Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 January 5 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Procedural close. This AfD was never closed properly, so it is still technically open, but the article was deleted two years later at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Starr (artist) (4th nomination), so the point by now is moot. (non-admin closure) jp× g 03:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Matt Starr (artist)

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

Article is almost entirely unreferenced and fails to establish notoriety as an artist. Article is written primarily as a subjective praise rather than an expository biography of the artist. Links are weak. Seems fairly insufficient material to warrant an encyclopedia entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplepurplepurplepurplepurple ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - curious to know why someone would register a Wikipedia account solely to nominate an article for AfD. It hasn't been listed correctly with today's other AfD discussions, so is unlikely to be noticed (or actioned). Sionk ( talk) 23:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 06:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

No. MERCY (trainee)

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

As per WP:TOOSOON, I would suggest we delete this article. There is absolutely NO notability in the mainstream media Tibbydibby ( talk) 23:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Tibbydibby ( talk) 23:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Barns of Ayr

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

Unhistorical incident. PatGallacher ( talk) 19:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Tending to Delete - perhaps unhistorical is a little harsh, but the Canmore source (1 in the article) makes clear the original report is from an unreliable source. The event may or may not have occurred, and the location is at best imprecise, with nothing now to see. The notability of this place or incident seems therefore very doubtful. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 21:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The topic is notable as it has been investigated and written about in detail repeatedly - see The Burning of the Barns of Ayr, for example. If the Wallace incident there is apocryphal or mythological is not relevant to the issue of notability. The tale of Tam o' Shanter is also set in Ayr and, whatever the truth of the matter, is also notable because of its similar prominence. Andrew D. ( talk) 00:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I dare say Blind Harry isn't too reliable, and Walter Scott neither, but if they both wrote about the event and a grandiose tower was built to commemorate it I think it counts as notable, if legendary. No end of sources. Thincat ( talk) 12:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Reply What grandiose tower was build to commemorate it? Did Scott write about it? We're having some difficulty deleting fictional or legendary material on Wikipedia, with people repeating Blind Harry uncritically. We don't have an article on the fictional Battle of Loudoun Hill fought by William Wallace, even though enthusiasts erected a monument there. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't want to go near whether this stuff is fictional or not. WP covers notable fiction. Wallace's Monument, Ayrshire (see Barnweil at http://wallace.scran.ac.uk/trail/ ). And Scott wrote about it in Tales of a Grandfather, I chapter 7, page 82. [1] [2] Thincat ( talk) 20:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The fact that soemthing is legendary or even fictional is not a reason for deletion. However, if there is doubt about whether it happened, the article should express that. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but rewrite The available references show that this should be regarded as a notable incident - but one whose historicity is doubtful. The article should therefore definitely not be treating it as straightforwardly historical. The best approach would probably be to use available sources to summarise the incident as related by Blind Harry in The Wallace, mention significant later accounts (such as Scott's) and accretions (such as the one that led to the siting of Wallace's Monument), and discuss the various views about its historicity. PWilkinson ( talk) 23:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 23:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep or Merge somewhere. Even if not historically accurate, the story does has had significant coverage in a variety of sources. If it is solely based on Blind Harry's account, then it may be best to merge it with the article on his poem, The Wallace (poem). -- Vclaw ( talk) 13:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (but amend) -- The fact that RCAHMS has a page on the subject (attempting to locate the site) should be enough to justify keeping the article. Whether the events described in the Wallace poem actually happened is a different question; and one that is essentially insoluble. Wallace was an important figure in Scottish history. If there is a need for sceptism as to whether the events described happened, the appropriate course of action is to build that into the text of the article. I assume that Blnd Harry, the author was a minstrel. He may have preserved an oral tradition, passed down from an earlier minstrel. I do not think it is possibly there were as few as two such oral transmissions (but that is my POV). The fact that the subject has been under discussion for hundreds of years is itslef sufficient to merit the article being kept. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether the material found by Piotrus should be added to the list he mentions is a matter for discussion by editors of that list.  Sandstein  12:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Złota Baba

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

Highly dubious it is a "Polish goddess". The only refs I see are for polish texts about "Golden woman" in Siberia. -M.Altenmann >t 22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
For that, we would need an actual Russian source confirming that the story was real and not invented by the Polish traveler Maciej z Miechowa who in 1517 mentioned the roadside idol in Latin as the Aurea Anus. The Polish Museum of King Jan III's Palace at Wilanów says that it is impossible to verify anything today. Poeticbent talk 04:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@Renata: The thing is, there is nothing to "repurpose" in the current article. As for Aurea Anus, I started an article Golden Woman which already exists in wikipedia in several languages, unfortulately, poorly footnoted, so I created a minimal en: stub. In Russian language there is huge amount of texts, but I don't really care to wikipedize the topic. -M.Altenmann >t 04:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks, for the article (it's exactly what I had in mind). In such a case, a redirect would be best IMHO. Renata ( talk) 14:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
She appears to be associated with the Laima here; [4]. A modern neo-pagan book seems to claim her as one of their goddesses, identified with Baduhenna and any others. See [5]. Mentioned here but I translated it and barely understand it even then since it is in latin. [6]. I recommend redirecting to Altenmanns article. JTdale Talk~ 11:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
You should know that "modern neo-pagan" books is usually bullshit and at best may be a reference to this bullshit itself, not to historical or ethnographic information. The Latin text quotes Guagnini about Golden Woman, but it is known (and quite seen from this fragment) that he plagiarized Maciej Stryjkowski; the latter used Maciej Miechowita among other sources, and unlike Fletcher, the first two did not bother to indicate sources of their wisdom. But this piece obviously is lifted from Miechowita's. Re "Laima": it is not associated with Laima, it is listed together with Laima. I did see mentions of zlota baba, in similar contexts in old sources about Wendian and Sorbian paganism, which seem to match with your source ("Teutonic Mythology" Jacob Grimm), the latter refers to a Hanusch, I guess, Ignác Jan Hanuš, especially keeping in mind Czech spelling in Grimm: 'zlotá babá'. Anyway, it is hardly Polish baba. -M.Altenmann >t 16:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
re:Laima I did find a (quite long) text of Hanuš about 'Zlata-Baba'. He starts from Guagnini's ref 'de idolo Aureae Anus'; then naively asks a rhetorical question how come the Russian name is assigned to a non-russian idol and then proceeds through a long speculation, linking various things: deity Laima (literally, good luck, happiness)=golden-haired lady, 'povivalnaya bab(k)a'="old lady folk obstetrician", counterposing Zlata (i.e., golden, i.e., good) baba against Yaga Baba, i.e., bad baba, and so on, so forth, making up a universal Balto-Slavic deity. In any case, whatever rant he wrote, it is hardly a reliable source by modern scientific standards. -M.Altenmann >t 03:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the List of Slavic deities. I was going to call it a hoax, but it is briefly mentioned in Andrzej Makowski (1 January 2011). Bogowie i demony Słowian bałtyckich. Polskie Towarzystwo Religioznawcze. pp. 28–. GGKEY:UQHW8EBDLG7., through only along the lines that "all that is know about her is that a gooddess with that name was probably worshiped by one particular tribe". Jerzy Strzelczyk (1 January 1998). Mity, podania i wierzania dawnych Słowian. Dom Wydawniczy Rebis. p. 240. ISBN  978-83-7120-688-7. might be more extensive, but the snippet view prevents me from analyzing it more; all I get is "might have been a goddess of the Polabian Slavs - more or less what the prior source stated. So there's something to be said about "Golden Women" being a deity of non-Russian tribes, through the nom is totally right that it also appears in the Russian context. A Józef Ignacy Kraszewski (1860). Sztuka u słowian: szczególnie w Polsce i Litwie przedchrześcijańskiéj. Nakl. Wydawn. A.H. Kirkora. pp. 206–. gives about a sentence-long description (probably based on a figurine), but attributes it to a Russian (Siberian), not Polish tribe. Ditto for Jerzy Samuel Bandtkie (1835). Dzieje narodu polskiego. U Wilhelma Bogumiła Korna. pp. 118–.; both are 19th century sources. So it appears there's enough to confirm this is not a hoax, but it is unlikely the article can every grow beyond a stub (substub) size, and as such I'd suggest merging it to a list or another larger article; this topic doesn't appear to have stand-alone notability due to, well, nobody being able to write more than one or two sentences on this (probably all traced back to a single medieval mention or such). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Allow me to politely disagree. may be is not a hoax in a sense of deliberate deception, but it looks like scientific incompetence. These single-sentence mentions simply mean that the authors didn't know shit; they just blindly copied from each other by a long chain starting ages ago, e.g., from Hanuš (who clearly wildly speculated) or someone else. They even don't mention sources of their wisdom. There is no meaningful information about this "deity". Therefore these blurbs about "zlota baba" at best may be described in wikipedia as "some authors briefly mention the existence of...". -M.Altenmann >t 17:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:42 and Altermann. Bearian ( talk) 22:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to LGBT. Closing early as consensus is to Redirect and I see no sense in leaving it open any longer (If anyone wants to Redirect to #Variants then that's fine but probably wise to use the tp first.) ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 04:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

LGBTQIAPD

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

Unremarkable neologism, no coverage in independent reliable sources that would establish notability. Google results are mainly social media sites, which are not reliable. Everymorning talk 19:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Puppetry aside, this one almost met WP:NF. If an editor wishes it userfied to them for possible improvements, they need only ask and show me the additional sources that meet WP:NF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Cybornetics

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

Could find no sources that subject meets WP:MOVIE. Only brief, promo-like, references provided (the ones that are working). No critic reviews. [7] Coverage on the Internet seems to be limited to catalog-like listings. NeilN talk to me 18:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Film is independently distributed all over the world by itself and doesn't need any. User:MovieMoguls 19:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Existence does not automatically confer notability. -- NeilN talk to me 19:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The publisher engages in direct-sales to buyers (which they are being systematically punished for) and does not need the standard Hollywood distribution system, does that mean it should not be noted, should we provide receipts that the product is selling worldwide. User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Again, selling something does not establish notability. Selling your hand-knitted socks over the Internet does not mean your socks are notable. -- NeilN talk to me 19:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The film was theatrically released in various theaters around the world, and released internationally on various platforms such as VOD & DVD and also has a soundtrack on CD, there is also lots of information on the internet, as well as bus & subway billboards & advertisements. Your knit-socks analogy is false. User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Please provide links to the "lots of information" which appears in independent third party sources and is not based off press releases. -- NeilN talk to me 19:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is a private website and you have no unfettered rights here. You are welcome to write and improve articles in compliance with our policies and guidelines but not otherwise. The burden is on you to show convincingly that this film meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for films, and you have not yet done so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment No, I asked for "lots of information which appears in independent third party sources". Two sentences by an involved source doesn't cut it. Secondly, nothing has a "right" to an article on Wikipedia. Finally, I've removed your "keep" label - you only get one !vote in this discussion and you've made that up above. -- NeilN talk to me 20:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually, it does meet WP:NFILM The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The "notable" person whose article has been deleted six times and is going for a seventh? -- NeilN talk to me 21:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

If this person is so unnotable why when you Google, Bing or Yahoo his name there's several hundred pages that come up. The first deletion voted to Keep, so why was there a second deletion in the first place?[[User talk:MovieMoguls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwayne Buckle resulted in a no consensus (not a keep) which would commonly now lead to a delete for a BLP. And seriously, how hard is it to sign your posts? -- NeilN talk to me 21:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

A "no consensus" in 2007 does not mean it applies to 2015, especially since the subject has released many more works since then. [[User talk:MovieMoguls| — Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Film is notable for many reasons, but also film meets WP:NFILM The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. • Cybornetics ( talk) 05:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Per WP:NFILM: "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." An obscure film by a person of questionable notability does not qualify. And what's your relation to MovieMoguls? You've edited the exact same articles and drafts. -- NeilN talk to me 05:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. If anyone wishes this userfied to them for improvement and sourcing, they may ping me. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Dinner with Lloyd

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinner with Lloyd Could find no sources that subject meets WP:MOVIE. Only brief, promo-like, references provided. NeilN talk to me 18:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The film has been published. WP:MOVIE. User:MovieMoguls 18:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

"Existing" does not establish notability. -- NeilN talk to me 18:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The publisher engages in direct-sales to buyers and does not use the standard Hollywood distribution route, does that mean it should not be noted, should we provide receipts that the product is selling worldwide. User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Again, selling something does not establish notability. Selling your hand-knitted socks over the Internet does not mean your socks are notable. And can you please sign your posts by typing ~~~~? -- NeilN talk to me 19:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The most common way for a new release to be notable is "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Not just any review qualifies, which eliminates the concern about buying and selling. See WP:NFILMS for details. Simply asserting that the film is notable doesn't fly here. Your argument needs to be grounded in a basic understanding of our policies and guidelines. Also, sign your posts, please. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The film and it's distributor engages in new and uncommon practices of film distribution, does that mean the products are un-notable? Most nationally known film critics are in the pockets of the Hollywood system, and most finds ways to not publicize independent films, does that mean these films are un-notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reply Why the heck can't you sign your posts like other editors do, Moviemoguls? To answer your question, yes, that is exactly right. If the film fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for the notability of films, then the film is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. That is basic logic, and whatever grudges you may have about the "Hollywood system" have no impact on this debate. By the way, there are a large number of independent films that meet our standards, and many respected critics regularly review independent films. So, get respected critics to pay attention to this film, and then we will talk further. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Film is notable, many more search results on Bing than on Google (Why is that?)Also, film does meet WP:NFILM The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. • Cybornetics ( talk) 05:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Per WP:NFILM: "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." An obscure film by a person of questionable notability does not qualify. Search results are irrelevant for establishing notability. And what's your relation to MovieMoguls? You've edited the exact same articles and drafts. Please declare any conflict of interest. -- NeilN talk to me 05:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 16:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

List of interracial romance films

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

Having speedily closed the first AfD, and some concerns having been expressed, I am going to instead open a second AfD, on the grounds that this may be an unnecessary or non-notable list. On those grounds, I lean just the slightest to delete. Safiel ( talk) 18:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete There is no common definition of "interracial romance film," and this article does not even suggest one. This article presents no criteria for inclusion outside its ultra-vague title. So many modern movies include interracial romances as some element of the plot, their existence as a class is not notable. Townlake ( talk) 20:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteWP should have an article, or several, on the topic of: The history of interracial romance in American films. This list doesn't really work, and can't, since it puts very different things together. Skylark777 ( talk) 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nomination offers no evidence for its claim that the topic is not notable. I cited an entire book about the topic in the other AFD earlier today. Here's a bigger stack of sources:
  1. The desiring of Asian female bodies: Interracial romance and cinematic subjection
  2. New racism, intercultural romance, and the immigration question in contemporary Spanish cinema
  3. Romance and the" yellow peril": Race, sex, and discursive strategies in Hollywood fiction
  4. The Interracial Romance as Primal Drama
  5. Race and Romance in "Bird of Paradise"
  6. Negative Attraction: The Politics of interracial romance in "The Replacement Killers"
  7. The Color of Love on the Big Screen: The Portrayal of Women in Hollywood Films in Interracial Relationships from 1967 to 2005
  8. The role of actors' race in White audiences' selective exposure to movies
  9. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?: A clash of interpretations regarding Stanley Kramer's film on the subject of interracial marriage
  10. Memories of Interracial Contacts and Mixed Race in Dutch Cinema
  11. Fade to black and white: Interracial images in popular culture
  12. Homoland: Interracial sex and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Israeli cinema
  13. Interracial Intimacy: Hegemonic Construction of Asian American and Black Relationships on TV Medical Dramas
  14. Intercultural Romance and Australian Cinema
  15. Gurinder Chadha´s Bride and Prejudice: A Transnational Journey Through Time and Space
  16. Mixed Blood Couples: Monsters and Miscegenation in US Horror Cinema
  17. Interracial Couples In Romance Films
  18. Black and white on the silver screen: views of interracial romance in French films and reviews since the 1980s
  19. Representations of Interracial Romance in Marc Forster's Monster's Ball and Mike Figgis' One Night Stand
  20. Crossing the Color Line: Interracial Couples in Films From "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" to "Die Another Day"
  21. Hollywood Fantasies of Miscegenation: Spectacular Narratives of Gender and Race, 1903–1967
  22. "Wild" Women: Interracial Romance on the Western Frontier
  23. Fade to Black and White: Interracial Images in Popular Culture
  24. Animated Interracial Romantic Fantasies
  25. Racial Masquerade Italian Style? Whiteface and Blackface in Zeudi Araya's 1970s Comedies
  26. Guess Who's Off The Hook: Inventing Interracial Coupling In Global Art Cinema
It seems easy to keep going so say "when". Andrew D. ( talk) 22:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Seems vague and arbitrary. Is any romantic movie involving Vin Diesel and a white or black girl an "interracial romance film"? Vin Diesel is, after all, technically both black and a white. Do they have to go through some kind hardship in the movie due to being an interracial couple? Does it have to be a romantic drama? Snow Dogs is listed, so it looks like the answer is "no" to that. Nymf ( talk) 22:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The depiction of interracial relationships in film is a legitimate encylopedic topic with many famous examples, and substantial RS coverage: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Ill-defined inclusion criteria should not be a reason for deleting the list. Obviously films where the characters' races are incidental should not be included, so I suggest limiting the list to entries where relaible sources mention the films within the context of interracial romance to avoid the list becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a notable list topic per WP:NOTESAL as evidenced by Andrew. A quick Google search also revealed this, this, this, this, and this. The condition of the article is irrelevant to the topic's notability, and we can use secondary sources to determine if a film meets the interracial romance criteria. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 22:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

) 9:53 pm, Yesterday (UTC+7)

