus Backslash Forwardslash who declined speedy, Tim Pierce who tagged it for speedy deletion and Crecy99 who tagged it for notability. Has been tagged for notability for 6 years. Boleyn ( talk) 18:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:45, 5 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Charles Byron Andrews

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for six years, hopefully we can now resolve this. Pinging creator, pplus RHaworth and Kittybrewster, who both tagged it for notability. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 18:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:21, 5 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Lynn Kitch

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

Actress who I can't find much notability for-in her life she only had a few roles it appears. Wgolf ( talk) 18:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:53, 5 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 and salt. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Mahinda Pathegama

AfDs for this article:
Mahinda Pathegama (  | 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 declined CSD G7 on this article as it is probably no longer eligible under that guideline. A previous version of this article was deleted at AfD, however, I do not believe CSD G4 is entirely applicable either. Therefore, I am taking back into AfD and invoking the argument from that AfD, that he does not satisfy WP:PROF. Safiel ( talk) 17:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He has the same birth date as Einstein! Delete. Pathegama has a GS profile, showing his works have been cited a bit more than last time this was up for AfD. However, the grand total (95 citations) and h-index (3) are miles below what we usually take as indicating notability at academics AfDs. There's a ton of links in the article, which is one of the most drummed-up puff pieces I have seen in a long time. Perhaps some of those links would make him pass GNG, but, frankly, there's too much to go through and the article is so bad, that even in the unlikely case that he meets GNG, WP:TNT applies. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Actually, that GS profile seems to suffer from the same puffery as this article... The most-cited article (51 hits) actually does not even list Pathegama as an author! That leaves a total of 44 citations and an h-index of 2. Given this pattern, I think we should salt this. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per Randykitty's findings of false entries (there is more than one) on the Google scholar profile, I don't think it's appropriate in this case to consider sources affiliated with the subject to be reliable (as we often do for purely factual material concerning subjects of biographies). In any case the student prizes and committee memberships listed don't add up to notability. The article creator has also tried to blank the old AfD notice from the article's talk page [7]; I strongly suspect an autobiography, so page protection after this repeated recreation would probably be a good idea. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Barnes and Noble, 2010, "Sri Lankan Scientists", General Books LLC, ISBN  9781157343691 : There is no book by this ISBN:
  • Most of the references are from local news paper articles and has no "scientific" validity.
  • Google scholar site for the : https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mxuxRAcAAAAJ&hl=en has many articles not authored/co-authored by the person. And counts only 35+ citations, clearly indicating that it fails the notability criteria. You may consider the previous 3 deletions of the same article.
  • There is no scientific articles cited in the wiki: listed below >

=Use of thermal imaging techniques in identifying target object characteristics =Remote system for microscopic cell analysis =Quantitative recognition of feature morphogenesis of SARS-CoV in diagnostic electron microscopy =Remote analysis of morphological features in diagnostic electron microscopy of SARS-CoV =Remote System for microscopic cell analysis =Biological cell interaction process due to electromagnetic radiation =Given the scale of population demographic shift, what are the practicalities of applying knowledge in a meaningful way for an ageing population? =Automated Sports-Talents Identification System and the establishment of National Sports Surveillance

  • this citation ( Division of IT, engineering and the environment, BEng Electrical & Mechatronics Engineering Graduates, University of South Australia, [16] Retrieved 22.04.2001) just links the university website.
  • This citation (University of Moratuwa, Alumni, [17] Retrieved 19.12.2001) just links the university website.
  • duplicate citations: 1,22,36,92: 9,60: 21,84:
  • many of the citations has no links to back up, just text.
  • The breakthrough said to have been made by the wiki "Frequency-forced Digital Processing" is nowhere to be found online or in scientific articles. Clearly a topic without scientific basis.
  • Citation "Creating Future Scientists Program, 'Profile of Scientist Mahinda Pathegama', 2015. [40] Retrieved 28.02.2015" refers to his own website. COI
  • CItation " http://www.yatedo.fr/p/Mahinda+pathegama/famous/6ca706f6a16ccaa786ca3e202b366fdf" is an article appeared everywhere online shows some similarity to the wiki indicating some COI.
  • The official website has nothing scientific but reiterating and re-directing to NASA website to which the person in wiki has no connection to. Surani Alwis ( talk) 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Highly promotional article for non-notable academic. `DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 19:57, 12 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 redirect to IUCN Red List#Possibly extinct. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Possible Extinction

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

Unsourced definition/theory. Author inserted concept into IUCN Red List in attempt to make it seem plausible. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:26, 5 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 redirect to David Tsugio Tsutada. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Grace Tsutada

Grace Tsutada (  | 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 classic example of the Wikipedia concept that "notability is not inherited." Ms. Tsutada's father was a very famous Methodist missionary; with all due respect, she has gained no such independent published coverage in following in his footsteps. Fewer than 500 Google hits searching for "Grace + Tsutada," most of which are attributable either to this WP page and its mirrors or to hits actually related to her father. Carrite ( talk) 15:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:49, 5 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 redirect to Phillip Hughes#Memorial match. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Phillip Hughes Memorial Match