  • Keep. A list article comprised of Wikipedia articles about films that have met criteria for inclusion. The original AfD was based simply on a 'I don't like it' . Some individuals might be offended by the movies, but they are not obliged to read Wikipedia any more than they are obliged to watch the films. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article needs some inclusion criteria and a column of references pointing to the movie reviews and books to show that the film is notable for showing that romance. Also, discussion would be held on whether to consider or exclude romance with fantasy/sci-fi races and species such as vampires, space aliens, monsters, witches, those covered by the magical girlfriend article. I also agree that the mixed race should be a main aspect of the movie, and not that it happens to feature characters of mixed races, although if the latter garners recognition from the RS'es such as "it is interesting that the character has a mother of race X and a father of race Y" - AngusWOOF ( talk) 23:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment To be clear, I agree with "Keep" voters that the topic of interracial romances in film is notable and well-covered. I don't think that's in dispute. The question here is whether Wikipedia should include an article that purports to be a list of every film where an interracial romance is important to the plot. I suspect that list would run into the thousands of films, with the majority of them from the past fifty years. That is why I support deletion of the list; to be honest about what it includes, this list's criteria would either be far too permissive to make maintenance practical, or would have to be tightened so thoroughly that the title of the article would have to change. Townlake ( talk) 23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but include only entries where the interracial aspect plays a major role in driving the plot. I would get rid of Othello, for instance. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    I going to say get rid of Othello because it is not a romance. It is about an interracial marriage, and most interpreters think that is driving the plot. Although of course you could say that Othello's race is just incidental and the same things would have happened if he had been white. Skylark777 ( talk) 12:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    This dialogue highlights the main criteria problem with this list. For this list to work, it requires clear definitions of "race," "interracial," "romance," and "interracial romance." Right now the list is 0-for-4, and I'm not seeing anyone present clear ideas for what the criteria should be. Will this list just go back up for AFD in three months when clear criteria haven't been developed, or can we admit now that the concepts here are too subjective to make a list with this broad a title workable? Townlake ( talk) 16:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
You make a truly convincing argument, Townlake, but I'm sticking to my vote (really a procedural 'keep') if only on the basis that the original AfD was simply a subjective 'I don't like it'. IDLI is not a policy or guideline for inclusion/deletion and therefore IMO such an AfD is not valid. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Sorry, Safiel, but I rather feel that your interpretation is inaccurate on both counts. Remember that the encyclopedia is international and the laws where you come from may not be the same everywhere. It's probably best to refer to the definitions provided by the texts of national laws of various countries before making such a claim. In fact our own Wikipedia provides a very good overview of the actual facts. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 20:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I like Betty's proposal to include only films that are covered in the context of interracial romance, such as a specific list or one of the books or chapters shown above. We could say that we need more than just one film review stating an interracial romance in passing. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 16:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this list should definitely define its inclusion criteria, but the intersection of romance films and interracial couples does seem to be a topic worthy of list coverage, per the sources provided above. Suggest renaming List of Films about interracial romance in accordance with Category:Films about interracial romance and for better clarity that the romance should be a theme of the movie, not merely incidental to the plot. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Formerly this was a big deal in America, getting ample media coverage. So it is a notable topic. Others have already found ample sources to back that up. Notability is not temporary. There are many films today where the races of the characters doesn't matter, while others make an issue about it. If it doesn't get media coverage for the interracial content, and it isn't a theme of the film(such as Guess Who (film)), then perhaps it should be removed. That can be discussed on the talk page, no need to delete the article though. Dream Focus 09:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 16:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The Low Countries before (1600-1609) and during the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609-1621)

The Low Countries before (1600-1609) and during the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609-1621) (  | 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 can't find a focus or meaning in this article and therefore it is surplus to the already existing articles Eighty Years' War, Twelve Years' Truce, Eighty Years' War (1566–1609), Tercio, Dutch Revolt and a few more. Looks like a copy and paste creation. The Banner  talk 18:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - unwieldy and with few citations, digresses all over the place (e.g. the stuff on tercios). Article would need a lot of work by editors to improve the quality. Xanthomelanoussprog ( talk) 19:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No clear topic. Other articles should already cover the material. Skylark777 ( talk) 20:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The prose in this article is generally poor. I found quite a few sentences which would need revising to meet the standards of Wikipedia writing. Three examples:
From the lede:
  • The Dutch Republic, smaller in size than the Netherlands now, in this period in the Spanish Southern Netherlands only conquered Sluis in Zeelandic Flanders.
  • Already at the end of the 16th century a vague Greater Netherlands identity within the Burgundian Netherlands (1384-1477), the Habsburg Netherlands (1477-1555) and the Spanish Netherlands (1555-1581) became lost, when Spain after the Flemish Beeldenstorm in 1566, the revolt against Alva in 1572, the revolt of the Pacification of Ghent in 1576, and the Union of Utrecht in 1579, in 1581 could no longer prevent the independence of the calvinist Dutch Republic, no more than the Spanish Armada in 1588 could prevent England from remaining Anglican or its invasion of France from 1592 on could prevent that country from tolerating its Calvinist Huguenots.
From the section The Low Countries before (1600-1609) and during the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609-1621)#The Dutch Republic defeats Spain and the Southern Netherlands (1605-:
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY KEEP: withdrawing nomination ( non-admin closure). G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Pro Arte Alphen Park

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

Unremarkable high school. Contested PROD. G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This is a secondary school and per long-standing convention, high schools are considered notable as indicated in WP:OUTCOME. I should also note that, barring serious WP:BLP concerns, nominating an article for deletion less than an hour after creation is not helpful to the community and is a form of WP:BITE.-- Oakshade ( talk) 00:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Oakshade:trust me, it was not my intent to be BITEy. Also, I have never understood why high schools are held to such a lower standard than any other topic on Wikipedia. Your !vote doesn't address why this school is notable: it only points in the general direction of a noticeable (if illogical) trend. G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
By your statement "I have never understood why high schools..." indicates you are aware high schools are always kept, but you prodded and AfDed this article anyway. This is now looking WP:POINTy to me.-- Oakshade ( talk) 00:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Oakshade: no need to get your feathers ruffled, and please try to WP:AGF. I only nominated it in the (vain?) hope that we might be able to delete an article that clearly fails WP:ORG. G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 16:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Alexandros Tanidis

Alexandros Tanidis (  | 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 an article just a few hours after it was deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 16:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

C.D. Primeiro de Agosto past squads

C.D. Primeiro de Agosto past squads (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-standard content fork still valid JMHamo ( talk) 17:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 17:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Internet Friendly Media Encoder

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

Software article fails WP:NSOFT. The only non-primary reference in the article doesn't actually discuss this software. Vrac ( talk) 15:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS coverage. Only independent ref in article does not mention Internet Friendly Media Encoder or IFME. A search did not turn up any other significant RS coverage, only download sites/forum posts.

Dialectric ( talk) 03:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Saurabh Lamsal

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

Page author removed PROD. Non-notable vanity page of a sixteen year old boy. The "Givemesport Youth Writer of the Year 1013/2014" award does not even come close to representing the "well-known and significant award or honor" required by WP:ANYBIO and a few internet searches reveal this person is long way off meeting the WP:GNG. Bellerophon talk to me 15:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although the raw count here consists of approximately equal numbers of keeps and deletes, a number of the advocates of keeping the article have advanced rationales not based on recognized elements of WP's inclusion policies. The major problem noted by the advocates of deletion—that the sources available for writing about the topic fail to provide significant coverage independent of the person himself—does not appear to have been successfully rebutted. Deor ( talk) 11:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Seth Andrews

Seth 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)

Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. Refs are from the subject's own book and website, routine coverage in college newspapers, and trivial mentions in state/national newspapers (e.g. "calendar of upcoming events"). Yoninah ( talk) 15:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah ( talk) 15:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Yoninah ( talk) 15:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I fear he will now have even less than Zero Serenity, if that's even possible. EEng ( talk) 00:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep your opinions about my user page off this page. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 22:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by that, but since you bring the subject up, your user page is a bit TMA. EEng ( talk) 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ EEng WP:NPA. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that in the article the page views should not be used. However, to judge someone's significance in the world (which is what this AfD is about) I think YouTube views are relevant. I will have a look at this article if I have chance tomorrow to see if I can find some more independent sources to use. ツ Stacey ( talk) 22:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nominator's statement that "Refs are from the subject's own book and website, routine coverage in college newspapers, and trivial mentions in state/national newspapers" neglects a number of references in national and international atheist / skeptical publications. WP:AUTHOR is a better match than WP:ENTERTAINER for this subject. In that case the article is close to meeting its burden of showing that he "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers", and since it is such a new article I propose the best way is to allow some time to research further sources to close any small gap remaining, rather than deleting it prematurely, per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Failure_to_explain_the_subject.27s_notability. -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 05:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
We're waiting patiently. EEng ( talk) 13:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
...one of whom showed they don't understand WP's concept of notability, and the other of whom has encouraged "someone" to find appropriate sources, but at this point hasn't actually done so. EEng ( talk) 14:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ EEng WP:NPA. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ EEng: - I apologize if my points were not clear enough, and you thought I simply "encouraged 'someone' to find appropriate sources". I was attempting to get across three points:
  1. All of the references should be considered when evaluating the article (the nomination was deficient in that it omitted several of the most pertinent references);
  2. The article should be evaluated against the most relevant policy, which is WP:AUTHOR (this had also been omitted or incorrect);
  3. Once those defects are remedied, IMhO the balance falls in favour of Keep. Others' opinions may differ. Either way, it is a much closer call and so it is only appropriate to consider beginning the AfD process after "improvements have not worked or cannot be reasonably tried".( Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Failure_to_explain_the_subject.27s_notability) -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 09:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Right now the article has 36 sources, almost all of them passing mentions, routine announcements, blogposts, softball interviews, and so on. It may very well be that somewhere in there is the evidence that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" (WP:AUTHOR), or the sources qualifying as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG) and if so, please just point those 3-6 sources out. If you believe there are notability-lending sources not in the article, then please go find them and either add them to the article, or list them here. The rest of us don't feel like playing Where's Waldo to find them outselves among all the fluff. EEng ( talk) 12:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Would you be so kind as to list a few which are "significant coverage ... independent of the subject"? EEng ( talk) 05:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

*Keep (still): (Note to closing administrator: This is Gronk Oz's second Keep vote) I have held off because I am no expert in this topic, but since nobody else is responding I will have a go: it seems to me that the strongest independent references indicating notability are the ones cited in the "Recognition" section, including:

    • Readers' Choice Awards, About.com.
    • EVOLVE Award winners, American Atheists.
    • "Inoculating Kids Against Fundamentalism". The Huffington Post.
    • "Get them while they're young", The Guardian. -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 01:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment None of these choices show "widely cited by peers or successors" or "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". About.com is not a RS. The Huffington Post is a trivial mention; the whole article (4 paragraphs) is just a reverend's recommendations; it is not in-depth coverage of Seth Andrews. The awards listing is nice, but it just shows that Andrews won an award. The Guardian source is a video from the subject's own website. Only the Patheos and ESkeptic sites come close to meeting the criteria, and that's not enough to save this from deletion. Yoninah ( talk) 16:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I was gonna say exactly the same thing. This is nothing like significant coverage. EEng ( talk) 17:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I searched for more sources but found none that didn't duplicate those already used (mostly announcements of appearances). I checked each cited source. None include significant coverage to establish notability. The eSkeptic source is a review of Andrews' self-published autobiographical book. Although it includes in-depth information on Andrews, it is based on a primary source. The Tampa Bay Times is a reliable source but contains only an announcement of Andrews as a guest speaker and that he will sign books, far from in-depth. Even though The Guardian is a reliable source, Andrews isn't even mentioned in the cited link; the only connection to Andrews is an embedded link to one of his YouTube videos. The American Athiest EVOLVE award announced in the patheos.com blog post falls well short of "well-known and significant award or honor" to support notability. The About.com Reader's Choice award for "Favorite Agnostic / Atheist Website of 2011" also is not "a significant award or honor" to establish notability. Andrews just doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. DocTree ( ʞlɐʇ· ʇuoɔ) WER 22:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Stacey. I have to say this smacks of religious persecution. I will be polite but I believe that the user originally marking this and now Matt's page for deletion has religious motivations for wanting to delete notable atheists. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psugrad98 ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete - I've looked through the sources, and despite the huge amount of them, the best in my view that ticks all three boxes of significant, independent and reliable is this, and even then that strikes me as routine coverage that's part of a newspaper's general announcements. As a side issue, the POV in the article is also a problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Serious failures of the keep side trying to argue invalid arguments (Youtube subscribers, download statistics, religious persicution, personal attacks, claims that the opposition is personally attacking without any proof or citing to policy). Not seeing a significant claim under Entertainer/Writer justifications, so this is a delete for me. Hasteur ( talk) 16:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep You guys may have a point that he isn't that noteworthy, but all this discussion at least already proves that he's in some type of gray area. He's part of an Atheist community and that needs to be weighted in. To put into perspective, if you have a religious leader let's say a rabbi, and he's very well known in Jewish circles he might not get national media attention, and never be featured in a New York times article, but he might well be featured in Jewish publications and news and he might have a huge follow on his synagogue, but this can't be measured by reliable independent sources. Even though few people would question this Rabbi, notoriety because he can be well know among the Jewish circles. So notoriety must be put into perspective. If we don't allow for such subjective value in conext then you are risking to exclude notorious people just because they belong to a minority. With that said, Seth he was featured in the American Atheist Magazine issue on the first quarter of 2013 American Atheist Magazine Here. So this is a magazine in print and online that is distribute nationwide in newsstands and across the globe. So it qualifies as Nationwide (which is a bogus criteria since this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia) and also it's a reputable source. The only thing that you might object is that it may be not "impartial". But to compare it with the Rabbi example, it's like to say that he wouldn't be noteworthy because he's featured in Jewish magazines ans newspapers only. Of course the most interested people on this case will be people from his community, so it's natural that the other news sources on a majority Christian nation won't reflect him. But it doesn't mean that he isn't notorious to lot's of people, specially on his community.
    Also he is capable of doing speeches nationwide, like the Unholy Trinity Tour that's now flying to Australia and other atheist conventions with lot's of people PAYING to watch him. It's hard to document with documented independent sources, because this would require to call each venue were he has presented and have the banners, and get scanned spreadsheets with the attendances for each event, and that's ridiculous. But let's face it, you can't fill up a room with lots of people in several cities across the country and have them flying him to Australia if they weren't somewhat known. There's lots of people that are paying to see him! here. But if we don't weight in the notoriety criteria to a given group, for example all Zimbabwe singers pages will have to be removed, because none of them will be published in nationwide news independent sources, their notoriety will fade away compared to American singers which is simply stupid. So with that said, I believe that sources like Patheos or American Atheists meet the notoriety criteria for this context. If you don't accept that we should evaluate notoriety based on only major outlets in the media, then I guess 1/3 of the biographies on Wikipedia should have to be taken down. And to me, having some information is much better than have none. And our goal should be improve Wikipedia's content by adding information and not impoverishing it by removing this page. One more thing. I don't understood the comment Ritchie333 on POV. Can you indicate any sources of some criticism or controversy that aren't expressed on his profile? What other aspects from his profile you think that you think should be covered that aren't? -- Nixbrazil ( talk) 18:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Some examples of NPOV I spotted include "A student leader, Seth was actively involved in school functions, outreach, weekly chapel services, student council and the local Youth For Christ chapter" - but is that important to his notability? "Andrews became a big fan of contemporary Christian music" - a "big" fan, or just a fan, or maybe just a casual fan? "In 1997 the death of Rich Mullins shook Andrews's faith to the core" - "shook to the core" is a problem per WP:EUPHEMISM - "This event became a turning point for him" - turning point - "and that became a catalyst that helped him to leave faith behind, finally coming out as an atheist to his family and friends" ... not to mention all the quotations. Okay, we have one interview piece, that may be enough to tip into a case study for Atheism, which would probably be a better place for the subject. However, a big red flag for me is when I typed "Seth Andrews" into Google Books, I got no independent hits at all. For somebody living and working in the modern age, that is extremely unusual. That indicates that American Atheist probably run stores on lots of Atheists, most of whom are non-notable. All in all, I can't really see that, when taking into account what completely independent sources write, we'd be able to include anything more than an odd line or two in another article. PS : Regarding "There's lots of people that are paying to see him!", well there are lots of people paying to see my dentist, but he's not notable either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I like the dentist bit. There should be an essay, WP:DENTIST. EEng ( talk) 18:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I see. Yeah maybe we should review it if the page doesn't get deleted. Thanks for your clarification. I know you were been sarcastic on the dentist thing. But in order to filling up lecture rooms and conventions across the country it's a different story. So, I guess you understand what I meant. In order to fill some rooms and have people paying to hear your lectures, people must know you. If you try to fill up a lecture room without you being know and have people paying for your hotel, flying tickets it's going to be pretty hard to do it one time, imagine several times. So please, don't be sarcastic, this doesn't help the discussion. And I know this isn't a criteria for notoriety, but to show that he's well know among atheists. Perhaps in the future as he get's more mainstream his media coverage will grow. I'm following his progression, and I'm not even a native English speaker, but he grabbed my attention. He wasn't lecturing a year ago, and now is lecturing in other countries. If he continues on this progression I suspect that If this page get's indeed deleted, I think it will end up coming back maybe in a year or two. I was willing to translate his page (I mainly work with translations) into Spanish and Portuguese , and I then saw the tag. That's sad. I felt that he is noteworthy to be even in other languages, I guess I'll have to wait now. -- Nixbrazil ( talk) 19:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Nixbrazil: Regarding your rabbi comparison, I have been involved in numerous AFDs of rabbis and I can tell you that we have just as much trouble finding reliable sources for them because they are not widely written up in Jewish media, let alone general media. If the rabbi is the head of a yeshiva, we could claim notability under PROF #6, but in general we are still waiting for someone to rewrite the rules on rabbis. Yoninah ( talk) 19:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Yoninah: Thank you very much for your clarification. I still don't think it's fair to not weigh in the notability criteria when we are talking about minorities, I feel for example that if a small English speaking nation will have lots of difficulties to prove the notoriety for their national notorious people, than a Hungarian notorious people will have for the Hungarian Wikipedia. I know it's a little bit off topic, and I know Hungarian Wikipedia rules have nothing to do with the English ones. My understanding is that in this cases, since the subject notoriety is in some sense a subjective criteria we should be able to factor this differences in. And in the case of Seth Andrews page, he's kind of in this area were I see argument both ways. Maybe he isn't notorious enough, but to me he seems to be. I'm wondering if in those cases we should really force the notoriety criteria when we are talking about religious, ethnic and other minority groups. Perhaps this could be viewed as prejudice and indeed it can be hard to prove notoriety on those cases, as we saw some people trying to argue that-- Nixbrazil ( talk) 20:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable as an author: some very few self published books have made people notable, but not one in only 29 libraries a/c WorldCat. "Public Speaking engage,nets" do not make for notability and are usually unimportant enough to be even appropriate content. The notability would rest on the blog,and I'm not convinced of the significance of the awards. The article in addition is highly promotional: name dropping of guests at his podcast, the person appearances section, the overly personal bio most of which can only be based on what he chooses to tell about his own motivations, the promulgation of his own views in several places,the inclusion of quotes such as "good storyteller and conversationalist" , the use of the first name thruout. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. McCormack, Brian (2014-02-21). "Seth Andrews of The Thinking Atheist to visit Abilene". Abilene Reporter-News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.

      The article notes:

      The Christian faith may be woven into the fabric of Abilene, but nationally known atheist Seth Andrews hopes to unravel the strings of the devout at 7-9 p.m. Monday during a stop at the Abilene Public Library downtown.

      Andrews a former Christian broadcaster and the author of “Deconverted: A Journey from Religion to Reason” and host of the popular podcast “The Thinking Atheist” is stopping in the Big Country as part of a 40-city tour.

    2. Bishop, Mark (2000-03-15). "Andrews is part of KXOJ morning team". Tulsa World. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.

      The article notes:

      Regarding how he got his start in radio, disc jockey Seth Andrews said that in high school he had a deep voice.

      `The running joke when you have a deep voice,` he said, `is people telling you you ought to be in radio.`

      Andrews, who was born in Tulsa and moved to Broken Arrow with his wife a year-and-a-half ago, took that running joke seriously, and in February he celebrated his 10th year with Christian radio station KXOJ, 100.9 FM.

    3. Kirk, Scott (2014-02-24). "Atheist says his battle is not against Christians". Abilene Reporter-News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.

      The article notes:

      Seth Andrews, known to his fans for his “The Thinking Atheist” online community, made it clear Monday that his battle is not against Christians.

      “I love people,” said Andrews before speaking in the Abilene Public Library Monday evening. “I know some believers will hear me and they will feel personally attacked, but I love people.”

      Andrews, the author of the autobiography “De-converted,” was raised by parents who were religious. He was educated in Christian schools and worked as a broadcaster for a Christian radio station. He pointed to two events that started him down the road toward atheism. One was the 1997 death of Christian music star Rich Mullins.