AfDs for this article:
Phillip Hughes Memorial Match (  | 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 match fails to meet notability standards for a cricket match. It is not of List A standard or its Twenty20 equivalent and it is to be played amongst players from the non-ODI Nepalese team and state level Australian players. The result or a description of play from this match will have no historical significance. The sole historical significance attributable to this match is the fact that it is a tribute to Phillip Hughes; that alone is not sufficient to justify giving the article its own page ( WP:INHERIT), and that piece of information about the tribute can be captured in a single sentence in Hughes' personal page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirex ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 5 April 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
"There's no doubt it is one of the most notable cricket matches played." - I'm pretty sure it isn't. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:30, 11 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 delete by Athaenara ( talk · contribs) ( WP:CSD#G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: more at User talk:Muhammad Is'ad)

Muhammad Is'ad

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

Autobiography of completely non-notable student. Speedy tag removed by obvious sockpuppet, hence the AFD. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 14:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I unblanked the article, per AfD instructions. It is still CSD tagged though, for self-deletion.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:26, 7 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 keep. Withdrawn, my error. A category does in fact exist at Category:Fictional characters with plant abilities. North America 1000 12:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

List of fictional characters with plant abilities

List of fictional characters with plant abilities (  | 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 topic does not appear to meet WP:LISTN, and no category exists to qualify the topic per WP:NOTDUP. North America 1000 12:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 5 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

MataHari: Eye of the Day

MataHari: Eye of the Day (  | 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 would have liked to have found that this met WP:ORG or WP:GNG, but few Ghits and no Google News info. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years, unresolved. Pinging Tkn20 who tagged this for notability, as well as the WP:SPA ( WP:COI?) creator. Boleyn ( talk) 11:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as a non-notable organization. Only one source cited in the article, that being the org's website. The only sources I found on Google [8] [9] definitely prove the organization exists, but the sources were some news articles that only happen to mention the organization. The first is a march that had the org, the second was a news article about someone that happened to be a part of the org. Other than that, I couldn't find anything that would give this organization notability. Aerospeed ( Talk) 12:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete – No indication of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 00:13, 6 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. Nakon 01:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Local Live

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

Seems to be a locally produced music competition aired on a regional public-access cable channel. Fails WP:GNG, no sources listed, cannot find any coverage, only hits are their own facebook, etc. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Hi ☾Loriendrew☽, I am in the process of buliding Local Live. Please allow time to complete full article before discussing the article so that I can ensure it meets all policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Kindly, Senceso1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senceso1 ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 06:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I'm not sure it fails WP:GNG. It has some secondary sources that, while not all explicitly about the topic, give it more than a trivial mention. I say weak because, in spite of that, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it may be more appropriate to include in another article, rather than as its own article, but I'm not familiar with the topic, most of its links are red, and so I doubt that's a likely possibility. I side with keep because it may be notable, and, if there is an article it can be merged with in the future, I think we can revisit it as a merger, but delete seems a little over-the-top at the moment. Wugapodes ( talk) 14:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Too early in article's life to warrant deletion. Keep for now, but might revisit this discussion if article is not expanded. Suttungr ( talk) 19:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources provided by Northamerica1000 ( talk · contribs).

    For example, this article from Orillia Packet says:

    Expanding from its Barrie-based roots, Local Live, Simcoe County’s idol-style competition, is on the hunt for talented local musicians who write and perform their own material.

    For the past two years, Local Live, now in its fifth season, has aired on Rogers TV in Barrie. The fifth season will be aired across Simcoe County in Orillia, Barrie, Collingwood, Alliston, Borden and Midland.

    “Because … we’re expanding and we’re putting it on all the different stations across Simcoe County … we thought it would be important to actually reach out to the cities and go to the individual cities,” said show host and creator Steve Major.

    Local Live V is holding an open audition in the Orillia Opera House’s Studio Theatre Oct. 5 beginning at 10 a.m.

    Local Live is loosely based on the TV talent shows American Idol and The X Factor.

    This is detailed and encyclopedic information about Local Live that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline's definition of "significant coverage").

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

    Cunard ( talk) 23:21, 14 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 redirect to Barrhaven#Elementary_2. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

St. Emily Catholic School

St. Emily Catholic 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)

Unsourced and virtually no content. No evidence of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:48, 5 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. Michig ( talk) 07:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Embassy of Nepal, Canberra

Embassy of Nepal, Canberra (  | 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:ORG. All this article does it confirms the embassy exists. It does not establish any notability through significant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 06:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:49, 5 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 redirect to Tan#Geography. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Tân

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

Looks like the page has been created in error during a mass creation of articles. There are five village in the district which start with Tân with corresponding articles it the Vietnamese wikipedia and the population statics, but no entry for just Tân.