    4. Beall, Nova (2013-07-30). "North Pinellas religion briefs for July. 31". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.

      The article notes:

      A former religious fundamentalist and Christian radio station DJ, Andrews came out as an atheist in 2008. He now has his own podcast/radio show called The Thinking Atheist.

    5. Whissel, Pamela (March 2013). "From Christian Broadcaster to Thinking Atheist: Seth Andrews is Deconverted". American Atheist. 51 (1): 5. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.

      The abstract notes:

      An interview with Atheist author Seth Andrews is presented. When asked about his religious upbringing, he refers to the spirited debates of his parents regarding faith. Andrews states that he first started to doubt religion during the death of Christian composer Rich Mullins from a traffic accident in 1997. He comments on his admiration for Atheist civil rights worker Christopher Hitchens.

    6. Betz, Eric (2014-02-14). "Popular atheist to speak at Northern Arizona University on Saturday". Arizona Daily Sun. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.

      The article notes:

      Seth Andrews was raised in a traditional Midwestern home by devout Christian parents. And he spent a decade as a Christian radio broadcaster in Tulsa, Okla.

      But then, he says, he started to embrace his doubts, ultimately coming to the conclusion he did not believe there was any evidence for God.

    7. 余創豪 (2014-04-29). "余創豪：混淆了描述和判斷——舊約聖經中離奇性行為". Gospel Herald. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.

      The article notes:

      塞思‧安德魯斯（Seth Andrews）是「思考無神論」網站（TheThinkingAtheist.com）的創辦人，他說，創立該網站的動機是為了彌補他童年和青年時代在俄克拉何馬州所受的隔離，他要通過互聯網去鼓吹思想解放。據他介紹，俄克拉何馬州有兩樣著名的東西：龍捲風和教堂。他的父母是基督徒，他說自己從孩提時代起已經被基督教包圍和洗腦，他曾經擔任一個基督教廣播電台的播音員，但後來他放棄了基督教信仰，並且創立了「思考無神論」網站，他還寫了一本書來記錄他的心路歷程，書名為《逆轉：從宗教走到理性的旅途》（Deconverted: A journey from religion to reason）。

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

    Cunard ( talk) 19:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

You obviously have no idea what "significant" or "independent" mean. These are all WP:ROUTINE, passing mentions, and puff pieces. If that's the best you can come up with then this is a delete for sure. EEng ( talk) 02:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per nominator, Ritchie, DGG, DocTree, Hasteur. Does not meet notability guidelines. A lot of puffery and smoke and mirrors, but no real substance vis-a-vis notable, significant, reliable, independent coverage. Softlavender ( talk) 08:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Aside from not giving any real evidence of the article's subject meeting relevant specific Wikipedia notability guidelines, a couple of the Keep !votes are from people (including an IP) who have barely edited on Wikipedia, which I find ... odd. Just thought I'd mention that. Softlavender ( talk) 08:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I looked at the sources listed by Cunard and Andrews has received coverage in local and regional newspapers from Florida to Arizona. The newspaper articles are written by different reporters for these newspaper. They appear to be based on interviews with Andrews since they include a number of quotes. These sources also assert his notability: he is especially known by fundamentalist Christians in the southern part of the US. It appears to me that these sources establish his notability across the southern US and especially among fundamentalist Christians, and so he satisfies WP:GNG. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 08:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

UNI (artificial language)

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

Obviously non-notable project, as stated in the article itself — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 15:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep without prejudice to immediate renomination if a valid nomination reason is presented. However, the reason given in this nomination is not based on any valid Wikipedia policies, merely a person's opinion. Non-admin closure. Safiel ( talk) 16:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

List of interracial romance films

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of User:Jason foren daniel:

This page is insignificant and alienates interracial relationship, I think it should be deleted. Jason foren daniel ( talk) 14:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

— Tom Morris ( talk) 14:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The nomination rationale is ridiculous, but let's go a level deeper. No criteria for inclusion are described in the article, so we have to go with the title as the complete list of inclusion criteria. That leaves the inclusion criteria unacceptably broad, and questions abound -- does the "interracial romance" have to be between the film's main characters? If two characters discuss interracial romance, is that enough for inclusion? And what to make of the link farm at the bottom of the article? I'm not sure this can't be an acceptable list, it seems like an area people could reasonably be interested in learning more about, but in its current format this article needs serious work. Townlake ( talk) 15:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 06:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

FBS Radio Network Inc.

FBS Radio Network Inc. (  | 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 can't find any reliable sources about the subject. Fails WP:NME and WP:CORP. — theenjay36 ( talk) 06:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 10:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 10:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 10:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There are articles on the stations that they currently or previously controlled but these are mostly unreferenced too. On another search, I'm not finding anything better on the firm, and if they were notable I'd have expected that to be evident on Highbeam's coverage of local media. AllyD ( talk) 21:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Robert Newmyer. czar  ⨹ 16:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Outlaw_Productions

AfDs for this article:
Outlaw_Productions (  | 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 primary sources aside from being mentioned in imdb. Quick google search brings up the company's website, facebook page, and defunct website. News articles are all chiefly about Robert Newmyer, the company's owner (the first of which is his obituary). Suggesting a Merge to the aformentioned article. Being part of a notable project is not notability. Being owned by a notable person is not notability. Being mentioned in press releases is not notability. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, no organization is inherently notable - including production companies. ZappyGun (talk to me) What I've done for Wikipedia 06:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  12:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Italian Walk of Fame

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

The article lacks citations to reliable secondary sources and efforts for finding such sources will fail because simply there's no reliable source covering the title. After a googling, except the official page, there are other results which are only a simple mentioning of the "Italian Walk of Fame" and not covering it. The title does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. Mhhossein ( talk) 05:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Per the above, I was just about to nominate this :). The article links to a number of Wikipedia article, but only for already famous individuals of Italian descent that have no specific connection to the organization. Taking a look at the article history, the article was also created by a user named Iwof who has claimed copyright on the content of the page that first appeared on www.italianwalkoffame.com. I eat BC Fish ( talk) 06:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is quite a bit of third party coverage of the Italian Walk of Fame. Clearly an individual being inducted into the Italian Walk of Fame is newsworthy, as are the induction events themselves. This all implies notability of the walk of fame itself. These are more than just 'mentions'.
 
http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/the_fixer/2014/01/04/italian_walk_of_fame_should_be_approached_with_caution_the_fixer.html
 
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/03/30/andy-donato-named-to-italian-walk-of-fame
 
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4452491-labour-leader-mancinelli-inducted-onto-the-italian-walk-of-fame/
 
http://facadeacademy.com/italian-walk-of-fame/
 
http://www.italianheritagecanada.com/gallery/photo-gallery/2012-italian-walk-of-fame
 
http://www.youradonline.ca/2014/May/28/Italian_Walk_Fame/
 
http://bkonthescene.com/2014/06/01/the-italian-walk-of-fame-wed-may-28th-2014royal-theatreriviera-parque-banquet-hall/
 
http://www.calgarysun.com/videos/sunshine-girl/sunshine-girl/5790925001/italian-walk-of-fame-inductees-announced/37757937001
 
http://torontocityevents.ca/calendar-event/italian-walk-of-fame/
 
http://thebulletin.ca/suns-donato-3-others-on-italian-walk-of-fame/
 
http://www.newspapers-online.com/tecumseth/?p=3251
 
http://www.simcoe.com/news-story/2542589-biffis-joining-italian-walk-of-fame/
 
http://www.liuna.ca/018-walk-of-fame.php
 
http://www.chinradio.com/uncategorized/2013-italian-walk-of-fame-june-15th-2013/
 
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/05/italian-walk-of-fame-honours-stars
 
http://tvtipster.com/index.php/joe-mantegna-gets-a-star-on-the-italian-walk-of-fame/  — Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Ross-c (
talk • 
contribs) 
14:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 16:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • 1; Not relaible. What's this? Just some pics!
  • 2; Same as above!
  • 3; Not deeply covering the article title. Btw, is this source reliable?
  • 4; This topic is mainly about Andy Donato and not covering Italian walk of fame.
  • 5; This topic is mainly about Labour leader Mancinelli, not deeply covering Italian walk of fame.
  • 6; This needs to be investigated! this source is deeply covering the source.
  • 7; Just some pics!
  • Others are mostly the same. They are just casual mentioning, as I said before. Mhhossein ( talk) 13:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 16:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Marisa Lang

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

I am nominating this article for deletion for the following reasons: This individual does not appear to pass WP:NOTABILITY as there are few if any notable external and independent references. The article violates WP:VERIFIABILITY because a Google search of the name seem to only point to a website created by the author. In fact, a Google search for Marisa Lang leads to a Google suggestion: "Did you mean: Marissa Lang?" She does not appear to the most notable Marisa or Marisa Lang either. The article was created by an individual claiming copyright on text that appears on www.italianwalkoffame.com on the article's talk page. The article is also written in a promotional style and violates WP:NPOV. I eat BC Fish ( talk) 05:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Dawoodi Bohra#Transfer_of_Dawat_to_India. czar  ⨹ 15:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Moulai Hasan Fir

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

Self published sources , written as propaganda of an unnotable person Summichum ( talk) 03:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ( talk | contribs) 03:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • strong delete  : has absurd and scientifically impossible storie about balancer water and mouth
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig ( talk) 12:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be found and cited for notability. According to a GBooks search, this person may be mentioned in The Dawoodi Bohras: an anthropological perspective and A Living Faith: My Quest for Peace, Harmony and Social Change: an Autobiography of Asghar Ali Engineer, but since neither book has a preview, I cannot check whether the coverage is in any way substantial. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 13:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Speedy deletion by User:TomStar81 " G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user (Goblin Face) in violation of ban or block" -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Polyphyletic evolution theories of human races

Polyphyletic evolution theories of human races (  | 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 was originally created as Polygenic evolution theories of human races which was speedy deleted as it covered the existing topic of polygenism. I'm not sure that this was an intentional WP:POVFORK but I don't think it would be appropriate to merge this into polygenism because it will result in a case of WP:UNDUE. T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 19:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Tchaliburton is posting lies. The page is not a duplication and covers a different topic. As I've pointed out now at least 3 times, evolutionary polygenism or polyphyleticism is not biblical polygenism [which is what 90% of the polygenism page covers]. Paleoresearcher ( talk) 22:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Let's be civil and stick to the facts. See Polygenism#Scientific_polygenism to see where evolutionary polygenism is covered. T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 22:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Which is a tiny section and doesn't fit the page which is all about the Bible. Polygenism and polyphyleticism (which is science, not the bible) are different. That section is also completely wrong. Ernst Haeckel is described as a polygenist, when he wasn't: "In a wide sense, the monophyletic opinion is the right one." (Haeckel, 1876:303). And can you stop pretending you care about improving these pages? Your edit history shows you've never contributed, but just delete other peoples content. I noticed you've made plenty of errors regarding the latter and I wasn't the only person to complain. Paleoresearcher ( talk) 23:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand per WP:Summary style. I regard the present article as an incomplete split, and an appropriate split given that polygenism article is not primarily about humans. It's not a POV fork:, but the split of a particular topic which has been discussed widely in its own terms. The question here is how to best handle the material. FWIW, I regard the speedy on the first version as incorrect; I declined the second one. BTW, Paleoresearcher, there is a difference between disagreements and lies. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • That investigation says nothing about this topic and the discussion note tells that "commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive". My !vote is based upon the content and external sources and so stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 11:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Péter Vasvári

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

Article mainly contributed by the subject of the topic itself. Absence of coverage in reliable independent sources. C 679 09:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ( Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar  ⨹ 15:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

United Cube Concert

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

It's a tour and it happened. There is nothing here to suggest the tour was actually notable, per WP:NTOUR. Drmies ( talk) 15:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i ( talk) 03:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 12:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Crowley (Supernatural)

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

very weak sourcing establishing notability with massive amounts of WP:OR. Frietjes ( talk) 17:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 04:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Those are blogs and coverage of the actor, with only passing mentions of the character. St★lwart 111 14:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 15:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Tony Stiles (presenter)

Tony Stiles (presenter) (  | 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 satisfy WP:GNG: there are sources in the article, but there aren't reliable nor do they cover the subject or his radio show in detail. I've had to remove a few completely unreliable sources like Alex Jones Infowars and Prison Planet website, as well as the community-run Ron Paul blog The Daily Paul. There's just not enough here to justify an article. — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 07:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 13:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Ryan Walsh

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Appearances for Sydney FC appear to be in friendly matches. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 12:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 12:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 12:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 12:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  12:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Tony Wright (sleep deprivation)

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

Classic BLP1E - notable only for a single sleep deprivation event?? Alison ❤ 02:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't think it's classic 1E. He's noted for holding the world record but also being someone who pushes the limits of sleeplessness (he wrote a book about it though the book is not notable). It would be a stretch to define every world record as a single "event" to be ignored. The better question is how much coverage does he have, how well known is he. The sources go beyond that 2007 world record (in External Links). -- Green C 14:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, the article doesn't say he holds the world record; rather, he claims to. So he's a disputed world record maybe-holder - Alison ❤ 06:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
      • You are right. It's not even a record that can be had since no official body recognizes it. Notability can still be had. We determine this by the quality and quantity of sources. It's a borderline case some of the sources like Daily Mail are not great, others like Der Spiegel, Guardian, ABC and BBC are good. And they are spread out over a number of years, sustained coverage. He is excerpted in Wisdom Magazine which claims to be "one of the country's largest free holistic publications with 150,000 copies printed bi-monthly". [20] Mentioned in this college textbook Discovering Biological Psychology. And this book Wide Awake. And a few other books on Google Books. There appear to be more sources in a Google Search of "Tony Wright" sleep not yet in the article, I added a couple. -- Green C 13:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 12:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
He's not in the Guinness Book of World Records, he is in books on Google Books, not news. -- Green C 14:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Robotech characters. czar  ⨹ 15:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Dana Sterling

AfDs for this article:
Dana Sterling (  | 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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. Reviewing arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Sterling I see nothing but "this is a major characters from Robotech, and how dare you dispute that anything related to Robotech is notable", and various variations of WP:ITSIMPORTANT; this entire AfD is a simple fail for the closing non-admin, illustrating their lack of familiarity with deletion criteria (the discussion should have been re-listed, not closed...). Yes, many of us grew up on that series. No, it doesn't amount to anything if the article fails listed policies, and this one - as almst all others about characters from Robotech/Macross - do. Fan sites like mania.com ( [21]) are no better - and I'd say even worse - than the often criticized wikia. At least, wikia articles can be updated and the authors more readily identified and contavted. This does not belong on Wikipedia, only on wikia and fansites, as there are no reliable sources (i.e., sources that are not fansites or primary). If you are sentimental about Robotech, go to http://robotech.wikia.com/wiki/Dana_Sterling - it's already better than what we have hare, anyway. At best, this should be redirected to a short summary at the List of Robotech characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 15:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Mark McAllister

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Murry1975 ( talk) 12:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Murry1975 ( talk) 12:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 15:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Education Of My Life(2015)

Education Of My Life(2015) (  | 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 short film BOVINEBOY 2008 12:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

i find about this movie some links on google! it can works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.36.77 ( talk) 17:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. While a number of sources have been presented, and there is no argument that they relate to Mr. Bonner, nor that they are reliable, the question of whether the coverage is independent and significant is a matter of fact to be determined by consensus of editors. All but one contributors to this debate having recommended deletion despite the sources, that consensus has as such been established. Stifle ( talk) 12:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Craig Bonner

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

This is a retired hockey player who never made it to the NHL. The highest level he made it to was the AHL where he played 12 games (far short of the 200 game requirement per WP:NHOCKEY). As a coach and general manager he's no more notable, having only worked in junior hockey. T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 17:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:34, 20 December 2014 (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 (banter) @ 15:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The article notes:

Tom Gaglardi has found his man.

Now, he's just waiting to see if Craig Bonner will accept the challenge.
The Blazers owner said Bonner has been offered the general manager's job with the club.

...

Bonner has been the front-runner for the job since Dean Clark was removed from his duties with the club in November.

Brian Fortin has been the interim GM since January.
During the past six season, Bonner was the assistant general manager and assistant coach with the Vancouver Giants. Bonner, also played for the Blazers and got his coaching start in Kamloops as an assistant.
The article notes:

First-year general manager says his Blazers are learning from first-half lessons

Craig Bonner is starting to see the pieces start to fall into place.

The rookie general manager of the Kamloops Blazers came into the job knowing changes needed to be made.

With two months remaining in the regular season, he's starting to see the changes make a difference to the Blazers.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Craig Bonner to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 06:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 11:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Five of the six articles are not independent as they are from one of the Kamloops Blazers' sponsors and the other is just routine sports coverage which falls under WP:NOTNEWS.

The nominator did make a minor error in the total number of minor league games played by the subject. He appeared in 74 minor league games, however the subject is still not notable as an ice hockey player. Deadman137 ( talk) 03:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • You obviously didn't look very hard, as you can see in the following links.
  1. "BLAZERS SOLID IN 3-1 WIN OVER THUNDERBIRDS". 2013-10-16. Retrieved 2015-01-06.
  2. "Promotional Events". Retrieved 2015-01-06. Deadman137 ( talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Here are more sources about the subject from The Kamloops Daily News and The Vancouver Sun:
    • "Blazers sign GM to contract extension". The Kamloops Daily News. 2013-05-14. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
      The article notes:

      The Kamloops Blazers have signed vice-president and general manager Craig Bonner to a contract extension.

      The WHL club announced Tuesday that Bonner has signed a "multi-year contract extension." Details weren't disclosed.

      ...

      Bonner played for Blazers between 1989 and 1993, winning league championships in 1990 and 1992 and a Memorial Cup in 1992. He came back to the Blazers to serve as an assistant coach between 1996 and 2002, and worked as a general manager and assistant coach with the Vancouver Giants between 2002 and 2008.

      The Blazers hired Bonner to be general manager on April 25, 2008.

      Kamloops' five seasons under Bonner have featured four playoff appearances. In 2008-09, the Blazers were 33-33-2-4, sixth in the Western Conference, but were swept out of the first round by the Kelowna Rockets.

    • "Giants focus on finishing Thunderbirds tonight". The Vancouver Sun. 2007-04-13. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
      The article notes:

      For assistant coach Craig Bonner, the game brought back memories of a triple overtime game he was behind the bench for as an assistant with the Kamloops Blazers in 1998.

      "It was the WHL final against the Calgary Hitmen," said Bonner. "We lost 3-2 and went on to lose the series in five games. So it's not a good memory."

      Bonner's longest as a player was with the Blazers in 1993 against the Seattle Thunderbirds.

      "Hayzer was the coach and it was the first minute of double OT and we were awarded a penalty shot and scored," said the former defenceman.

    • Pap, Elliott (2014-10-14). "Hay figures it will be 'different' night coaching against Giants". Calgary Herald. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
      The article notes:

      His general manager in Kamloops, Craig Bonner, is a former player, former assistant with the Giants and younger brother of Scott Bonner, his former GM in Vancouver.

      “Coming back home, I really didn’t know what was going to happen,” Hay said. “I just was excited about the opportunity of coming back here to work with Craig Bonner and the ownership group and the players. Did it feel right putting on the Blazer logo again? That’s kind of a good question. It was different.

      ...

      Craig Bonner has been pleased with the start and having Hay back on board.