I'd guess that it should be a dab page, Vietnamese wiki has a dab page on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 11:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 11:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 06:02, 5 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 and redirect to Music_of_Badakhshan#Vocal_music. Nakon 01:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Madah

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

No indication of notability. It's just a word. WP:NOTDIC. Pax 10:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
You're not providing evidence of sufficient notability for retention on the English wiki. Pax 00:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 11:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 06:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Prayer, which covers the sense of "praise" this word seems to mean (roughly -- as opposed to praise). If it means the same thing in a different language, it should redirect to the English language concept. If it's a bit different and sources say as much, it should be included in the prayer article rather than have its own. The possibility for a stand-alone article would seem to be as a form of poetry, but poetry, too, is touched upon in the prayer article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Rhododendrites, If it means the same thing in a different language, it should redirect to the English language concept. The usual practice at RfD is to not redirect from foreign languages. czar  ⨹ 20:46, 15 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. w/o prejudice to future discussions (as postdif describes) about refactoring to Oregon more generally j⚛e decker talk 15:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

List of songs about Portland, Oregon

List of songs about Portland, Oregon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced trivia extravaganza. Portland is swell and all, by why not "List of songs about drinking" or "List of songs mentioning tractors"??? Carrite ( talk) 05:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. This is pure unsubstantiated original research. The only blue link relates to a media epithet and an event that happened somewhere in the air between Portland and Seattle. Portland might be the greatest city in the world, but this list is letting the side down. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Anythingyouwant:. Sorry, but I can't see what you have done that helps your cause. You have blue linked the songs to the albums which is misleading and you have confirmed that many of the songs are listed in an article - not that the song is actually about Portland. We are now left with a list of word association games with the word "Portland" -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
It seems unobjectionable to pipe link a song to the album article that mentions it, at least until there's a separate article about the song (which there already is for at least one). I don't claim that a pipe link proves the song is appropriate for the list. Rather, the footnotes should do that. Are you saying that all of the present footnotes are inadequate for that purpose? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 11:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Anythingyouwant:. If I see a blue-linked song I am expecting to be taken to that song article with an explanation of what reference to Portland is contained in that song. I do not expect to ask myself, “What am I doing here” when I find myself at an album which probably does not mention Portland at all.
The references you have found shows that the song has been contained in a “List of songs about Portland, Oregon,” not why it should be included in such a list. Your references are good enough for “List of lists about Portland, Oregon” but not to claim any definition that a non-notable (none of them have articles) song is ABOUT Portland.
I Left My Heart in San Francisco is NOT about San Francisco, it’s about the singer’s heart.
I checked, I've Been Everywhere does not mention Portland. But it clearly shows that adding a song into a list just because a town is mentioned is not beneficial to an encyclopedia. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 14:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, "I Left My Heart in San Francisco" is listed at List of songs about California, and I have no problem with that. I don't know why you mention "I've Been Everywhere" which is not on the list of Portland songs. I agree with you that mere mention of Portland is not enough for a song to belong on this list, as I already indicated at the List's talk page. Anyway, how about if we kick back and see what others think? Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Andrew Davidson:. D'oh. That belongs in List of songs using tractors as euphemism. It is not about a tractor. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree with Rich. See also " She Cranks my Tractor". Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
One is a list of non-fiction books specifically about the Napoleonic wars, what we are discussing here a list containing a bunch of songs that mention a place, whether in reality, or in fiction, or as metaphor, or as allegory, or merely in passing or for whatever other reason that is never quite clear because we have no references. Quite a difference, right? The "Outer Space" list suffers similar problems, although not quite as pronounced. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 21:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I've added this at the top of the list: "This is a list of songs that are notably about Portland (though they may additionally be notable for other reasons), and therefore this list does not include notable songs that merely mention Portland in passing." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
One of the quotes in the article is "every town is all the same/when you've left your heart in the Portland rain" That is not notable, not *about* Portland and not referenced. Just from that fragment you could include the song in Lists about hearts, rain, towns... I repeat because a word is used does not make it defining, nor about. What you should have written is "below is a list of songs which have appeared on lists of songs purporting to be about Portland..." -- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Isn't that quote referenced to a thesis available online from Portland State University? It's in the title of the thesis, as well as discussed within the thesis. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Herein lies the confusion, I am not arguing whether the thesis is notable, if it is, it does not follow that all it's contents (i.e. songs) are notable. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC) PS. Might be worth checking WP:RS at this stage. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Seems like a reliable source to me, at least for purposes of identifying relevant source material. "Although the thesis is not required to show original results, it must reveal independent investigation, including the knowledge and application of the accepted methods of scholarship and research methodology. The thesis represents the independent work of the student and must be developed under the direction of the thesis adviser. The thesis committee must be approved by the Office of Graduate Studies using the GO-16M form in advance of the thesis defense." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 11:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, it's standard to index cultural works by subject or theme, and there's no real argument as to whether there are songs that are verifiably and substantively about Portland (i.e., that more than merely mention it). Sometimes this will be evident from the lyrics themselves and require no interpretation, other instances we should expect secondary sources to confirm, but disputes over individual entries never invalidates the very idea of having a list unless the organizing concept itself is unworkable (which ["song" + "about Portland"] is not). And provided the list is limited to 1) songs that are independently notable, 2) songs that are part of notable albums, or 3) songs by notable recording artists, there's no genuine concern of this getting indiscriminate or untethered to notability. If editorial judgment determines that there aren't very many songs about Portland that satisfy any of those criteria, then retitle and expand to List of songs about Oregon, which should exist regardless of whether this city merits a standalone list. postdlf ( talk) 17:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a standard type of article, and justified in the same way as similar articles about large cities, or at least large cities with enough of a music presence to provide enough content. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 20:02, 12 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Chia Hong v. Facebook

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

Fails WP:GNG, lawsuit was just filed, individual is not notable enough for their own article either. Mrfrobinson ( talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete/Userfy WP:TOOSOON to know if any lasting impact to warrant notability. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 07:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete for now. While it needs work, the article does not violate WP:GNG. This lawsuit is significant, just by its existence. How that should be reflected in Wikipedia is a broader issue. This suit, the Ellen Pao suit, and the Tina Huang suit against Twitter - also quite recently filed - are all part of a notable emerging trend of women who have come forward to challenge what they - and many observers - see as a "boys' club" atmosphere in many Silicon Valley companies. Some of these lawsuits (Pao's was not) are being brought as class actions, which adds to their notability. This emerging trend has drawn commentary nationally, see for example note in Fortune magazine ( http://fortune.com/2015/03/18/facebook-sex-discrimination/) and even from as far afield as the London press. What is probably needed is a single article that discusses this trend, provides cites to these lawsuits, and provides cites to the wide and interesting range of comments that they have elicited. A number of scholars of gender discrimination in employment have seen these lawsuits as drawing attention to a real and important problem of bias in some very prominent high tech companies and the VC's who invest in them. -- Pechmerle ( talk) 11:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. For all the reasons explained by Pechmerle and in anticipation of being able to merge with the other lawsuits. I'll be able to add to the references and add content based upon the references already provided. Best Regards,    Bfpage | leave a message  16:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per Hisashiyarouin, without prejudice to recreation down the road if new sources and developments merit. It's because of articles like these that we have WP:NOTNEWS and expect WP:LASTING coverage of a topic. At this stage we accomplish little more than creating an echo chamber for the allegations, without any indication of their substance or likelihood of surviving even preliminary legal proceedings. Most lawsuits, even those that get some initial press and/or are against prominent companies, do not ultimately satisfy GNG, so there's no reason to give it the benefit of the doubt unlike with some other current events. And no, Pechmerle, whether a lawsuit is a class action (not that this lawsuit is, anyway) has nothing to do with whether it merits an article. Whether the lawsuit might merit a mention within another article, however, is a separate question (though don't forget WP:UNDUE). postdlf ( talk) 23:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. There should also be a place for Huang v. Twitter. These cases are getting and going to keep getting significant coverage, like Pao v. Kleiner Perkins. Let a little time pass and then decide whether best for them stand alone as separate articles. Or merge into Sexism in the technology industry. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is one of the two cases associated with Pao v. Kleiner Perkins, this one filed by counsel in that case, Lawless & Lawless. The extent of press coverage remains uncertain, however, and it make take a year or more to come to trial if it is not settled. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Well the only reference currently is a copy of the filing hosted on scribd, a Google search reveals a few, brief news articles about the filing. The person is question is not notable enough to stand on their own either. Please explain how this passes WP:GNG. Mrfrobinson ( talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Commen: The problem with covering lawsuits as they happen, is that at the lawsuit's onset, most of the source material is focused on the accusations, which often turn out to be bogus, misleading, trivial, legal harassment or even hoaxes in retrospect. The finger in Wendy's chili is a good example, where our article would have had gross errors and far from NPOV at the onset, and could only possibly be correct after courts, experts, the public, press, etc. get the facts right themselves. For now, while covering recent events like this is discouraged it is allowed and I'm not sure I see a good common sense reason Wikipedia would benefit from removing it. CorporateM ( Talk) 00:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ CorporateM: Thanks for commenting -- your comment relies on the following assumptions:
1. Causes of Action often turn out to be bogus
2. A report of a court filing cannot be evaluated WP:NPOV before it goes to trial
Can you please tell us:
1. How you determine that Causes of Action are often bogus — are you relying on unbiased information? If so can you link to an article on Wikipedia that supports your assertion?
2. At what point should a wiki-article be started:
  • Before the trial starts and if so when?
  • When the trial is underway?
  • After closing arguments have been reported?
  • After the judge/jury make a decision?
  • Not before the Supreme court renders a decision?
  • Else? Ottawahitech ( talk) 07:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Ottawahitech:
  1. They actually do often turn out to be bogus. Millions of such lawsuits are filed every year. Even if that were not the case, a filed lawsuit only contains the POV of the filer, and it's therefore a violation of WP:NPOV.
  2. A wikipedia article should be started when the case is notable. It isn't. Facebook is notable, and this article is only mentioned anywhere outside of court schedules because of Facebook's notability. When the case is concluded, it may be noteworthy enough to include in Criticism of Facebook. ―  Padenton| ✉   00:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
a filed lawsuit only contains the POV of the filer, and it's therefore a violation of WP:NPOV. -- Goodness gracious, no! That is absolutely not how NPOV works. The neutral point of view is always and only determined with regard to the published sources, not with regard to the subject matter itself. From WP:NPOV's intro: NPOV [...] means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. -- 89.0.225.182 ( talk) 02:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The lawsuit isn't a reliable source for information on Facebook, which is how it was being used in the article. And per your quoting of NPOV's intro, this article has no information on Facebook's response to these claims, which is a violation of WP:NPOV and the sentence you quoted. ―  Padenton| ✉   02:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
this article has no information on Facebook's response to these claims -- The article doesn't need any mention of Facebook's response in order to be perfectly NPOV -- unless Facebook's response is covered in published sources. If it isn't, too bad for Facebook, but absolutely not a violation of NPOV. -- 89.0.225.182 ( talk) 02:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Except it is covered in published sources, which you would know if you had looked. ―  Padenton| ✉   02:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Simple case of WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet WP:GNG either, as there are no sources independent of the subject. All claims attributed to sources are only included in those sources quoting Chia Hong or Chia Hong's complaints. Since that sentence is somewhat convoluted and I can't think of a better way to word it, allow me to provide an example (albeit an absurd one): Jack Johnson files a lawsuit against the US government alleging that lizard people invaded his mind on the orders of President Obama. I'm sure we can agree reliable sources would have an article or two on that case. The case would easily make WP:GNG based on the arguments above, should we have an article on that too? ―  Padenton| ✉   00:41, 14 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. Michig ( talk) 07:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Per Wickstrom