      “It’s been excellent, so far,” Bonner said. “I played for Hayzer in junior and we worked together with the Giants and obviously we had a lot of success there as an organization. I think there is a comfort level between us. We’ve known each other a long time and we believe in a lot of the same things. As an organization, it’s been a very positive move.

      “Last year was a tough year for us but the players have really bought in to what the coaching staff is trying to do here, and they’re relishing it. We started with six of our first eight games on the road so, realistically, if we were .500 at that point, I would have been happy. But we exceeded that and I give the players credit.”

    • MacIntyre, Iain (2008-09-04). "Toigo faces his toughest challenge". The Vancouver Sun. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
      The article notes:

      Assistant coach-GM Craig Bonner, the superconductor through which everything was wired in hockey operations, became the Kamloops Blazers' general manager.

      Craig Bonner, who captained Hay's team in Kamloops nearly two decades ago, was so valuable, it takes two guys to replace him. But Bonner's position as a buffer between Hay and players can't be replaced.

      It might seem like a small thing, but isn't. Hay is a demanding, unyielding coach. What good coach isn't? Craig Bonner was the classic "good-cop" assistant, but knew Hay from the old neighborhood and was able to get his boss to stand down if the intensity red-lined. Or stoke that intensity when more was needed.

      "At times, if I did get emotional, Craig was always there to go in and talk to the veteran guys and the veteran guys would talk to younger guys," Hay said. "You have to know when to push hard and when to back off. Craig was a good sounding board for that.

    • Drinnan, Gregg (2009-11-16). "Bonner has message for veteran players". The Kamloops Daily News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
  • Drinnan, Gregg (2009-06-30). "Bonner ready for import draft". The Kamloops Daily News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
    The article notes:

    Craig Bonner has made his list and checked it twice.

    Actually, the Kamloops Blazers' general manager has checked it three or four times. Maybe more.

    It's all part of his preparations for the CHL's two-round import draft that began this morning at 6 o'clock with the QMJHL's Saint John Sea Dogs, having acquired the first pick from the Halifax Mooseheads, making a pick.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Craig Bonner to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 04:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You should read a little lower in the Wikipedia article that you keep citing which clearly states:
"Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability:
Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."
Every single article that you have presented fails the criteria outlined in the last sentence, meaning the subject fails WP:GNG. Deadman137 ( talk) 23:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • That isn't true at all. There are large numbers of things that are considered routine coverage which aren't just because of a lack of significant coverage. For example local politicians of small towns for example generally have local coverage of them considered to be routine coverage because all local politicians will have coverage. Or to bring it back to sports, the are things like local youth athlete of the week type articles, they will have significant coverage in those articles, but those are considered local routine coverage and wouldn't get that athlete an article on Wikipedia. Generally local news about local junior players has typically been considered not enough to pass notability, it usually requires them also having articles from papers outside their region. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Many of the sources I quoted above discuss him. Example:

    Bonner played for Blazers between 1989 and 1993, winning league championships in 1990 and 1992 and a Memorial Cup in 1992. He came back to the Blazers to serve as an assistant coach between 1996 and 2002, and worked as a general manager and assistant coach with the Vancouver Giants between 2002 and 2008.

    From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:

    "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

    Cunard ( talk) 01:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (speak) @ 14:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Ett barn är fött på denna dag

Ett barn är fött på denna dag (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article gives no substantial clear or coherent information in English. Offhand, I can find no substantial clear information in English on Google. I do not believe the article creator has the English skills to improve or expand the article or to make it into coherent and informative English, or sizeable enough to warrant retention on English Wikipedia. Softlavender ( talk) 11:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong keep one of the most famous Christmas songs in Sweden. J 1982 ( talk) 12:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

keep - article definitely needs c/e and refs but the song is one of the most famous christmas songs in Sweden. Notable.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 14:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete. czar  ⨹ 15:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Overture ( Davide Anselmi )

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

Previously deleted A9: Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance. Please see current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anselmi Davide (Drummer) for the background to this nomination. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dea db eef 11:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dea db eef 11:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my comment on the sister AfD and (after a quick good-faith search) no sources to support notability on this one. I think Mr. Zimmer would be quite surprised to learn of his most recent addition to his discography. Dea db eef 11:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:A7 by RHaworth. ( non-admin closure) Anupmehra - Let's talk! 16:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Danish irshad

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

possible autobiography, no citations Kges1901 ( talk) 09:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. (Non-admin closure) -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Shai Halevi

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

Subject of the article obviously fails WP:GNG and woefully failed the professor test. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 08:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The Professor Test

I have to strongly disagree regarding the professor test. In particular, Shai Halevi has without any doubt "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." He has made very significant contributions in many topics in the field of cryptography. Most notably, in the fields mentioned in the entry (fully homomorphic encryption, multilinear maps and obfuscation).

In addition to the above, if you go to the IACR website (the IACR is the International Association of Cryptologic Research; the primary umbrella organization for the topic research in the area) and then go to http://www.iacr.org/cryptodb/data/stats.php you will find statistics on the most prolific authors in the field. Shai Halevi is the 14th most prolific author in cryptology, over all time! (This includes all of the IACR conferences and workshops, which are the best in the field.) In addition, Shai was the program chair of the CRYPTO conference in 2009, and of the Theory of Cryptography Conference in 2006. He is currently the head of the steering committee of the Theory of Cryptography Conference. In 2009-2012 he was also an associate editor in TISSES (ACM Transactions on Information and System Security) [1]. Finally, Shai is also a director of the IACR. [2]

The only reason that Shai Halevi is not a tenured full professor at a top university is because he chose to work at the IBM T.J. Watson research center.

Yehudalindell ( talk) 12:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  1. ^ TISSEC past editors: http://tissec.acm.org/content/people/past-editors/
  2. ^ IACR board of directors: http://www.iacr.org/bod.html
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 14:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 15:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Anselmi Davide (Drummer)

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

provided sources are not reliable. Research has provided no further support of notability. This article was quickly created ostensibly to counter the deletion per WP:A9 of Overture ( Davide Anselmi ) and its recreation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

It's very clever and obviously a sock. If it gets blocked it will be the end of editing for the original creator. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dea db eef 09:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Dea db eef 09:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dea db eef 09:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, per the article creator (G7). Mojo Hand ( talk) 18:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Fallen Destiny episodes

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

Author contested prod; article is a subtopic of still-prodded Fallen Destiny, a planned Anime series for 2016. Both articles fail WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG, etc. Dea db eef 08:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Dea db eef 08:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete per G11 User promoting their own creation. [22] [23] [24] SephyTheThird ( talk) 15:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Disney Queens

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

Honestly I don't think this is a notable topic, one that needs a separate article. It could be listified into a "List of Disney queens" article or something, but I don't think there's coverage about "Disney queens" as a whole, instead they're about the individual characters. These could instead be discussed in a different Disney article or at List of fictional monarchs. At first, I was thinking of requesting a merge to another topic rather than an AfD, but I couldn't find an appropriate target, so here it is. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 08:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The categorization into "Good Queens" and "Evil Queens" seems arbitrary, POV and WP:OR. DOCUMENT ★ ERROR
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 15:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Manaf Alshamsi

Manaf Alshamsi (  | 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:NFOOTBALL, there are no references stating the subject has appeared in a professional league. Elspamo4 ( talk) 05:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Editors are free to take normal editorial steps such as merger if they feel it appropriate. Stifle ( talk) 12:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Our Fragile Intellect

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

According to Google Scholar, part I or Crabtree's article has been cited 11 times and part II 6 times. A couple of critical rejoinders to Crabtree's article were published in the same journal in 2013 and there were some articles in the popular press about Crabtree's paper, but I don't think that makes this unoriginal and already forgotten dysgenic thesis notable enough to have an article devoted to it. There was a previous deletion discussion a year ago which did not reach consensus, but I think the passage of time has made the topic's lack of notability clear.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 12:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. I have a very low threshold for notability for scientific research topics (essentially, I think we should have evidence that multiple independent research groups have studied the topic) but I think the bar for notability for individual papers should be much higher — there are so many research papers published that we should only have articles about the unusually well-known ones, and 17 citations is far from unusual. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 14:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nominator. -- ceradon ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – In the last RfD there were essentially 3 arguments made about the notability of this paper: (1) It was discussed in about 100 articles in the popular press, reaching a far wider audience than Trends in Genetics. Call this the secular meaning of "notable". (2) GNG notable, in that there was enough RS material to write a substantial article. (3) 17 citations in GS is not enough for an academic paper. Now a year has passed and we are back to argument (3). I think the passage of one year is a rather weak reason, given "once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage" ( WP:NOTTEMPORARY). It looks like (3) has to stand on its own merits, then and now. Is there a policy for papers that stresses the number of citations? Also it seems that we haven't notified Viriditas, who was the creator and main proponent of arguments (1) and (2). –  Margin1522 ( talk) 23:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Topic has received scant notice as of yet within the scientific community. Fails all notability guidelines. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 00:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 05:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The first AfD close was incorrect, in my opinion, as there was clearly superior arguments presented to keep the article. Nothing has changed since then, and I still think this article should be kept because it was once a notable subject. Notability does not diminish over time. Binksternet ( talk) 05:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree and disagree with Binksternet. The first close was incorrect, yes, but it's because there really isn't a solid rationale for keeping this based on how we traditionally handle these sorts of articles. I don't see what has changed to make me change my mind, either. It just hasn't received the sort of attention we'd want. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are very substantial independent coverage of this paper, and this passes GNG (how does it "fail all notability guidelines"?!). It is true this has not received much reception in the scientific community, but its sheer GNG notability should be enough to let it stand on its own. ☃ Unicodesnowman ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Gerald Crabtree. I agree with nom's and David Eppstein's reasoning regarding the independent notability of the topic as a scientific publication. Regarding Margin1522's comment: no, there is no policy or guideline that I know of where citation scores are explicitly used, but there is precedent for using them in AfD debates: a high citation score is a proxy for the availability of supporting or contradicting sources, which can then be inspected individually. Lacking high citation scores, another indicator must be found. I'll repeat my argument from 2013: if the only sources that can be found are news articles, then the publication must be regarded as a news event ("professor publishes controversial theory") and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE applies, as well as WP:NOTTEMPORARY: "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability". In this case, all sources are from November 2012, except a column in the FT which fails WP:RS because its author admits to being poorly informed regarding genetics (and betrays a lacking knowledge of ancient history as well), and a single letter to Trends in Genetics. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 13:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • How do we distinguish popular press coverage generated by press releases from independent take-up in the professional literature?. I proposed deletion of this article soon after it was posted, because I am part of a journal club that studies current papers on this topic and related topics. The author got a lot of press release support for publicity for a paper that was on a new topic (for him), and there was a brief flurry of mention of the paper in the popular press. A few response articles in scientific journals basically showed how much of the prior literature on the topic the author had missed. The paper that is the subject of the Wikipedia article here is not influential. If the standard for notability for individual articles in the scientific literature is being mentioned in a press release that is taken up by some popular publications, Wikipedia could turn into something like PhysOrg, I suppose. If the standard for notability for individual articles in the scientific literature is being mentioned in reliable, secondary sources edited by scientists on the same topic, then this paper doesn't make the standard. (Meanwhile, dozens of other papers in the topics I research regularly do make the standard, as do quite a few monographs that are absent from Wikipedia.) I guess it's up to the Wikipedia community to decide whether to be a reliable encyclopedia or a press-release digest, but I thought I was here to build an encyclopedia. (After edit, so new time stamp:) Just after posting this, I was visiting an online community for scientific discussion and learned about a United Kingdom National Health Service guide to research scientists about how to get press coverage. It is an ongoing problem in scientific research that some stories are a lot more likely to be covered by the press than others, regardless of genuine scientific importance. I'll share the link here. Your guide to hitting the headlines -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 15:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Gerald Crabtree. I came here from the ping to editors who commented in the previous AfD. Looking at the page as it has come to be now, the "reception" section is entirely about negative receptions in the scientific community, and the "cultural trope" section is basically about this work echoing cultural ideas that preceded it, rather than exerting influence of its own. I agree with Qwertyus that this AfD should evaluate the page as a news event more than as a scientific concept. I do think the topic is interesting and encyclopedic in the context of Crabtree's work, and it seems to me that the biographical page is currently incomplete without it, so a merge would improve that biographical page. But I think that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE points against keeping this standalone page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The problem there is that WP is not a news service. See WP:NOTNEWS. Articles are about topics, not about "stories". Another thing to consider is that news outlets have an abysmal record of covering science topics. Journalists, even science journalists, rarely have in-depth familiarity with science topics, and they often misinterpret or get taken by bullshitters and self-promoters because they lack perspective. That's why we assign A LOT more weight to academic sources when creating articles on science topics. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
It sounds like you were replying to me, but I am advocating against a standalone page, so perhaps I misunderstand what you mean. Perhaps you were replying to WeijiBaikeBianji? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Poorly received things can be notable. Criticism is normal and a good sign of notability. -- Green C 04:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Your point about negative reviews not being incompatible with notability is a good one, and it caused me to take a second look. The problem, as I see it, remains however. It's not like the paper generated a large amount of discussion and controversy. For a primary scientific paper, it's not too unusual for there to be some responses from experts saying that it didn't really prove what it claimed to prove. As the "trope" section of the page indicates, the paper simply did not exert a significant impact on the subject, even though it echoed ideas that came before. There are huge numbers of "published science paper"s, and for the most part, they are not notable unless they exert a subsequent influence. Scientists who are notable as persons and have biographical pages here have published many individual journal papers, and we do not normally have pages on each one, even when the work was very important. As for merging, it does seem to be a prominent part of Crabtree's work, so there would be no reason for its coverage after the merge to be too abbreviated. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Gerald Crabtree per the above arguments. Viriditas ( talk) 20:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes GNG with flying colors. The only question is why so many would prefer to ignore GNG and delete. The arguments are somewhat reaching IMO ie. a "news event" when it's actually a published science paper, not a news event at all. The nom is based on a special guideline but it still passes GNG. 10 sources +. It could be merged, but it would have to be reduced in size and content will be lost so it's not really a middle road compromise. -- Green C 04:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment High-profile journals and universities with good publicity machines manage turn several new scientific studies, especially ones with supposedly sensational implications, into media events every week in the sense that lots of newspapers and websites will reprint slightly altered versions of the associated press releases (or superficial commentaries thereon). I think it goes against the spirit of policies such as WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:NOTSCANDAL to turn this clickbait material into Wikipedia articles. Crabtree's article is an excellent example of this kind of study: devoid of scientific interest, but intensely publicized for a brief period of time because of its "bold" claims and intense PR efforts.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 08:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Week keep – I think this has been a good discussion that has made a lot of good points about the handling of scientific papers in the popular press. I agree with those points and mostly with the policy reasons for downgrading the article. Basically I am OK with merging it to Gerald Crabtree. But my concern (per GreenC) is that bringing over enough of it would overwhelm that article in terms of his overall career. Was it really that important in the course of his career? It seems like there would be problems with WP:DUE and WP:ARTICLESIZE. In terms of WP:DUE, I think it might be better add a sentence or two about this paper to his article and just leave this article as is, as what it is – a media event, a kind of footnote to a long-standing cultural debate. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 22:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I keep having trouble with the idea that a merge would cause a due weight problem at the bio page, but the material is still notable as a standalone page. If it really is notable, then due weight would justify significant coverage at the bio page, and if that would not be justified, then the notability here is suspect. In the event of a merge, I think one could reasonably omit the "cultural trope" section, since none of it is really about the impact of the paper. One could also summarize and greatly shorten the "reception" section. Doing that, it would not at all overwhelm the bio page. Also, other sections of the bio page could reasonably be expanded.
I think there is a good chance that this AfD is heading towards "no consensus". In that event, editors who favor merging or deleting might want to consider that a merge does not require an AfD discussion. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

List of New Zealand supercentenarians

List of New Zealand supercentenarians (  | 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 are only 2 confirmed supercentenarians included in this article. Removing all non-supercentenarians would leave insufficient material to justify 1 list let alone 3. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 05:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 14:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 14:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mojo Hand ( talk) 02:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Nicole Aniston

Nicole Aniston (  | 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:Pornbio notability requirements. Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 04:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Nominator has not made an argument for deletion. Linking to a policy is not enough, you need to explain why it does not meet the policy. Since you have nominated so many articles with the same lack of rational I am not going to do your homework for you. Chillum 17:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
While nice, non-industry coverage is not a policy nor a guideline. It is reasonable that she would receive coverage in and for the industry for which she works. PORNBIO does not supersede the GNG. Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets consistent with prior outcomes. No serious argument that the subject passes PORNBIO. Even some Playmates of the Year are redirected to Playmate lists, and Pet of the Year, especially post-Guccione, is a substantially weaker indicator of significance. The dump of Google search results without examining the supposed "sources" is no more convincing or valid that a "just non-notable" delete vote would be: the most superficially important sources, from the Huffington Post, turn out almost entirely to be spurious, just links to unrelated articles which embed a gallery of a few dozen pornstars pictures at the end; the Vegas Sun links turn out to be a small number of press releases/PR puff pieces amid scores of unrelated pages including links to the PR pages, and the links to British newspapers (tabloids) turn out to be nothing more than links to gossip columns which mention Jennifer Aniston in one item and anyone named Nicole in another. (There are also a number of reviews/articles regarding a 2010 film where Jennifer Aniston played a character named Nicole, from which this performer clearly lifted her nom de porn.) All the kerfluffle about the nominator's substandard nomination statemens shouldn't obscure the subject's lack of notability and the essential fact that this is just another porn BLP without reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 16:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
What prior outcomes? Please list them. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Justine Joli

Justine Joli (  | 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:Pornbio notability. Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 04:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Nominator has not made an argument for deletion. Linking to a policy is not enough, you need to explain why it does not meet the policy. Since you have nominated so many articles with the same lack of rational I am not going to do your homework for you. Chillum 17:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - trolling by nominator - user:Раціональне анархіст - mass reporting articles to AfD. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     19:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep appears to meet WP:GNG through industry coverage for her multiple award nominations. Mainstream media is nice, but is not a policy nor a guideline. It is reasonable that someone in the adult industry would be covered by adult industry media. PORNBIO is a supplement to the GNG and does not supersede it. Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. Take it as a learning experience--now there should be no question that non-English sources count towards notability. postdlf ( talk) 21:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Valentina Nappi

Valentina Nappi (  | 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; fails WP:Pornbio with no award wins. Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 04:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Nominator has not made an argument for deletion. Linking to a policy is not enough, you need to explain why it does not meet the policy. Since you have nominated so many articles with the same lack of rational I am not going to do your homework for you. Chillum 17:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. In line with established practice, recommendations from users with few or no contributions outside this topic have been given less weight. Stifle ( talk) 12:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Seventeen (band)

Seventeen (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)

There is literally nothing in this article. Their one song did not even chart. They had some variety shows, but that is about it. A merge with Pledis Entertainment is fine, but there is nothing notable mentioned about the band at all. The references contain four Allkpop links, one Soompi, one Facebook and one Baidu link. TerryAlex ( talk) 03:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. VikÞor | Talk 04:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. VikÞor | Talk 04:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment a group that has not been debuted is too soon for its own article.-- TerryAlex ( talk) 23:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Shouldn't that apply to iKON as well then? SEVENTEEN has released music, held their own concerts, attended concerts, members have appeared in music videos and they have appeared in variety shows. I don't see how when they are actually on the brim of debuting, deleting their Wiki page will be of any use. I've added sources, if there needs to be more I'll add more. Plenty of news sites covering them outside of tabloids and gossip sites. Aquamaraqua ( talk) 05:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Not sure where the idea of "not even allkpop report on this band" came from. They reported plenty, including that they have mixtape out, that they'd be guesting in concerts and that Hansol will be in variety. On top of that they'll be debuting soon anyways, so why delete the whole page and have fans go through the trouble of putting it back up again? Extremely counter productive and pointless if you ask me. Mihnchangbyul ( talk) 23:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: They hold concerts and livestreams as well as host their own internet-based show. Apart from this Pledis Entertainment do also treat them as an existing group by handling matters such as keeping a steady schedule and updating their site in the same fashion as their full fledged artists. Nyappychan ( talk) 03:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Reminder: notability is established through evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Self-published materials (youtube, livestreams, artist website) are not acceptable. For "keep" voters, you need to show evidence of notability by Wikipedia standards. Everything else is irrelevant. Shinyang-i ( talk) 05:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The Association of Swedish Engineering Industries

The Association of Swedish Engineering Industries (  | 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 GNG. This unreferenced and unsourced article is about a minor trade association in Sweden and written in very promotional vernacular. A thorough search fails to find the scope of RS to redeem it. DOCUMENT ★ ERROR 03:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Lousy article as it is now (though I removed some of the worst promotional language), but not without relevance. It's a fairly major trade association from a Swedish perspective and has been around since 1896. I imagine pretty much all relevant sources would be in Swedish, and refer either to "Verkstadsföreningen" (as it was called from 1896 to 1992), "Föreningen Sveriges Verkstadsindustrier" (as it was called from 1992 to 2002) or "Teknikföretagen" (as it's called now) (source: National Archives of Sweden). There seems to be a number of books on the subject, e.g. Verkstadsföreningen – 1896–1945 by Georg Styrman (1946), Arbetsgivarpolitik under full sysselsättning – en ekonomisk-historisk studie av Verkstadsföreningen by Torbjörn Lundqvist, economic historian (2010). A quick search in a Swedish news archive gives thousands of hits (including some false hits, but they seem to be a minority). / Julle ( talk) 05:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Julle, you seem to be well informed. As a Swedish native can you not add some sources to the article? -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Well informed and well informed. I work in tech in Sweden, so of course I'm aware of them, but there are probably tens of thousands who know more about this subject than I do, and I don't have easy access to the books written on the subject. I've added a brief paragraph on the history of the association and written the National Swedish Archive to ask if there's really no better way to link to their information since they restructed their website. / Julle ( talk) 10:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (or Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (or Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (or Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
-- do ncr am 18:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Pathshala

Pathshala (  | 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 organization created to promote the orgamization. failed verification. Most of the sources are not working, and blog sources. Rahat ( Talk * Contributions) 08:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Drik001 is clearly a violation of username policy. –  nafSadh did say 04:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Looks like Drik001 is exempted under Grandfather clause, but yet been blocked because of WP:SPAM. –  nafSadh did say 04:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete because, while this institution presents itself as a college, its degree course is not recognised and it claims to be in the process of affiliating (in some way) with the country's main university. If it was a recognised further education college I'd have probably said "weak keep", on the basis we keep lamost all articles about secondary schools, colleges and universities. Another factor against recommended a keep is the complete lack of reliable coverage about the institution. Sionk ( talk) 15:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect. Pathsaha itself do not warrant its own article. It is an organization of Drik and can be discussed there, briefly. Keeping a redirect will be good idea. –  nafSadh did say 04:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 02:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst ! 01:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 08:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Luc Beausoleil

Luc Beausoleil (  | 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 hockey player has never played in a top league and doesn't meet any other criteria for WP:NHOCKEY. His minor league awards fall short of "preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American)". T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 04:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig ( talk) 07:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The Central Hockey League is a lower level league per WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Merely playing a lot of games in this league does not denote notability. Second team in the Q league also does not denote notability. As for the Selke award, it's not a skill-based award so I don't think it qualifies (but if there's precedent for this, someone let me know). T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 19:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Also, according to hockeydb.com he is 8th all-time in goals scored. That meets the requirement of all-time top ten career scorer in a lower minor league. RonSigPi ( talk) 14:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Pre-eminent honour is meant to be those exact three things after much wikilawyering done in the past. Single season awards and scoring races were not intended, the reason for the career mention is to specifically point out being good a single year wasn't enough (with the exception of first team all-star, that being said the top point getter probably was on the first all-star team). Top 8 in goals scored would probably meet it as its currently worded, scorer in hockey usually means total points not just goals but I can see this as being just as reasonable. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
From my reading of WP:NHOCKEY/LA Alpenliga is a lower-level league. I still say keep, but I dont think the Alpenliga adds anything. RonSigPi ( talk) 22:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. ( non-admin closure) Dea db eef 01:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Nicolas Ruston

Nicolas Ruston (  | 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. Created by almost- WP:SPA and prod removed by IP. Tagged for notability for almost 7 years. Boleyn ( talk) 21:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 21 December 2014 (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 (talk) @ 15:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 12:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Hari Singh Nalwa (Scientist)

Hari Singh Nalwa (Scientist) (  | 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 BLP, which is written like a resume, makes an inadequate case for WP:GNG. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Strong keep, speedy close. Review of GScholar search results alone [34] makes a strong case for notability under applicable academic/scientific SNGs. While extensive recent additions to the article may involve NPOV/NFC issues, AFD is not for cleanup. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 22:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:PROF says that for an academic to meet GNG, their work needs to have had a significant impact on the field. A look at HSN's work on google scholar suggests that they have had such. This is also helpful; it says that he founded a journal, which is pretty significant for an academic. As hullabulloo says, the article is pretty terrible, but that has nothing to do with the notability of the topic. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Coverage is mostly routine, tangential or trivial, and does not add up to enough to base an article on by a long shot, and my own searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Fails WP:PROF by a wide mile, and all of our other notability guidelines as well. Agree that this is a vanity article written by the subject for self-promotional purposes, and also suspect sock-puppetry by the author/subject of the article. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify: He's actually the president/CEO of American Scientific Publishers. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 11:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
ASP is also notable, wonder why it still got no article. Noteswork ( talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Derp (hacker group)

Derp (hacker group) (  | 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 group is not notable. -- Kobra ( talk) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Fixed malformed AfD created 19 November 2014 by VoodooKobra. Listing under today's date since almost nobody would've seen it. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:47, 28 December 2014 (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 (banter) @ 21:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig ( talk) 07:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Jessica Oyelowo

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

Notability is not established. JDDJS ( talk) 04:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 14:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (state) @ 14:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 14:27, 28 December 2014 (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 (speak) @ 21:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 07:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Light+building

Light+building (  | 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:NOTABILITY Boleyn ( talk) 20:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 04:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (prattle) @ 21:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Probably notable. The real name of the event seems to be in German. If someone could figure it out and provide some sources then certainly keep. If the article stays as it is, delete. Borock ( talk) 01:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep: The largest trade fair about architectural lighting and building technology on this planet. Overwhelming coverage in every industry publication ( [40] [41] [42]), and significant coverage in many general publications ( [43] [44]). While the sourcing could be improved, the article clearly states why it is notable, and that rationale is easily verified. -- Latebird ( talk) 19:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 07:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Live on the Green Music Festival

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

Advert of very questionable notability. Laun chba ller 18:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 04:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
That's exactly what I meant by "of questionable notability". If there are no secondary sources, how can it pass WP:GNG?-- Laun chba ller 00:00, 29 December 2014 (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 (pronounce) @ 21:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Since there have been only two voes including the nominator, and the article was already relisted twice, I close the nomination as delete, but there is no prejudice against recreation or userfication provided the recreated article does not fail WP:GNG.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Darius Arya

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

Passing mentions and primary sources. EEng ( talk) 17:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 04:59, 28 December 2014 (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) @ 21:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Squid Kid

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

Could not find any sources that shows any notability for the subject. All the sources given in the article are either unreliable or directs people to the creators website or iTunes page to purchase it. GamerPro64 06:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (report) @ 14:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 21:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The distinct lack of policy-based arguments here almost led me to relist this again, but closing as a keep given that the nominator is now amenable to keeping and renaming. Michig ( talk) 07:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Grīmekhalaṃ

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

First of all, the title should be anglicized.( WP:UE) But I don't think this article is worth moving. Although there are some notes, I wonder the editor is really capable of reading these books. Akiyama(tentative) ( talk) 11:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Support Should be merged into Mara. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! ( talk) 11:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (comment) @ 14:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
(No)I made this page. Object.This page「 w:en:Airavata#In popular culture」video game listed.In fact, this page is the same, too.I object from the above-mentioned reason. Lantan2004 ( talk) 01:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
(name)The right name is "Girimekhala"(?) Lantan2004 ( talk) 02:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (prattle) @ 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I give advance notice I do not understand Pali. But the title "Grīmekhalaṃ" is a nominative case of "Grīmekhala", I hear. It means the title can be interpreted into "Girimekhala is". It's kind of weired, isn't it? From the very first, the title should be anglicized.( WP:UE)
It appears to me that Lantan2004 who energetically tussling with editing the article and らんたん the founder of the article are the same person. In that case he/she, on the one hand, said it was translated from ja:ギリメカラ on English Wikipedia, but on the other he/she said it was translated from en:Grīmekhalaṃ on Japanese Wikipedia [45]. I'm afraid that he/she hit upon the device to fudge up evidences.
However I do not insist obstinately that it should be deleated. I would say keep so long as any of you got started a discussion about renaming. And it should be undertaken as per the guidelines.-- Akiyama(tentative) ( talk) 09:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The Wahid Institute

The Wahid Institute (  | 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 institute with reference consisting only of its own page. In theory qualfies for A7, but put it here just to be safe. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! ( talk) 11:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

You're probably just trying to direct some attention to the stub article so it gets extended, right? Otherwise your assumption of non-notability is hilarious. -- PanchoS ( talk) 11:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (confabulate) @ 14:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 14:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Considering that a large portion of the article is a (possible) copyright violation, there is a lack of references to support the current content, and notability is uncertain in the comments below, this is a case where WP:TNT is the reasonable course. This deletion shouldn't be a reason for someone not to restart the page as a properly sourced article (indicating notabilty) and written in one's own words. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Radioactive ion beam optimization

Radioactive ion beam optimization (  | 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 of optimizing radioactive beams is not of general interest, and is not the subject of scholarly research. While the design and construction of RIB facilities certainly warrants coverage in wikipedia, the actual details of optimizing the beam are entirely specific to a given facility, and of little interest to anyone other than the operators of that facility. Further, the content of this article is so incoherent as to justify stubification at minimum, since there's little that can be salvaged here. PianoDan ( talk) 19:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I phrased that poorly - there is definitely research on improving ion beams. However, this is definitely a niche, very technical topic, and not something which belongs here. PianoDan ( talk) 19:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:24, 24 December 2014 (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 (spout) @ 14:06, 28 December 2014 (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 (chew) @ 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: there certainly is something wrong with the article (in its present state, at least) though niche interests per se are not a problem on Wikipedia. More problematic is the essay-like tone and structure, and that half of the article is a verbatim quote of someone's thesis—not promising signs of a notable concept. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 04:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Remove the copyvio, rewrite the lead and keep. (My assumption is that RIBO is a procedure or science which physicists are actually pursuing; if not, and the term is just one man's non-adopted pet label, then delete.)-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 10:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Sade Serena

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

Weakly sourced promotional article fails WP:ENT and WP:BAND Logical Cowboy ( talk) 03:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:12, 22 December 2014 (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 (spout) @ 14:14, 28 December 2014 (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) @ 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - If charting on the Heatseekers meets notability, then I would say she has it due to Germination (EP).-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 10:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Old Aztecs Rugby Club

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

Lack of available sources suggests that the subject fails to meet WP:ORG. - Mr X 16:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (announce) @ 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 07:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Prospects (TV series)

Prospects (TV series) (  | 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:NOTABILITY Boleyn ( talk) 17:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:35, 20 December 2014 (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) @ 15:57, 27 December 2014 (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 (proclaim) @ 21:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Bdlive24.com

Bdlive24.com (  | 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 sign of significance. More like Advertisement of the site. Ibrahim Husain Meraj ( talk) 16:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Changing to delete, per Rahat, for lack of RS. Keep – for now. The site itself looks slick and well produced, which would seem to indicate a significant number of users. I was struck by the claim that it has reporters in the field, which might indicate that it would qualify under WP:NMEDIA as a national news site. A couple of claims were recently tagged for verification, but the article itself has never been tagged for sources or notability. So I would recommend tagging it for those things and leaving it for a year of so. If it hasn't been improved by that time it can be relisted at AfD. The sources for notability might be in languages other than English. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 02:18, 23 December 2014 (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 (gas) @ 15:58, 27 December 2014 (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) @ 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Block N Load (video game)

Block N Load (video game) (  | 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 released yet - doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON at best. I prodded with those reasons, removed by Shadowen78 with the reason: 'The game exists and is available to pre-order on Steam (which ends on 12th Feb 2015 - this may be the release date but I have nothing to confirm that). The game is also in Open Beta where anyone can signup to play it.' Boleyn ( talk) 21:37, 27 December 2014 (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) 20:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discourse) @ 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. NeilN talk to me 21:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Wesley Degree College

Wesley Degree College (  | 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 article, it lacks notability. Other than its official website, you cannot read about this college anywhere. Bladesmulti ( talk) 11:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I tried some web searches for this article, all I could find was random facebook postings, other minor social networks such as educational social networks, etc., and similar links on their women's college campus. No reputable sources at all. RegistryKey (RegEdit) 14:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedied. This article was created as an out-of-whole-cloth copy of the college website. Nearly all of it has now been energetically removed (thank you User:Bladesmulti and User:Diannaa), but the fact is that the remaining stub is a word-for-word copy of this page (uncredited). We really can't keep it around any longer. I've speedied it. Sorry, but the template does say "the article must not be blanked" (original bolding), so what can I do? Removing the remaining copyvio would be blanking, leaving only the infobox. Therefore speedied. Please close. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC). reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_January_4&oldid=1142625879"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 January 5 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Procedural close. This AfD was never closed properly, so it is still technically open, but the article was deleted two years later at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Starr (artist) (4th nomination), so the point by now is moot. (non-admin closure) jp× g 03:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Matt Starr (artist)

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

Article is almost entirely unreferenced and fails to establish notoriety as an artist. Article is written primarily as a subjective praise rather than an expository biography of the artist. Links are weak. Seems fairly insufficient material to warrant an encyclopedia entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplepurplepurplepurplepurple ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - curious to know why someone would register a Wikipedia account solely to nominate an article for AfD. It hasn't been listed correctly with today's other AfD discussions, so is unlikely to be noticed (or actioned). Sionk ( talk) 23:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 06:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

No. MERCY (trainee)

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

As per WP:TOOSOON, I would suggest we delete this article. There is absolutely NO notability in the mainstream media Tibbydibby ( talk) 23:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Tibbydibby ( talk) 23:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Barns of Ayr

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

Unhistorical incident. PatGallacher ( talk) 19:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Tending to Delete - perhaps unhistorical is a little harsh, but the Canmore source (1 in the article) makes clear the original report is from an unreliable source. The event may or may not have occurred, and the location is at best imprecise, with nothing now to see. The notability of this place or incident seems therefore very doubtful. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 21:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The topic is notable as it has been investigated and written about in detail repeatedly - see The Burning of the Barns of Ayr, for example. If the Wallace incident there is apocryphal or mythological is not relevant to the issue of notability. The tale of Tam o' Shanter is also set in Ayr and, whatever the truth of the matter, is also notable because of its similar prominence. Andrew D. ( talk) 00:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I dare say Blind Harry isn't too reliable, and Walter Scott neither, but if they both wrote about the event and a grandiose tower was built to commemorate it I think it counts as notable, if legendary. No end of sources. Thincat ( talk) 12:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Reply What grandiose tower was build to commemorate it? Did Scott write about it? We're having some difficulty deleting fictional or legendary material on Wikipedia, with people repeating Blind Harry uncritically. We don't have an article on the fictional Battle of Loudoun Hill fought by William Wallace, even though enthusiasts erected a monument there. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't want to go near whether this stuff is fictional or not. WP covers notable fiction. Wallace's Monument, Ayrshire (see Barnweil at http://wallace.scran.ac.uk/trail/ ). And Scott wrote about it in Tales of a Grandfather, I chapter 7, page 82. [1] [2] Thincat ( talk) 20:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The fact that soemthing is legendary or even fictional is not a reason for deletion. However, if there is doubt about whether it happened, the article should express that. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but rewrite The available references show that this should be regarded as a notable incident - but one whose historicity is doubtful. The article should therefore definitely not be treating it as straightforwardly historical. The best approach would probably be to use available sources to summarise the incident as related by Blind Harry in The Wallace, mention significant later accounts (such as Scott's) and accretions (such as the one that led to the siting of Wallace's Monument), and discuss the various views about its historicity. PWilkinson ( talk) 23:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 23:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep or Merge somewhere. Even if not historically accurate, the story does has had significant coverage in a variety of sources. If it is solely based on Blind Harry's account, then it may be best to merge it with the article on his poem, The Wallace (poem). -- Vclaw ( talk) 13:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (but amend) -- The fact that RCAHMS has a page on the subject (attempting to locate the site) should be enough to justify keeping the article. Whether the events described in the Wallace poem actually happened is a different question; and one that is essentially insoluble. Wallace was an important figure in Scottish history. If there is a need for sceptism as to whether the events described happened, the appropriate course of action is to build that into the text of the article. I assume that Blnd Harry, the author was a minstrel. He may have preserved an oral tradition, passed down from an earlier minstrel. I do not think it is possibly there were as few as two such oral transmissions (but that is my POV). The fact that the subject has been under discussion for hundreds of years is itslef sufficient to merit the article being kept. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether the material found by Piotrus should be added to the list he mentions is a matter for discussion by editors of that list.  Sandstein  12:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Złota Baba