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

Comes across as a self promotion. Granted there are some reliable sources though on the other hand. (I'm even iffy about putting up this AFD) Wgolf ( talk) 19:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: There are quite a few verifiable references. Should the page have additional information, rewritten with a more neutral point of view and add more citations, it could be notable enough to remain. Foxyhues ( talk) 17:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this article, as it clearly tries to establish that a scientologist is a drug rehab specialist, which is promoting the Narconon fraud; if there are reliable independent sources looking at his business (i.e. not the recycled press releases and self-promotion that it currently contains) then fine, but this article is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Any source discussing Narconon or its practitioners which does not draw attention to the fact that Narconon is a scam, is not a reliable independent source. Guy ( Help!) 15:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the links above provide so far as I can tell only 2 links to a local newspaper, which don't establish notability, and a lot of press releases, none of which are necessarily sufficient to establish notability by our terms. John Carter ( talk) 16:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete Local businessman being used as a Narconon WP:COATRACK. Mangoe ( talk) 17:25, 9 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. Michig ( talk) 07:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Ahmed A. Moneim

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

Interesting read here-though I'm not quite sure if this guy is notable. Almost sounds like this guy has done some great stuff. Though he did write a book and some other things, but is it enough for Wiki? Wgolf ( talk) 19:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:52, 5 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 no consensus. Closing as NC due to lack of input. Not going for a soft delete due to the lack of a clear argument for deletion in the nomination. Michig ( talk) 07:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Expression (architecture)

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

Unnecessary content fork, could possibly be merged JMHamo ( talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (state) @ 20:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:51, 5 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. Only one good argument here and that's for keeping. Michig ( talk) 08:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

XI The Days Before Tomorrow

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

Album that has been marked for notability for 3 years now Wgolf ( talk) 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 20:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:51, 5 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 Soft delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Tony Cashmore

Tony Cashmore (  | 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 couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 21:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 20:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:BIO. The tone is also very promotional. BenLinus 1214 talk 18:36, 5 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Thirty Days of Night Records

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

User:Ceyockey attempted to PROD this article, however, as it has been contested for PROD before it is not eligible for that process. Therefore, I'm opening an AFD on the article on behalf of Ceyockey with his stated reason: Created in 2007 and having between 250 and 500 edits, it appears that the article has never been supported by reliable sources, suggesting the topic has insufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 20:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:50, 5 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 Redirect to Lennie Gallant. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Le Vent Bohème (The Gypsy Wind)

Le Vent Bohème (The Gypsy Wind) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Album with no refs and nothing linking to it-I think the best be to redirect to the singer. Wgolf ( talk) 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (interact) @ 20:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Lennie Gallant. Fails WP:NALBUMS. BenLinus 1214 talk 18:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It won an East Coast Music Award in the Francophone Recording category and was nominated for Album of the Year. However, all the articles I see are more about the artist than the album. I don't think this meets WP:NALBUMS's threshhold for "major music award" or "notability is not inherited". WP:NALBUMS states "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". "Le Vent Bohème" may be possible for a redirect since that is the album title, but the "(The Gypsy Wind)" part doesn't belong there (it is the English translation, not part of the title). maclean ( talk) 23:07, 10 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. Michig ( talk) 07:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