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

Highly dubious it is a "Polish goddess". The only refs I see are for polish texts about "Golden woman" in Siberia. -M.Altenmann >t 22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
For that, we would need an actual Russian source confirming that the story was real and not invented by the Polish traveler Maciej z Miechowa who in 1517 mentioned the roadside idol in Latin as the Aurea Anus. The Polish Museum of King Jan III's Palace at Wilanów says that it is impossible to verify anything today. Poeticbent talk 04:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@Renata: The thing is, there is nothing to "repurpose" in the current article. As for Aurea Anus, I started an article Golden Woman which already exists in wikipedia in several languages, unfortulately, poorly footnoted, so I created a minimal en: stub. In Russian language there is huge amount of texts, but I don't really care to wikipedize the topic. -M.Altenmann >t 04:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks, for the article (it's exactly what I had in mind). In such a case, a redirect would be best IMHO. Renata ( talk) 14:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
She appears to be associated with the Laima here; [4]. A modern neo-pagan book seems to claim her as one of their goddesses, identified with Baduhenna and any others. See [5]. Mentioned here but I translated it and barely understand it even then since it is in latin. [6]. I recommend redirecting to Altenmanns article. JTdale Talk~ 11:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
You should know that "modern neo-pagan" books is usually bullshit and at best may be a reference to this bullshit itself, not to historical or ethnographic information. The Latin text quotes Guagnini about Golden Woman, but it is known (and quite seen from this fragment) that he plagiarized Maciej Stryjkowski; the latter used Maciej Miechowita among other sources, and unlike Fletcher, the first two did not bother to indicate sources of their wisdom. But this piece obviously is lifted from Miechowita's. Re "Laima": it is not associated with Laima, it is listed together with Laima. I did see mentions of zlota baba, in similar contexts in old sources about Wendian and Sorbian paganism, which seem to match with your source ("Teutonic Mythology" Jacob Grimm), the latter refers to a Hanusch, I guess, Ignác Jan Hanuš, especially keeping in mind Czech spelling in Grimm: 'zlotá babá'. Anyway, it is hardly Polish baba. -M.Altenmann >t 16:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
re:Laima I did find a (quite long) text of Hanuš about 'Zlata-Baba'. He starts from Guagnini's ref 'de idolo Aureae Anus'; then naively asks a rhetorical question how come the Russian name is assigned to a non-russian idol and then proceeds through a long speculation, linking various things: deity Laima (literally, good luck, happiness)=golden-haired lady, 'povivalnaya bab(k)a'="old lady folk obstetrician", counterposing Zlata (i.e., golden, i.e., good) baba against Yaga Baba, i.e., bad baba, and so on, so forth, making up a universal Balto-Slavic deity. In any case, whatever rant he wrote, it is hardly a reliable source by modern scientific standards. -M.Altenmann >t 03:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the List of Slavic deities. I was going to call it a hoax, but it is briefly mentioned in Andrzej Makowski (1 January 2011). Bogowie i demony Słowian bałtyckich. Polskie Towarzystwo Religioznawcze. pp. 28–. GGKEY:UQHW8EBDLG7., through only along the lines that "all that is know about her is that a gooddess with that name was probably worshiped by one particular tribe". Jerzy Strzelczyk (1 January 1998). Mity, podania i wierzania dawnych Słowian. Dom Wydawniczy Rebis. p. 240. ISBN  978-83-7120-688-7. might be more extensive, but the snippet view prevents me from analyzing it more; all I get is "might have been a goddess of the Polabian Slavs - more or less what the prior source stated. So there's something to be said about "Golden Women" being a deity of non-Russian tribes, through the nom is totally right that it also appears in the Russian context. A Józef Ignacy Kraszewski (1860). Sztuka u słowian: szczególnie w Polsce i Litwie przedchrześcijańskiéj. Nakl. Wydawn. A.H. Kirkora. pp. 206–. gives about a sentence-long description (probably based on a figurine), but attributes it to a Russian (Siberian), not Polish tribe. Ditto for Jerzy Samuel Bandtkie (1835). Dzieje narodu polskiego. U Wilhelma Bogumiła Korna. pp. 118–.; both are 19th century sources. So it appears there's enough to confirm this is not a hoax, but it is unlikely the article can every grow beyond a stub (substub) size, and as such I'd suggest merging it to a list or another larger article; this topic doesn't appear to have stand-alone notability due to, well, nobody being able to write more than one or two sentences on this (probably all traced back to a single medieval mention or such). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Allow me to politely disagree. may be is not a hoax in a sense of deliberate deception, but it looks like scientific incompetence. These single-sentence mentions simply mean that the authors didn't know shit; they just blindly copied from each other by a long chain starting ages ago, e.g., from Hanuš (who clearly wildly speculated) or someone else. They even don't mention sources of their wisdom. There is no meaningful information about this "deity". Therefore these blurbs about "zlota baba" at best may be described in wikipedia as "some authors briefly mention the existence of...". -M.Altenmann >t 17:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:42 and Altermann. Bearian ( talk) 22:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to LGBT. Closing early as consensus is to Redirect and I see no sense in leaving it open any longer (If anyone wants to Redirect to #Variants then that's fine but probably wise to use the tp first.) ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 04:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

LGBTQIAPD

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

Unremarkable neologism, no coverage in independent reliable sources that would establish notability. Google results are mainly social media sites, which are not reliable. Everymorning talk 19:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Puppetry aside, this one almost met WP:NF. If an editor wishes it userfied to them for possible improvements, they need only ask and show me the additional sources that meet WP:NF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Cybornetics

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

Could find no sources that subject meets WP:MOVIE. Only brief, promo-like, references provided (the ones that are working). No critic reviews. [7] Coverage on the Internet seems to be limited to catalog-like listings. NeilN talk to me 18:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Film is independently distributed all over the world by itself and doesn't need any. User:MovieMoguls 19:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Existence does not automatically confer notability. -- NeilN talk to me 19:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The publisher engages in direct-sales to buyers (which they are being systematically punished for) and does not need the standard Hollywood distribution system, does that mean it should not be noted, should we provide receipts that the product is selling worldwide. User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Again, selling something does not establish notability. Selling your hand-knitted socks over the Internet does not mean your socks are notable. -- NeilN talk to me 19:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The film was theatrically released in various theaters around the world, and released internationally on various platforms such as VOD & DVD and also has a soundtrack on CD, there is also lots of information on the internet, as well as bus & subway billboards & advertisements. Your knit-socks analogy is false. User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Please provide links to the "lots of information" which appears in independent third party sources and is not based off press releases. -- NeilN talk to me 19:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is a private website and you have no unfettered rights here. You are welcome to write and improve articles in compliance with our policies and guidelines but not otherwise. The burden is on you to show convincingly that this film meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for films, and you have not yet done so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment No, I asked for "lots of information which appears in independent third party sources". Two sentences by an involved source doesn't cut it. Secondly, nothing has a "right" to an article on Wikipedia. Finally, I've removed your "keep" label - you only get one !vote in this discussion and you've made that up above. -- NeilN talk to me 20:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually, it does meet WP:NFILM The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The "notable" person whose article has been deleted six times and is going for a seventh? -- NeilN talk to me 21:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

If this person is so unnotable why when you Google, Bing or Yahoo his name there's several hundred pages that come up. The first deletion voted to Keep, so why was there a second deletion in the first place?[[User talk:MovieMoguls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwayne Buckle resulted in a no consensus (not a keep) which would commonly now lead to a delete for a BLP. And seriously, how hard is it to sign your posts? -- NeilN talk to me 21:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

A "no consensus" in 2007 does not mean it applies to 2015, especially since the subject has released many more works since then. [[User talk:MovieMoguls| — Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Film is notable for many reasons, but also film meets WP:NFILM The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. • Cybornetics ( talk) 05:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Per WP:NFILM: "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." An obscure film by a person of questionable notability does not qualify. And what's your relation to MovieMoguls? You've edited the exact same articles and drafts. -- NeilN talk to me 05:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. If anyone wishes this userfied to them for improvement and sourcing, they may ping me. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Dinner with Lloyd

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinner with Lloyd Could find no sources that subject meets WP:MOVIE. Only brief, promo-like, references provided. NeilN talk to me 18:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The film has been published. WP:MOVIE. User:MovieMoguls 18:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

"Existing" does not establish notability. -- NeilN talk to me 18:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The publisher engages in direct-sales to buyers and does not use the standard Hollywood distribution route, does that mean it should not be noted, should we provide receipts that the product is selling worldwide. User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Again, selling something does not establish notability. Selling your hand-knitted socks over the Internet does not mean your socks are notable. And can you please sign your posts by typing ~~~~? -- NeilN talk to me 19:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The most common way for a new release to be notable is "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Not just any review qualifies, which eliminates the concern about buying and selling. See WP:NFILMS for details. Simply asserting that the film is notable doesn't fly here. Your argument needs to be grounded in a basic understanding of our policies and guidelines. Also, sign your posts, please. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The film and it's distributor engages in new and uncommon practices of film distribution, does that mean the products are un-notable? Most nationally known film critics are in the pockets of the Hollywood system, and most finds ways to not publicize independent films, does that mean these films are un-notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reply Why the heck can't you sign your posts like other editors do, Moviemoguls? To answer your question, yes, that is exactly right. If the film fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for the notability of films, then the film is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. That is basic logic, and whatever grudges you may have about the "Hollywood system" have no impact on this debate. By the way, there are a large number of independent films that meet our standards, and many respected critics regularly review independent films. So, get respected critics to pay attention to this film, and then we will talk further. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Film is notable, many more search results on Bing than on Google (Why is that?)Also, film does meet WP:NFILM The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. • Cybornetics ( talk) 05:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Per WP:NFILM: "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." An obscure film by a person of questionable notability does not qualify. Search results are irrelevant for establishing notability. And what's your relation to MovieMoguls? You've edited the exact same articles and drafts. Please declare any conflict of interest. -- NeilN talk to me 05:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 16:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

List of interracial romance films

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

Having speedily closed the first AfD, and some concerns having been expressed, I am going to instead open a second AfD, on the grounds that this may be an unnecessary or non-notable list. On those grounds, I lean just the slightest to delete. Safiel ( talk) 18:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete There is no common definition of "interracial romance film," and this article does not even suggest one. This article presents no criteria for inclusion outside its ultra-vague title. So many modern movies include interracial romances as some element of the plot, their existence as a class is not notable. Townlake ( talk) 20:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteWP should have an article, or several, on the topic of: The history of interracial romance in American films. This list doesn't really work, and can't, since it puts very different things together. Skylark777 ( talk) 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nomination offers no evidence for its claim that the topic is not notable. I cited an entire book about the topic in the other AFD earlier today. Here's a bigger stack of sources:
  1. The desiring of Asian female bodies: Interracial romance and cinematic subjection
  2. New racism, intercultural romance, and the immigration question in contemporary Spanish cinema
  3. Romance and the" yellow peril": Race, sex, and discursive strategies in Hollywood fiction
  4. The Interracial Romance as Primal Drama
  5. Race and Romance in "Bird of Paradise"
  6. Negative Attraction: The Politics of interracial romance in "The Replacement Killers"
  7. The Color of Love on the Big Screen: The Portrayal of Women in Hollywood Films in Interracial Relationships from 1967 to 2005
  8. The role of actors' race in White audiences' selective exposure to movies
  9. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?: A clash of interpretations regarding Stanley Kramer's film on the subject of interracial marriage
  10. Memories of Interracial Contacts and Mixed Race in Dutch Cinema
  11. Fade to black and white: Interracial images in popular culture
  12. Homoland: Interracial sex and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Israeli cinema
  13. Interracial Intimacy: Hegemonic Construction of Asian American and Black Relationships on TV Medical Dramas
  14. Intercultural Romance and Australian Cinema
  15. Gurinder Chadha´s Bride and Prejudice: A Transnational Journey Through Time and Space
  16. Mixed Blood Couples: Monsters and Miscegenation in US Horror Cinema
  17. Interracial Couples In Romance Films
  18. Black and white on the silver screen: views of interracial romance in French films and reviews since the 1980s
  19. Representations of Interracial Romance in Marc Forster's Monster's Ball and Mike Figgis' One Night Stand
  20. Crossing the Color Line: Interracial Couples in Films From "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" to "Die Another Day"
  21. Hollywood Fantasies of Miscegenation: Spectacular Narratives of Gender and Race, 1903–1967
  22. "Wild" Women: Interracial Romance on the Western Frontier
  23. Fade to Black and White: Interracial Images in Popular Culture
  24. Animated Interracial Romantic Fantasies
  25. Racial Masquerade Italian Style? Whiteface and Blackface in Zeudi Araya's 1970s Comedies
  26. Guess Who's Off The Hook: Inventing Interracial Coupling In Global Art Cinema
It seems easy to keep going so say "when". Andrew D. ( talk) 22:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Seems vague and arbitrary. Is any romantic movie involving Vin Diesel and a white or black girl an "interracial romance film"? Vin Diesel is, after all, technically both black and a white. Do they have to go through some kind hardship in the movie due to being an interracial couple? Does it have to be a romantic drama? Snow Dogs is listed, so it looks like the answer is "no" to that. Nymf ( talk) 22:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The depiction of interracial relationships in film is a legitimate encylopedic topic with many famous examples, and substantial RS coverage: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Ill-defined inclusion criteria should not be a reason for deleting the list. Obviously films where the characters' races are incidental should not be included, so I suggest limiting the list to entries where relaible sources mention the films within the context of interracial romance to avoid the list becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a notable list topic per WP:NOTESAL as evidenced by Andrew. A quick Google search also revealed this, this, this, this, and this. The condition of the article is irrelevant to the topic's notability, and we can use secondary sources to determine if a film meets the interracial romance criteria. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 22:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

) 9:53 pm, Yesterday (UTC+7)

  • Keep. A list article comprised of Wikipedia articles about films that have met criteria for inclusion. The original AfD was based simply on a 'I don't like it' . Some individuals might be offended by the movies, but they are not obliged to read Wikipedia any more than they are obliged to watch the films. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article needs some inclusion criteria and a column of references pointing to the movie reviews and books to show that the film is notable for showing that romance. Also, discussion would be held on whether to consider or exclude romance with fantasy/sci-fi races and species such as vampires, space aliens, monsters, witches, those covered by the magical girlfriend article. I also agree that the mixed race should be a main aspect of the movie, and not that it happens to feature characters of mixed races, although if the latter garners recognition from the RS'es such as "it is interesting that the character has a mother of race X and a father of race Y" - AngusWOOF ( talk) 23:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment To be clear, I agree with "Keep" voters that the topic of interracial romances in film is notable and well-covered. I don't think that's in dispute. The question here is whether Wikipedia should include an article that purports to be a list of every film where an interracial romance is important to the plot. I suspect that list would run into the thousands of films, with the majority of them from the past fifty years. That is why I support deletion of the list; to be honest about what it includes, this list's criteria would either be far too permissive to make maintenance practical, or would have to be tightened so thoroughly that the title of the article would have to change. Townlake ( talk) 23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but include only entries where the interracial aspect plays a major role in driving the plot. I would get rid of Othello, for instance. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    I going to say get rid of Othello because it is not a romance. It is about an interracial marriage, and most interpreters think that is driving the plot. Although of course you could say that Othello's race is just incidental and the same things would have happened if he had been white. Skylark777 ( talk) 12:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    This dialogue highlights the main criteria problem with this list. For this list to work, it requires clear definitions of "race," "interracial," "romance," and "interracial romance." Right now the list is 0-for-4, and I'm not seeing anyone present clear ideas for what the criteria should be. Will this list just go back up for AFD in three months when clear criteria haven't been developed, or can we admit now that the concepts here are too subjective to make a list with this broad a title workable? Townlake ( talk) 16:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
You make a truly convincing argument, Townlake, but I'm sticking to my vote (really a procedural 'keep') if only on the basis that the original AfD was simply a subjective 'I don't like it'. IDLI is not a policy or guideline for inclusion/deletion and therefore IMO such an AfD is not valid. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Sorry, Safiel, but I rather feel that your interpretation is inaccurate on both counts. Remember that the encyclopedia is international and the laws where you come from may not be the same everywhere. It's probably best to refer to the definitions provided by the texts of national laws of various countries before making such a claim. In fact our own Wikipedia provides a very good overview of the actual facts. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 20:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I like Betty's proposal to include only films that are covered in the context of interracial romance, such as a specific list or one of the books or chapters shown above. We could say that we need more than just one film review stating an interracial romance in passing. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 16:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this list should definitely define its inclusion criteria, but the intersection of romance films and interracial couples does seem to be a topic worthy of list coverage, per the sources provided above. Suggest renaming List of Films about interracial romance in accordance with Category:Films about interracial romance and for better clarity that the romance should be a theme of the movie, not merely incidental to the plot. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Formerly this was a big deal in America, getting ample media coverage. So it is a notable topic. Others have already found ample sources to back that up. Notability is not temporary. There are many films today where the races of the characters doesn't matter, while others make an issue about it. If it doesn't get media coverage for the interracial content, and it isn't a theme of the film(such as Guess Who (film)), then perhaps it should be removed. That can be discussed on the talk page, no need to delete the article though. Dream Focus 09:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 16:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The Low Countries before (1600-1609) and during the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609-1621)

The Low Countries before (1600-1609) and during the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609-1621) (  | 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 can't find a focus or meaning in this article and therefore it is surplus to the already existing articles Eighty Years' War, Twelve Years' Truce, Eighty Years' War (1566–1609), Tercio, Dutch Revolt and a few more. Looks like a copy and paste creation. The Banner  talk 18:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - unwieldy and with few citations, digresses all over the place (e.g. the stuff on tercios). Article would need a lot of work by editors to improve the quality. Xanthomelanoussprog ( talk) 19:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No clear topic. Other articles should already cover the material. Skylark777 ( talk) 20:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The prose in this article is generally poor. I found quite a few sentences which would need revising to meet the standards of Wikipedia writing. Three examples:
From the lede:
  • The Dutch Republic, smaller in size than the Netherlands now, in this period in the Spanish Southern Netherlands only conquered Sluis in Zeelandic Flanders.
  • Already at the end of the 16th century a vague Greater Netherlands identity within the Burgundian Netherlands (1384-1477), the Habsburg Netherlands (1477-1555) and the Spanish Netherlands (1555-1581) became lost, when Spain after the Flemish Beeldenstorm in 1566, the revolt against Alva in 1572, the revolt of the Pacification of Ghent in 1576, and the Union of Utrecht in 1579, in 1581 could no longer prevent the independence of the calvinist Dutch Republic, no more than the Spanish Armada in 1588 could prevent England from remaining Anglican or its invasion of France from 1592 on could prevent that country from tolerating its Calvinist Huguenots.
From the section The Low Countries before (1600-1609) and during the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609-1621)#The Dutch Republic defeats Spain and the Southern Netherlands (1605-:
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY KEEP: withdrawing nomination ( non-admin closure). G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Pro Arte Alphen Park

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

Unremarkable high school. Contested PROD. G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This is a secondary school and per long-standing convention, high schools are considered notable as indicated in WP:OUTCOME. I should also note that, barring serious WP:BLP concerns, nominating an article for deletion less than an hour after creation is not helpful to the community and is a form of WP:BITE.-- Oakshade ( talk) 00:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Oakshade:trust me, it was not my intent to be BITEy. Also, I have never understood why high schools are held to such a lower standard than any other topic on Wikipedia. Your !vote doesn't address why this school is notable: it only points in the general direction of a noticeable (if illogical) trend. G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
By your statement "I have never understood why high schools..." indicates you are aware high schools are always kept, but you prodded and AfDed this article anyway. This is now looking WP:POINTy to me.-- Oakshade ( talk) 00:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Oakshade: no need to get your feathers ruffled, and please try to WP:AGF. I only nominated it in the (vain?) hope that we might be able to delete an article that clearly fails WP:ORG. G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 16:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Alexandros Tanidis

Alexandros Tanidis (  | 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 an article just a few hours after it was deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 16:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

C.D. Primeiro de Agosto past squads

C.D. Primeiro de Agosto past squads (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-standard content fork still valid JMHamo ( talk) 17:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 17:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Internet Friendly Media Encoder

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

Software article fails WP:NSOFT. The only non-primary reference in the article doesn't actually discuss this software. Vrac ( talk) 15:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS coverage. Only independent ref in article does not mention Internet Friendly Media Encoder or IFME. A search did not turn up any other significant RS coverage, only download sites/forum posts.

Dialectric ( talk) 03:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Saurabh Lamsal

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

Page author removed PROD. Non-notable vanity page of a sixteen year old boy. The "Givemesport Youth Writer of the Year 1013/2014" award does not even come close to representing the "well-known and significant award or honor" required by WP:ANYBIO and a few internet searches reveal this person is long way off meeting the WP:GNG. Bellerophon talk to me 15:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although the raw count here consists of approximately equal numbers of keeps and deletes, a number of the advocates of keeping the article have advanced rationales not based on recognized elements of WP's inclusion policies. The major problem noted by the advocates of deletion—that the sources available for writing about the topic fail to provide significant coverage independent of the person himself—does not appear to have been successfully rebutted. Deor ( talk) 11:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Seth Andrews

Seth 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)

Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. Refs are from the subject's own book and website, routine coverage in college newspapers, and trivial mentions in state/national newspapers (e.g. "calendar of upcoming events"). Yoninah ( talk) 15:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah ( talk) 15:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Yoninah ( talk) 15:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I fear he will now have even less than Zero Serenity, if that's even possible. EEng ( talk) 00:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep your opinions about my user page off this page. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 22:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by that, but since you bring the subject up, your user page is a bit TMA. EEng ( talk) 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ EEng WP:NPA. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that in the article the page views should not be used. However, to judge someone's significance in the world (which is what this AfD is about) I think YouTube views are relevant. I will have a look at this article if I have chance tomorrow to see if I can find some more independent sources to use. ツ Stacey ( talk) 22:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nominator's statement that "Refs are from the subject's own book and website, routine coverage in college newspapers, and trivial mentions in state/national newspapers" neglects a number of references in national and international atheist / skeptical publications. WP:AUTHOR is a better match than WP:ENTERTAINER for this subject. In that case the article is close to meeting its burden of showing that he "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers", and since it is such a new article I propose the best way is to allow some time to research further sources to close any small gap remaining, rather than deleting it prematurely, per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Failure_to_explain_the_subject.27s_notability. -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 05:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
We're waiting patiently. EEng ( talk) 13:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
...one of whom showed they don't understand WP's concept of notability, and the other of whom has encouraged "someone" to find appropriate sources, but at this point hasn't actually done so. EEng ( talk) 14:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ EEng WP:NPA. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ EEng: - I apologize if my points were not clear enough, and you thought I simply "encouraged 'someone' to find appropriate sources". I was attempting to get across three points:
  1. All of the references should be considered when evaluating the article (the nomination was deficient in that it omitted several of the most pertinent references);
  2. The article should be evaluated against the most relevant policy, which is WP:AUTHOR (this had also been omitted or incorrect);
  3. Once those defects are remedied, IMhO the balance falls in favour of Keep. Others' opinions may differ. Either way, it is a much closer call and so it is only appropriate to consider beginning the AfD process after "improvements have not worked or cannot be reasonably tried".( Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Failure_to_explain_the_subject.27s_notability) -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 09:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Right now the article has 36 sources, almost all of them passing mentions, routine announcements, blogposts, softball interviews, and so on. It may very well be that somewhere in there is the evidence that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" (WP:AUTHOR), or the sources qualifying as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG) and if so, please just point those 3-6 sources out. If you believe there are notability-lending sources not in the article, then please go find them and either add them to the article, or list them here. The rest of us don't feel like playing Where's Waldo to find them outselves among all the fluff. EEng ( talk) 12:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Would you be so kind as to list a few which are "significant coverage ... independent of the subject"? EEng ( talk) 05:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

*Keep (still): (Note to closing administrator: This is Gronk Oz's second Keep vote) I have held off because I am no expert in this topic, but since nobody else is responding I will have a go: it seems to me that the strongest independent references indicating notability are the ones cited in the "Recognition" section, including:

    • Readers' Choice Awards, About.com.
    • EVOLVE Award winners, American Atheists.
    • "Inoculating Kids Against Fundamentalism". The Huffington Post.
    • "Get them while they're young", The Guardian. -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 01:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment None of these choices show "widely cited by peers or successors" or "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". About.com is not a RS. The Huffington Post is a trivial mention; the whole article (4 paragraphs) is just a reverend's recommendations; it is not in-depth coverage of Seth Andrews. The awards listing is nice, but it just shows that Andrews won an award. The Guardian source is a video from the subject's own website. Only the Patheos and ESkeptic sites come close to meeting the criteria, and that's not enough to save this from deletion. Yoninah ( talk) 16:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I was gonna say exactly the same thing. This is nothing like significant coverage. EEng ( talk) 17:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I searched for more sources but found none that didn't duplicate those already used (mostly announcements of appearances). I checked each cited source. None include significant coverage to establish notability. The eSkeptic source is a review of Andrews' self-published autobiographical book. Although it includes in-depth information on Andrews, it is based on a primary source. The Tampa Bay Times is a reliable source but contains only an announcement of Andrews as a guest speaker and that he will sign books, far from in-depth. Even though The Guardian is a reliable source, Andrews isn't even mentioned in the cited link; the only connection to Andrews is an embedded link to one of his YouTube videos. The American Athiest EVOLVE award announced in the patheos.com blog post falls well short of "well-known and significant award or honor" to support notability. The About.com Reader's Choice award for "Favorite Agnostic / Atheist Website of 2011" also is not "a significant award or honor" to establish notability. Andrews just doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. DocTree ( ʞlɐʇ· ʇuoɔ) WER 22:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Stacey. I have to say this smacks of religious persecution. I will be polite but I believe that the user originally marking this and now Matt's page for deletion has religious motivations for wanting to delete notable atheists. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psugrad98 ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete - I've looked through the sources, and despite the huge amount of them, the best in my view that ticks all three boxes of significant, independent and reliable is this, and even then that strikes me as routine coverage that's part of a newspaper's general announcements. As a side issue, the POV in the article is also a problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Serious failures of the keep side trying to argue invalid arguments (Youtube subscribers, download statistics, religious persicution, personal attacks, claims that the opposition is personally attacking without any proof or citing to policy). Not seeing a significant claim under Entertainer/Writer justifications, so this is a delete for me. Hasteur ( talk) 16:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep You guys may have a point that he isn't that noteworthy, but all this discussion at least already proves that he's in some type of gray area. He's part of an Atheist community and that needs to be weighted in. To put into perspective, if you have a religious leader let's say a rabbi, and he's very well known in Jewish circles he might not get national media attention, and never be featured in a New York times article, but he might well be featured in Jewish publications and news and he might have a huge follow on his synagogue, but this can't be measured by reliable independent sources. Even though few people would question this Rabbi, notoriety because he can be well know among the Jewish circles. So notoriety must be put into perspective. If we don't allow for such subjective value in conext then you are risking to exclude notorious people just because they belong to a minority. With that said, Seth he was featured in the American Atheist Magazine issue on the first quarter of 2013 American Atheist Magazine Here. So this is a magazine in print and online that is distribute nationwide in newsstands and across the globe. So it qualifies as Nationwide (which is a bogus criteria since this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia) and also it's a reputable source. The only thing that you might object is that it may be not "impartial". But to compare it with the Rabbi example, it's like to say that he wouldn't be noteworthy because he's featured in Jewish magazines ans newspapers only. Of course the most interested people on this case will be people from his community, so it's natural that the other news sources on a majority Christian nation won't reflect him. But it doesn't mean that he isn't notorious to lot's of people, specially on his community.
    Also he is capable of doing speeches nationwide, like the Unholy Trinity Tour that's now flying to Australia and other atheist conventions with lot's of people PAYING to watch him. It's hard to document with documented independent sources, because this would require to call each venue were he has presented and have the banners, and get scanned spreadsheets with the attendances for each event, and that's ridiculous. But let's face it, you can't fill up a room with lots of people in several cities across the country and have them flying him to Australia if they weren't somewhat known. There's lots of people that are paying to see him! here. But if we don't weight in the notoriety criteria to a given group, for example all Zimbabwe singers pages will have to be removed, because none of them will be published in nationwide news independent sources, their notoriety will fade away compared to American singers which is simply stupid. So with that said, I believe that sources like Patheos or American Atheists meet the notoriety criteria for this context. If you don't accept that we should evaluate notoriety based on only major outlets in the media, then I guess 1/3 of the biographies on Wikipedia should have to be taken down. And to me, having some information is much better than have none. And our goal should be improve Wikipedia's content by adding information and not impoverishing it by removing this page. One more thing. I don't understood the comment Ritchie333 on POV. Can you indicate any sources of some criticism or controversy that aren't expressed on his profile? What other aspects from his profile you think that you think should be covered that aren't? -- Nixbrazil ( talk) 18:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Some examples of NPOV I spotted include "A student leader, Seth was actively involved in school functions, outreach, weekly chapel services, student council and the local Youth For Christ chapter" - but is that important to his notability? "Andrews became a big fan of contemporary Christian music" - a "big" fan, or just a fan, or maybe just a casual fan? "In 1997 the death of Rich Mullins shook Andrews's faith to the core" - "shook to the core" is a problem per WP:EUPHEMISM - "This event became a turning point for him" - turning point - "and that became a catalyst that helped him to leave faith behind, finally coming out as an atheist to his family and friends" ... not to mention all the quotations. Okay, we have one interview piece, that may be enough to tip into a case study for Atheism, which would probably be a better place for the subject. However, a big red flag for me is when I typed "Seth Andrews" into Google Books, I got no independent hits at all. For somebody living and working in the modern age, that is extremely unusual. That indicates that American Atheist probably run stores on lots of Atheists, most of whom are non-notable. All in all, I can't really see that, when taking into account what completely independent sources write, we'd be able to include anything more than an odd line or two in another article. PS : Regarding "There's lots of people that are paying to see him!", well there are lots of people paying to see my dentist, but he's not notable either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I like the dentist bit. There should be an essay, WP:DENTIST. EEng ( talk) 18:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I see. Yeah maybe we should review it if the page doesn't get deleted. Thanks for your clarification. I know you were been sarcastic on the dentist thing. But in order to filling up lecture rooms and conventions across the country it's a different story. So, I guess you understand what I meant. In order to fill some rooms and have people paying to hear your lectures, people must know you. If you try to fill up a lecture room without you being know and have people paying for your hotel, flying tickets it's going to be pretty hard to do it one time, imagine several times. So please, don't be sarcastic, this doesn't help the discussion. And I know this isn't a criteria for notoriety, but to show that he's well know among atheists. Perhaps in the future as he get's more mainstream his media coverage will grow. I'm following his progression, and I'm not even a native English speaker, but he grabbed my attention. He wasn't lecturing a year ago, and now is lecturing in other countries. If he continues on this progression I suspect that If this page get's indeed deleted, I think it will end up coming back maybe in a year or two. I was willing to translate his page (I mainly work with translations) into Spanish and Portuguese , and I then saw the tag. That's sad. I felt that he is noteworthy to be even in other languages, I guess I'll have to wait now. -- Nixbrazil ( talk) 19:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Nixbrazil: Regarding your rabbi comparison, I have been involved in numerous AFDs of rabbis and I can tell you that we have just as much trouble finding reliable sources for them because they are not widely written up in Jewish media, let alone general media. If the rabbi is the head of a yeshiva, we could claim notability under PROF #6, but in general we are still waiting for someone to rewrite the rules on rabbis. Yoninah ( talk) 19:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Yoninah: Thank you very much for your clarification. I still don't think it's fair to not weigh in the notability criteria when we are talking about minorities, I feel for example that if a small English speaking nation will have lots of difficulties to prove the notoriety for their national notorious people, than a Hungarian notorious people will have for the Hungarian Wikipedia. I know it's a little bit off topic, and I know Hungarian Wikipedia rules have nothing to do with the English ones. My understanding is that in this cases, since the subject notoriety is in some sense a subjective criteria we should be able to factor this differences in. And in the case of Seth Andrews page, he's kind of in this area were I see argument both ways. Maybe he isn't notorious enough, but to me he seems to be. I'm wondering if in those cases we should really force the notoriety criteria when we are talking about religious, ethnic and other minority groups. Perhaps this could be viewed as prejudice and indeed it can be hard to prove notoriety on those cases, as we saw some people trying to argue that-- Nixbrazil ( talk) 20:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable as an author: some very few self published books have made people notable, but not one in only 29 libraries a/c WorldCat. "Public Speaking engage,nets" do not make for notability and are usually unimportant enough to be even appropriate content. The notability would rest on the blog,and I'm not convinced of the significance of the awards. The article in addition is highly promotional: name dropping of guests at his podcast, the person appearances section, the overly personal bio most of which can only be based on what he chooses to tell about his own motivations, the promulgation of his own views in several places,the inclusion of quotes such as "good storyteller and conversationalist" , the use of the first name thruout. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. McCormack, Brian (2014-02-21). "Seth Andrews of The Thinking Atheist to visit Abilene". Abilene Reporter-News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.

      The article notes:

      The Christian faith may be woven into the fabric of Abilene, but nationally known atheist Seth Andrews hopes to unravel the strings of the devout at 7-9 p.m. Monday during a stop at the Abilene Public Library downtown.

      Andrews a former Christian broadcaster and the author of “Deconverted: A Journey from Religion to Reason” and host of the popular podcast “The Thinking Atheist” is stopping in the Big Country as part of a 40-city tour.

    2. Bishop, Mark (2000-03-15). "Andrews is part of KXOJ morning team". Tulsa World. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.

      The article notes:

      Regarding how he got his start in radio, disc jockey Seth Andrews said that in high school he had a deep voice.

      `The running joke when you have a deep voice,` he said, `is people telling you you ought to be in radio.`

      Andrews, who was born in Tulsa and moved to Broken Arrow with his wife a year-and-a-half ago, took that running joke seriously, and in February he celebrated his 10th year with Christian radio station KXOJ, 100.9 FM.

    3. Kirk, Scott (2014-02-24). "Atheist says his battle is not against Christians". Abilene Reporter-News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.

      The article notes:

      Seth Andrews, known to his fans for his “The Thinking Atheist” online community, made it clear Monday that his battle is not against Christians.

      “I love people,” said Andrews before speaking in the Abilene Public Library Monday evening. “I know some believers will hear me and they will feel personally attacked, but I love people.”

      Andrews, the author of the autobiography “De-converted,” was raised by parents who were religious. He was educated in Christian schools and worked as a broadcaster for a Christian radio station. He pointed to two events that started him down the road toward atheism. One was the 1997 death of Christian music star Rich Mullins.

    4. Beall, Nova (2013-07-30). "North Pinellas religion briefs for July. 31". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.

      The article notes:

      A former religious fundamentalist and Christian radio station DJ, Andrews came out as an atheist in 2008. He now has his own podcast/radio show called The Thinking Atheist.

    5. Whissel, Pamela (March 2013). "From Christian Broadcaster to Thinking Atheist: Seth Andrews is Deconverted". American Atheist. 51 (1): 5. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.

      The abstract notes:

      An interview with Atheist author Seth Andrews is presented. When asked about his religious upbringing, he refers to the spirited debates of his parents regarding faith. Andrews states that he first started to doubt religion during the death of Christian composer Rich Mullins from a traffic accident in 1997. He comments on his admiration for Atheist civil rights worker Christopher Hitchens.

    6. Betz, Eric (2014-02-14). "Popular atheist to speak at Northern Arizona University on Saturday". Arizona Daily Sun. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.

      The article notes:

      Seth Andrews was raised in a traditional Midwestern home by devout Christian parents. And he spent a decade as a Christian radio broadcaster in Tulsa, Okla.

      But then, he says, he started to embrace his doubts, ultimately coming to the conclusion he did not believe there was any evidence for God.

    7. 余創豪 (2014-04-29). "余創豪：混淆了描述和判斷——舊約聖經中離奇性行為". Gospel Herald. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.

      The article notes:

      塞思‧安德魯斯（Seth Andrews）是「思考無神論」網站（TheThinkingAtheist.com）的創辦人，他說，創立該網站的動機是為了彌補他童年和青年時代在俄克拉何馬州所受的隔離，他要通過互聯網去鼓吹思想解放。據他介紹，俄克拉何馬州有兩樣著名的東西：龍捲風和教堂。他的父母是基督徒，他說自己從孩提時代起已經被基督教包圍和洗腦，他曾經擔任一個基督教廣播電台的播音員，但後來他放棄了基督教信仰，並且創立了「思考無神論」網站，他還寫了一本書來記錄他的心路歷程，書名為《逆轉：從宗教走到理性的旅途》（Deconverted: A journey from religion to reason）。

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

    Cunard ( talk) 19:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

You obviously have no idea what "significant" or "independent" mean. These are all WP:ROUTINE, passing mentions, and puff pieces. If that's the best you can come up with then this is a delete for sure. EEng ( talk) 02:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per nominator, Ritchie, DGG, DocTree, Hasteur. Does not meet notability guidelines. A lot of puffery and smoke and mirrors, but no real substance vis-a-vis notable, significant, reliable, independent coverage. Softlavender ( talk) 08:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Aside from not giving any real evidence of the article's subject meeting relevant specific Wikipedia notability guidelines, a couple of the Keep !votes are from people (including an IP) who have barely edited on Wikipedia, which I find ... odd. Just thought I'd mention that. Softlavender ( talk) 08:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I looked at the sources listed by Cunard and Andrews has received coverage in local and regional newspapers from Florida to Arizona. The newspaper articles are written by different reporters for these newspaper. They appear to be based on interviews with Andrews since they include a number of quotes. These sources also assert his notability: he is especially known by fundamentalist Christians in the southern part of the US. It appears to me that these sources establish his notability across the southern US and especially among fundamentalist Christians, and so he satisfies WP:GNG. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 08:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

UNI (artificial language)

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

Obviously non-notable project, as stated in the article itself — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 15:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep without prejudice to immediate renomination if a valid nomination reason is presented. However, the reason given in this nomination is not based on any valid Wikipedia policies, merely a person's opinion. Non-admin closure. Safiel ( talk) 16:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

List of interracial romance films

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of User:Jason foren daniel:

This page is insignificant and alienates interracial relationship, I think it should be deleted. Jason foren daniel ( talk) 14:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

— Tom Morris ( talk) 14:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The nomination rationale is ridiculous, but let's go a level deeper. No criteria for inclusion are described in the article, so we have to go with the title as the complete list of inclusion criteria. That leaves the inclusion criteria unacceptably broad, and questions abound -- does the "interracial romance" have to be between the film's main characters? If two characters discuss interracial romance, is that enough for inclusion? And what to make of the link farm at the bottom of the article? I'm not sure this can't be an acceptable list, it seems like an area people could reasonably be interested in learning more about, but in its current format this article needs serious work. Townlake ( talk) 15:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 06:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

FBS Radio Network Inc.