El Ka Bong

El Ka Bong (  | 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 band. Appears to fail all criteria in WP:notability (music). GermanJoe ( talk) 18:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (chatter) @ 20:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:40, 5 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

To Trend on Twitter

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

doesnt meet WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (announce) @ 20:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:39, 5 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 all. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Drunk, Dirty and Disgraceful

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

Also Nominating

Tavern Tour
Tube Bar (album)
Tube Bar Collector's Edition
Tube Bar Prank Calls 35th Anniversary Complete Collection
Tube Bar Red's Bootleg Tape (Remastered)

A group of albums that collect a series of prank calls. Whilst the Tube Bar prank calls may be (barely) notable that does not extend to these albums. All are not notable. There is a lack of coverage about these releases. No reviews, charting, awards. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 20:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 20:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (visit) @ 20:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:38, 5 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. MBisanz talk 03:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Sean Romin

Sean Romin (  | 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 notable. Lacks any notability independent of any of his bands. Only one has an article and he only appears to have joined them for a short period very late in their history, not exactly a prominent member. He is a prominent member of Schleprock but that's just one band. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (pitch) @ 20:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:38, 5 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 redirect to Earwolf. MBisanz talk 03:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Sean Clements

Sean Clements (  | 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 couldn't establish that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 10:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (address) @ 20:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:37, 5 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Canstar

Canstar (  | 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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. A Google search showed up other companies called this plus this company's website. WP:SPA creator seems to just have created an advert. Boleyn ( talk) 09:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 20:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:35, 5 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 redirect to Feluda. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Golokdham Rahasya

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

Appears to be a short story in Bengali language but I'm worried that this doesn't meet GNG. I can't see any coverage in RELIABLE third party sources. Jim Carter 07:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:34, 5 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. MBisanz talk 03:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Tobi Bakare

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

Does not meet WP:ENT WordSeventeen ( talk) 06:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

He's an film and television actor who been working for years. He's currently in the main cast of a TV show. Trcunning ( talk) 12:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment As WP:ENT states "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:
  • 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.

Bakara does not meet any one of the three guidelines. WordSeventeen ( talk) 12:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (palaver) @ 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:34, 5 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 no consensus. Michig ( talk) 07:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Maharathi (warrior)

Maharathi (warrior) (  | 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'm not convinced this needs it's own article. Couldn't this be a part of an article about Hindu Epics overall? Like we don't have an article about the archetype of the greek hero, or other culture's hero stereotypes in ancient fiction, as far as I'm aware. I think most of those are within other articles. Is this WP:Notable? Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 04:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The Indian mythology coins the term Maharathi extensively all over in the epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata. Maharathi is a widely searched page in google and its a very good idea to keep it.I already added few links and references.I believe if maharathi page is properly linked to other articles other editors will surely add new references and new datas.I stronlgy reject the idea of merging it with other pages because if we do so the entire concept will be lost.So better keep this page and promote the link to this page so others may contribute and make it better. Arjunkrishna90 ( talk) 04:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I heavily dispute that the content will be lost if merged with an article such as Hindu Mythology or Sanskrit Epics or Sanskrit Literature. I think such a merge would place the content in a more central location, and also would be easily googleable if a main subheading.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:20, 5 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) 22:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Renee Whitney

Renee Whitney (  | 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 actress may have appeared in 53 films, but was uncredited in all but a handful of them and was somewhat low in the billing order, e.g. Footlight Parade. She doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 05:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 05:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (say) @ 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not a notable actress in the encyclopedic sense editors could look at improving the IMDB page if they wanted to go extracurricular but the subject isn't notable for wikipedia. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 11:12, 6 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) Esquivalience t 00:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Emeline Piggott

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

She has some mentions in sources, but not enough to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Tagged by Bearian for notability 7 years ago. Boleyn ( talk) 20:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:37, 5 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. Michig ( talk) 07:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The Flywheel

The Flywheel (  | 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 first novel. Worldcat shows it in only 37 libraries. Unwisely accepted from AfD. (ann article on a first novel ought to be a warning sign to check further before acceptance) DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I think that the reason for acceptance was likely due to the award, which initially sounds impressive (since it's by a large publisher) but doesn't appear to really be all that notable. A search for the award doesn't bring up anything and at best this may be considered something that may give slight notability but not complete notability (in other words, not a major award). In all fairness, this is something that's frequently the source of a lot of confusion since Wikipedia's standards for award notability are extremely strict out of necessity (since there are just so many awards out there). That said, I can't really find any coverage for this book in reliable sources. There are some blog reviews, but not even really a whisper of news coverage. It's possible that there are more articles out there, but the lack of libraries holding the book is usually a fairly big tell when it comes to whether or not coverage is out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The Kill Your Darlings might be reliable, but the the other sources are either primary or very brief. I didn't find anything else, so there isn't enough sourcing to establish notability or write an article around. Pinging @ Oo7565: who accepted this at AfC for input. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above, sources do not indicate notability, and the award is from the publisher which makes me think it's just promotional. Primefac ( talk) 15:51, 11 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. MBisanz talk 03:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

DaRayl Davis

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

Promotional and non notable. One self-published book. Unwisely accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - the first source is pretty good, but the rest are either not independent (by the subject or bios of him by places he spoke) or brief mentions in news stories about something else where he is quoted as an expert. That is an indication of some real world importance, but is not sufficient to write an balanced article with. Pinging @ Oo7565: who accepted this at AfC for input. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Significance is established and supported by independent references from national media outlets who seek Davis' financial commentary and expertise. Video footage/article inclusions are referenced from independent sources. (NBC's The Today Show, Fox Business, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Times, FederalNewsRadio.com). Davis has made unique contributions through his involvement in local, national and global financial literacy initiatives, all independently cited. Sma20746 ( talk) 22:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom, sources are either primary or one-sentence mentions. No indication of notability. Primefac ( talk) 15:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete trivia; local references only. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 20:06, 12 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf ( talk) 20:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Christian Football Players

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

There is no clear basis for selection; there must be a great many more footballers who are Christian than these, but almost none of the articles on them even mention their religion, and even with those that do, such as Lionel Messi, I do not see any influence of religion on their notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - yes an unsourced BLP nightmare, but even if it was referenced it would still likely be non-notable. Giant Snowman 21:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - good grief. How would one even tell? Nfitz ( talk) 01:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Religion is a trivial and non-notable characteristic of any athlete, nevermind drilling down to specific sports. Tarc ( talk) 14:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Religion of sports players is not notable, also this list is ridiculously incomplete, and would need better sourcing. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Religion and sport is a trivial intersection. Since the majority of people of European ethnicity are at least of Christian heritage, a complete list would be utterly unwieldy. If it were practising Christians, there would be a POV-issue as to how active it was necessary to be to qualify. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete These people are notable for their sporting achievements, which their religion doesn't affect. Unless they are like Kaka, who is one person, this is unnessecary, their religion if known can be listed on their individual page. This is Mkbw50 signing out! 13:25, 9 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. Notability is not temporary, cear consensus to keep ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Wintel

Wintel (  | 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 term "Wintel" is irrelevant in a modern day context. A vast majority of Microsoft Windows devices today use Intel processors. AMD and Windows RT are pretty much obscure - very few people continue to use them at this time. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 03:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:17, 5 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. Closing early ( WP:SNOW) to put an end to the disruptive editing. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Ken Alfonso

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

Has had the BLP prod removed a couple times (which normally I wouldn't put this up right after) but anyway-no notability at all is to be found. Wgolf ( talk) 03:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Pinging MrX and Jbhunley who put up deletion tags for Kennedy Alfonso which this is a duplicate article of. Wgolf ( talk) 14:58, 7 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. Michig ( talk) 06:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

By Chance Milta Hai Chance

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

Film with questionable notability. It has apparently been listed as being in production on here for nearly 5 years now! Wgolf ( talk) 02:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Ah, thank you. I'd long forgotten about this one. It doesn't look as though much improvement has taken place. I'll need to conduct WP:BEFORE before making a recommendation. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Well, it appears to have been released in August 2011 and is more commonly titled "Milta Hai Chance By Chance". A search for reviews by that title find none in reliable sources. The film is listed on IMDB and BollywoodMDB but there's nothing there to help us find any reviews or coverage or to indicate any awards. A search of the Time of India site produces lots of photogalleries of what appears to be the music launch for the film but nothing else. In the absence of any significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find, I have to say that it fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC) P.S. There is one external link on the page but it's a dead link and the Wayback Machine just throws up a HTTP 302 response. reply
Alt:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: "Milta Hai Chance by Chance"
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. Article meets the general notability guideline for inclusion. Nakon 01:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq

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

Back on the 27th of February, during my Delete !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Kawthar Academy (where the Abu article had been ventured as a merge partner), I opined that both articles ought to be junked. (Two weeks have gone by without any defense appearing at that AfD.) This article contains three dozen sources, not one of which I would describe as a solidly independent RS, and it is written (as I note is typical of these cleric pages created by SPAs) in a florid OR style cribbed from press-releases and pushing the limits of copy-vio (e.g., the first sentence of the "Education" section was pulled from here.). Pax 05:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