FBS Radio Network Inc. (  | 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 can't find any reliable sources about the subject. Fails WP:NME and WP:CORP. — theenjay36 ( talk) 06:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 10:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 10:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 10:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There are articles on the stations that they currently or previously controlled but these are mostly unreferenced too. On another search, I'm not finding anything better on the firm, and if they were notable I'd have expected that to be evident on Highbeam's coverage of local media. AllyD ( talk) 21:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Robert Newmyer. czar  ⨹ 16:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Outlaw_Productions

AfDs for this article:
Outlaw_Productions (  | 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 primary sources aside from being mentioned in imdb. Quick google search brings up the company's website, facebook page, and defunct website. News articles are all chiefly about Robert Newmyer, the company's owner (the first of which is his obituary). Suggesting a Merge to the aformentioned article. Being part of a notable project is not notability. Being owned by a notable person is not notability. Being mentioned in press releases is not notability. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, no organization is inherently notable - including production companies. ZappyGun (talk to me) What I've done for Wikipedia 06:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  12:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Italian Walk of Fame

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

The article lacks citations to reliable secondary sources and efforts for finding such sources will fail because simply there's no reliable source covering the title. After a googling, except the official page, there are other results which are only a simple mentioning of the "Italian Walk of Fame" and not covering it. The title does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. Mhhossein ( talk) 05:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Per the above, I was just about to nominate this :). The article links to a number of Wikipedia article, but only for already famous individuals of Italian descent that have no specific connection to the organization. Taking a look at the article history, the article was also created by a user named Iwof who has claimed copyright on the content of the page that first appeared on www.italianwalkoffame.com. I eat BC Fish ( talk) 06:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is quite a bit of third party coverage of the Italian Walk of Fame. Clearly an individual being inducted into the Italian Walk of Fame is newsworthy, as are the induction events themselves. This all implies notability of the walk of fame itself. These are more than just 'mentions'.
 
http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/the_fixer/2014/01/04/italian_walk_of_fame_should_be_approached_with_caution_the_fixer.html
 
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/03/30/andy-donato-named-to-italian-walk-of-fame
 
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4452491-labour-leader-mancinelli-inducted-onto-the-italian-walk-of-fame/
 
http://facadeacademy.com/italian-walk-of-fame/
 
http://www.italianheritagecanada.com/gallery/photo-gallery/2012-italian-walk-of-fame
 
http://www.youradonline.ca/2014/May/28/Italian_Walk_Fame/
 
http://bkonthescene.com/2014/06/01/the-italian-walk-of-fame-wed-may-28th-2014royal-theatreriviera-parque-banquet-hall/
 
http://www.calgarysun.com/videos/sunshine-girl/sunshine-girl/5790925001/italian-walk-of-fame-inductees-announced/37757937001
 
http://torontocityevents.ca/calendar-event/italian-walk-of-fame/
 
http://thebulletin.ca/suns-donato-3-others-on-italian-walk-of-fame/
 
http://www.newspapers-online.com/tecumseth/?p=3251
 
http://www.simcoe.com/news-story/2542589-biffis-joining-italian-walk-of-fame/
 
http://www.liuna.ca/018-walk-of-fame.php
 
http://www.chinradio.com/uncategorized/2013-italian-walk-of-fame-june-15th-2013/
 
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/05/italian-walk-of-fame-honours-stars
 
http://tvtipster.com/index.php/joe-mantegna-gets-a-star-on-the-italian-walk-of-fame/  — Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Ross-c (
talk • 
contribs) 
14:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 16:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • 1; Not relaible. What's this? Just some pics!
  • 2; Same as above!
  • 3; Not deeply covering the article title. Btw, is this source reliable?
  • 4; This topic is mainly about Andy Donato and not covering Italian walk of fame.
  • 5; This topic is mainly about Labour leader Mancinelli, not deeply covering Italian walk of fame.
  • 6; This needs to be investigated! this source is deeply covering the source.
  • 7; Just some pics!
  • Others are mostly the same. They are just casual mentioning, as I said before. Mhhossein ( talk) 13:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 16:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Marisa Lang

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

I am nominating this article for deletion for the following reasons: This individual does not appear to pass WP:NOTABILITY as there are few if any notable external and independent references. The article violates WP:VERIFIABILITY because a Google search of the name seem to only point to a website created by the author. In fact, a Google search for Marisa Lang leads to a Google suggestion: "Did you mean: Marissa Lang?" She does not appear to the most notable Marisa or Marisa Lang either. The article was created by an individual claiming copyright on text that appears on www.italianwalkoffame.com on the article's talk page. The article is also written in a promotional style and violates WP:NPOV. I eat BC Fish ( talk) 05:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Dawoodi Bohra#Transfer_of_Dawat_to_India. czar  ⨹ 15:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Moulai Hasan Fir

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

Self published sources , written as propaganda of an unnotable person Summichum ( talk) 03:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ( talk | contribs) 03:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • strong delete  : has absurd and scientifically impossible storie about balancer water and mouth
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig ( talk) 12:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be found and cited for notability. According to a GBooks search, this person may be mentioned in The Dawoodi Bohras: an anthropological perspective and A Living Faith: My Quest for Peace, Harmony and Social Change: an Autobiography of Asghar Ali Engineer, but since neither book has a preview, I cannot check whether the coverage is in any way substantial. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 13:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Speedy deletion by User:TomStar81 " G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user (Goblin Face) in violation of ban or block" -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Polyphyletic evolution theories of human races

Polyphyletic evolution theories of human races (  | 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 was originally created as Polygenic evolution theories of human races which was speedy deleted as it covered the existing topic of polygenism. I'm not sure that this was an intentional WP:POVFORK but I don't think it would be appropriate to merge this into polygenism because it will result in a case of WP:UNDUE. T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 19:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Tchaliburton is posting lies. The page is not a duplication and covers a different topic. As I've pointed out now at least 3 times, evolutionary polygenism or polyphyleticism is not biblical polygenism [which is what 90% of the polygenism page covers]. Paleoresearcher ( talk) 22:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Let's be civil and stick to the facts. See Polygenism#Scientific_polygenism to see where evolutionary polygenism is covered. T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 22:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Which is a tiny section and doesn't fit the page which is all about the Bible. Polygenism and polyphyleticism (which is science, not the bible) are different. That section is also completely wrong. Ernst Haeckel is described as a polygenist, when he wasn't: "In a wide sense, the monophyletic opinion is the right one." (Haeckel, 1876:303). And can you stop pretending you care about improving these pages? Your edit history shows you've never contributed, but just delete other peoples content. I noticed you've made plenty of errors regarding the latter and I wasn't the only person to complain. Paleoresearcher ( talk) 23:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand per WP:Summary style. I regard the present article as an incomplete split, and an appropriate split given that polygenism article is not primarily about humans. It's not a POV fork:, but the split of a particular topic which has been discussed widely in its own terms. The question here is how to best handle the material. FWIW, I regard the speedy on the first version as incorrect; I declined the second one. BTW, Paleoresearcher, there is a difference between disagreements and lies. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • That investigation says nothing about this topic and the discussion note tells that "commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive". My !vote is based upon the content and external sources and so stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 11:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Péter Vasvári

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

Article mainly contributed by the subject of the topic itself. Absence of coverage in reliable independent sources. C 679 09:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ( Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar  ⨹ 15:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

United Cube Concert

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

It's a tour and it happened. There is nothing here to suggest the tour was actually notable, per WP:NTOUR. Drmies ( talk) 15:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i ( talk) 03:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 12:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Crowley (Supernatural)

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

very weak sourcing establishing notability with massive amounts of WP:OR. Frietjes ( talk) 17:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 04:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Those are blogs and coverage of the actor, with only passing mentions of the character. St★lwart 111 14:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 15:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Tony Stiles (presenter)

Tony Stiles (presenter) (  | 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 satisfy WP:GNG: there are sources in the article, but there aren't reliable nor do they cover the subject or his radio show in detail. I've had to remove a few completely unreliable sources like Alex Jones Infowars and Prison Planet website, as well as the community-run Ron Paul blog The Daily Paul. There's just not enough here to justify an article. — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 07:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 13:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Ryan Walsh

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Appearances for Sydney FC appear to be in friendly matches. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 12:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 12:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 12:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 12:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  12:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Tony Wright (sleep deprivation)

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

Classic BLP1E - notable only for a single sleep deprivation event?? Alison ❤ 02:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't think it's classic 1E. He's noted for holding the world record but also being someone who pushes the limits of sleeplessness (he wrote a book about it though the book is not notable). It would be a stretch to define every world record as a single "event" to be ignored. The better question is how much coverage does he have, how well known is he. The sources go beyond that 2007 world record (in External Links). -- Green C 14:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, the article doesn't say he holds the world record; rather, he claims to. So he's a disputed world record maybe-holder - Alison ❤ 06:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
      • You are right. It's not even a record that can be had since no official body recognizes it. Notability can still be had. We determine this by the quality and quantity of sources. It's a borderline case some of the sources like Daily Mail are not great, others like Der Spiegel, Guardian, ABC and BBC are good. And they are spread out over a number of years, sustained coverage. He is excerpted in Wisdom Magazine which claims to be "one of the country's largest free holistic publications with 150,000 copies printed bi-monthly". [20] Mentioned in this college textbook Discovering Biological Psychology. And this book Wide Awake. And a few other books on Google Books. There appear to be more sources in a Google Search of "Tony Wright" sleep not yet in the article, I added a couple. -- Green C 13:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 12:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
He's not in the Guinness Book of World Records, he is in books on Google Books, not news. -- Green C 14:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Robotech characters. czar  ⨹ 15:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Dana Sterling

AfDs for this article:
Dana Sterling (  | 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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. Reviewing arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Sterling I see nothing but "this is a major characters from Robotech, and how dare you dispute that anything related to Robotech is notable", and various variations of WP:ITSIMPORTANT; this entire AfD is a simple fail for the closing non-admin, illustrating their lack of familiarity with deletion criteria (the discussion should have been re-listed, not closed...). Yes, many of us grew up on that series. No, it doesn't amount to anything if the article fails listed policies, and this one - as almst all others about characters from Robotech/Macross - do. Fan sites like mania.com ( [21]) are no better - and I'd say even worse - than the often criticized wikia. At least, wikia articles can be updated and the authors more readily identified and contavted. This does not belong on Wikipedia, only on wikia and fansites, as there are no reliable sources (i.e., sources that are not fansites or primary). If you are sentimental about Robotech, go to http://robotech.wikia.com/wiki/Dana_Sterling - it's already better than what we have hare, anyway. At best, this should be redirected to a short summary at the List of Robotech characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 15:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Mark McAllister

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Murry1975 ( talk) 12:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Murry1975 ( talk) 12:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 15:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Education Of My Life(2015)

Education Of My Life(2015) (  | 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 short film BOVINEBOY 2008 12:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

i find about this movie some links on google! it can works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.36.77 ( talk) 17:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. While a number of sources have been presented, and there is no argument that they relate to Mr. Bonner, nor that they are reliable, the question of whether the coverage is independent and significant is a matter of fact to be determined by consensus of editors. All but one contributors to this debate having recommended deletion despite the sources, that consensus has as such been established. Stifle ( talk) 12:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Craig Bonner

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

This is a retired hockey player who never made it to the NHL. The highest level he made it to was the AHL where he played 12 games (far short of the 200 game requirement per WP:NHOCKEY). As a coach and general manager he's no more notable, having only worked in junior hockey. T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 17:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:34, 20 December 2014 (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 (banter) @ 15:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The article notes:

Tom Gaglardi has found his man.

Now, he's just waiting to see if Craig Bonner will accept the challenge.
The Blazers owner said Bonner has been offered the general manager's job with the club.

...

Bonner has been the front-runner for the job since Dean Clark was removed from his duties with the club in November.

Brian Fortin has been the interim GM since January.
During the past six season, Bonner was the assistant general manager and assistant coach with the Vancouver Giants. Bonner, also played for the Blazers and got his coaching start in Kamloops as an assistant.
The article notes:

First-year general manager says his Blazers are learning from first-half lessons

Craig Bonner is starting to see the pieces start to fall into place.

The rookie general manager of the Kamloops Blazers came into the job knowing changes needed to be made.

With two months remaining in the regular season, he's starting to see the changes make a difference to the Blazers.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Craig Bonner to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 06:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 11:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Five of the six articles are not independent as they are from one of the Kamloops Blazers' sponsors and the other is just routine sports coverage which falls under WP:NOTNEWS.

The nominator did make a minor error in the total number of minor league games played by the subject. He appeared in 74 minor league games, however the subject is still not notable as an ice hockey player. Deadman137 ( talk) 03:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • You obviously didn't look very hard, as you can see in the following links.
  1. "BLAZERS SOLID IN 3-1 WIN OVER THUNDERBIRDS". 2013-10-16. Retrieved 2015-01-06.
  2. "Promotional Events". Retrieved 2015-01-06. Deadman137 ( talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Here are more sources about the subject from The Kamloops Daily News and The Vancouver Sun:
    • "Blazers sign GM to contract extension". The Kamloops Daily News. 2013-05-14. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
      The article notes:

      The Kamloops Blazers have signed vice-president and general manager Craig Bonner to a contract extension.

      The WHL club announced Tuesday that Bonner has signed a "multi-year contract extension." Details weren't disclosed.

      ...

      Bonner played for Blazers between 1989 and 1993, winning league championships in 1990 and 1992 and a Memorial Cup in 1992. He came back to the Blazers to serve as an assistant coach between 1996 and 2002, and worked as a general manager and assistant coach with the Vancouver Giants between 2002 and 2008.

      The Blazers hired Bonner to be general manager on April 25, 2008.

      Kamloops' five seasons under Bonner have featured four playoff appearances. In 2008-09, the Blazers were 33-33-2-4, sixth in the Western Conference, but were swept out of the first round by the Kelowna Rockets.

    • "Giants focus on finishing Thunderbirds tonight". The Vancouver Sun. 2007-04-13. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
      The article notes:

      For assistant coach Craig Bonner, the game brought back memories of a triple overtime game he was behind the bench for as an assistant with the Kamloops Blazers in 1998.

      "It was the WHL final against the Calgary Hitmen," said Bonner. "We lost 3-2 and went on to lose the series in five games. So it's not a good memory."

      Bonner's longest as a player was with the Blazers in 1993 against the Seattle Thunderbirds.

      "Hayzer was the coach and it was the first minute of double OT and we were awarded a penalty shot and scored," said the former defenceman.

    • Pap, Elliott (2014-10-14). "Hay figures it will be 'different' night coaching against Giants". Calgary Herald. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
      The article notes:

      His general manager in Kamloops, Craig Bonner, is a former player, former assistant with the Giants and younger brother of Scott Bonner, his former GM in Vancouver.

      “Coming back home, I really didn’t know what was going to happen,” Hay said. “I just was excited about the opportunity of coming back here to work with Craig Bonner and the ownership group and the players. Did it feel right putting on the Blazer logo again? That’s kind of a good question. It was different.

      ...

      Craig Bonner has been pleased with the start and having Hay back on board.

      “It’s been excellent, so far,” Bonner said. “I played for Hayzer in junior and we worked together with the Giants and obviously we had a lot of success there as an organization. I think there is a comfort level between us. We’ve known each other a long time and we believe in a lot of the same things. As an organization, it’s been a very positive move.

      “Last year was a tough year for us but the players have really bought in to what the coaching staff is trying to do here, and they’re relishing it. We started with six of our first eight games on the road so, realistically, if we were .500 at that point, I would have been happy. But we exceeded that and I give the players credit.”

    • MacIntyre, Iain (2008-09-04). "Toigo faces his toughest challenge". The Vancouver Sun. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
      The article notes:

      Assistant coach-GM Craig Bonner, the superconductor through which everything was wired in hockey operations, became the Kamloops Blazers' general manager.

      Craig Bonner, who captained Hay's team in Kamloops nearly two decades ago, was so valuable, it takes two guys to replace him. But Bonner's position as a buffer between Hay and players can't be replaced.

      It might seem like a small thing, but isn't. Hay is a demanding, unyielding coach. What good coach isn't? Craig Bonner was the classic "good-cop" assistant, but knew Hay from the old neighborhood and was able to get his boss to stand down if the intensity red-lined. Or stoke that intensity when more was needed.

      "At times, if I did get emotional, Craig was always there to go in and talk to the veteran guys and the veteran guys would talk to younger guys," Hay said. "You have to know when to push hard and when to back off. Craig was a good sounding board for that.

    • Drinnan, Gregg (2009-11-16). "Bonner has message for veteran players". The Kamloops Daily News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
  • Drinnan, Gregg (2009-06-30). "Bonner ready for import draft". The Kamloops Daily News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
    The article notes:

    Craig Bonner has made his list and checked it twice.

    Actually, the Kamloops Blazers' general manager has checked it three or four times. Maybe more.

    It's all part of his preparations for the CHL's two-round import draft that began this morning at 6 o'clock with the QMJHL's Saint John Sea Dogs, having acquired the first pick from the Halifax Mooseheads, making a pick.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Craig Bonner to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 04:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You should read a little lower in the Wikipedia article that you keep citing which clearly states:
"Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability:
Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."
Every single article that you have presented fails the criteria outlined in the last sentence, meaning the subject fails WP:GNG. Deadman137 ( talk) 23:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • That isn't true at all. There are large numbers of things that are considered routine coverage which aren't just because of a lack of significant coverage. For example local politicians of small towns for example generally have local coverage of them considered to be routine coverage because all local politicians will have coverage. Or to bring it back to sports, the are things like local youth athlete of the week type articles, they will have significant coverage in those articles, but those are considered local routine coverage and wouldn't get that athlete an article on Wikipedia. Generally local news about local junior players has typically been considered not enough to pass notability, it usually requires them also having articles from papers outside their region. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Many of the sources I quoted above discuss him. Example:

    Bonner played for Blazers between 1989 and 1993, winning league championships in 1990 and 1992 and a Memorial Cup in 1992. He came back to the Blazers to serve as an assistant coach between 1996 and 2002, and worked as a general manager and assistant coach with the Vancouver Giants between 2002 and 2008.

    From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:

    "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

    Cunard ( talk) 01:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (speak) @ 14:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Ett barn är fött på denna dag

Ett barn är fött på denna dag (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article gives no substantial clear or coherent information in English. Offhand, I can find no substantial clear information in English on Google. I do not believe the article creator has the English skills to improve or expand the article or to make it into coherent and informative English, or sizeable enough to warrant retention on English Wikipedia. Softlavender ( talk) 11:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong keep one of the most famous Christmas songs in Sweden. J 1982 ( talk) 12:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

keep - article definitely needs c/e and refs but the song is one of the most famous christmas songs in Sweden. Notable.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 14:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete. czar  ⨹ 15:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Overture ( Davide Anselmi )

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

Previously deleted A9: Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance. Please see current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anselmi Davide (Drummer) for the background to this nomination. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dea db eef 11:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dea db eef 11:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my comment on the sister AfD and (after a quick good-faith search) no sources to support notability on this one. I think Mr. Zimmer would be quite surprised to learn of his most recent addition to his discography. Dea db eef 11:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:A7 by RHaworth. ( non-admin closure) Anupmehra - Let's talk! 16:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Danish irshad

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

possible autobiography, no citations Kges1901 ( talk) 09:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. (Non-admin closure) -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Shai Halevi

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

Subject of the article obviously fails WP:GNG and woefully failed the professor test. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 08:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The Professor Test

I have to strongly disagree regarding the professor test. In particular, Shai Halevi has without any doubt "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." He has made very significant contributions in many topics in the field of cryptography. Most notably, in the fields mentioned in the entry (fully homomorphic encryption, multilinear maps and obfuscation).

In addition to the above, if you go to the IACR website (the IACR is the International Association of Cryptologic Research; the primary umbrella organization for the topic research in the area) and then go to http://www.iacr.org/cryptodb/data/stats.php you will find statistics on the most prolific authors in the field. Shai Halevi is the 14th most prolific author in cryptology, over all time! (This includes all of the IACR conferences and workshops, which are the best in the field.) In addition, Shai was the program chair of the CRYPTO conference in 2009, and of the Theory of Cryptography Conference in 2006. He is currently the head of the steering committee of the Theory of Cryptography Conference. In 2009-2012 he was also an associate editor in TISSES (ACM Transactions on Information and System Security) [1]. Finally, Shai is also a director of the IACR. [2]

The only reason that Shai Halevi is not a tenured full professor at a top university is because he chose to work at the IBM