(Noted. I've stricken that word from the rationale so as to not distract discussion from the merits, or lack thereof). Pax 10:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Meh. He hasn't done anything to be notable, but all it takes is for one media outlet to attack one, and you become notorious. As currently written, it is far too much, too promotional, too unreliable. Bearian ( talk) 04:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
You're !voting keep, strongly, despite not being able to find suitable sources for the article? Pax 22:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Being "edited by experienced editors" is quite frankly bollocks - We judge an article on its notability ... Not on whether an experienced editor's edited it or not. – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 11:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 00:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You can't !vote twice, He's not notable at all - If he was I'd of !voted Keep.... – Davey2010 Talk 18:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Here's a note: Notability is based on coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject (see WP:GNG), not in the traditional sense (i.e. popularity). There's also WP:PROF (which is pretty much a general exception to the general notability guideline for academics that have significantly contributed to his/her field), but I don't think it meets WP:PROF either. Esquivalience t 22:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, have gone through the article's (at present) 36 refs, unfortunately not all readily accessable, most are trivial, don't mention or mention him in passing and/or WP:PUFF. Those that are(?) notable plus more from a google search are: [ [46]] - The homegrown cleric who loathes the British, { [47]] - Moderates attack ‘fundamentally wrong’ approach to teaching Islam, [ [48]] - Riyadh ul Haq sermon on ‘Jewish Fundamentalism’ in full; These are articles from The Times, also [49] one of the Times reporters, Ron Liddle, called him "not just any old Islamic scholar, but perhaps the most important one in Britain today." [ [50]] - biography, [ [51]] - article discussing Ul Haq in Leicester - "The most influential Muslim in Leicester is Shaykh Abu Yusuf Riyadh-ul-Haq, a hardline Muslim cleric who runs the Al Kawthar Academy, a well-known Islamic school in the city." [ [52]] - discussing him visiting Canada and the USA, [ [53]] - Foundation for Islamic Education in Villanova hosted pro Taliban Imam banned from Canada linked to UK mosque murders -Riyadh ul Haq Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:42, 10 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 merge to Polish Scouting and Guiding Association. North America 1000 08:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The Cub Scout and Brownie Law

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

Completely translated from PLWP pl:Prawo zucha. Appears to be excessive indiscriminate info than Cub Scouts and Brownies, and at best wouldn't warrant its own article anyway. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 00:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Hisashiyarouin: Why do you find this article is qualifying to be deleted? Isn't enough to add short information, that this article is about Polish Scouting? Then the article won't be indiscriminate. Superjurek ( talk) 10:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
To be more precise I've changed the title, which informs that the text is about wide part of Scouting. Superjurek ( talk) 10:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
As I know literal translating of other language Wikipedia projects isn't enough reason to make immediate deletion... Superjurek ( talk) 10:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Hi. My concern is that Wikipedia is not a place to just store the full original text of the set of laws. There has to be encyclopedic discussion, supported by significant reliable sources that specifically and extensively talk about the laws (e.g. the history of how they come by, statistics of how widespread they are, etc.). Also there is also not much evidence that the law is separately notable from, say, Scouting and Guiding in Poland.
Admittedly that I cannot read Polish means I could be too narrow in this judgement. I am happy to be proven wrong and reconsider my stance with more RS incorporated (especially those in Polish). 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 11:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Hisashiyarouin: Well – I agree with you. Wikipedia shouldn't store text as a book but essentially as an encyclopedia (so describe the genesis, features, meaning, praxis). It is comprehensible. However I translated an article which has been freely existing on PL-WP. They also have strict rules about maintaining articles and nobody has removed it for 12 years... Exactly the fact that the same article after translating onto EN-WP is being attacked is incomprehensible. Are you sure that immediate deletion is suitable??? Otherwise in the article could stay the intro-description without translated points of The Cub Scout and Brownie Law. The inter-PL-EN-WP would stay without deletion. When it comes to the content of The Cub Scout and Brownie Law I may move it onto Wikisource, where such a text is welcome. What do you think about it? Superjurek ( talk) 15:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

This article is admittedly controversial as a separated article, but a better option is to merge it. Then the citation in Wikisource could be maintained. Superjurek ( talk) 20:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Moreover I added reference to source. Superjurek ( talk) 21:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:20, 5 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 04:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Nora O'Murchú

Nora O'Murchú (  | 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 do no see any independent references for notability. The two refs do not give any useful information. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:42, 5 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 04:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

2014 Joué-lès-Tours attack

2014 Joué-lès-Tours attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

clear BLP 1E. A single event, with the perpetrator killed by the police. . No apparent encyclopedic interest DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Merging the articles will not make them any more notable. They must be deleted (not another !vote). RGloucester — ☎ 01:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Ok RGloucester. Delete per the basis of WP:NOTNEWS. ///EuroCar GT 03:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.

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

The result was merge to Chattanooga FC#Supporters and attendance. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Chattahooligans

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

I don't find this fan group (not even an actual organization) to be notable. Fails WP:ORG for lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The only detailed coverage I found about them was one story by a local TV station. Could be merged/redirected to Chattanooga FC. MelanieN ( talk) 00:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
"Delete and merge" isn't an option because of our licensing terms. I'm also not sure why you wouldn't want the redirect to remain in place. As such, I think maybe you didn't realize voting "merge" is an option? -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 14:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:18, 5 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_April_5&oldid=1142626838"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE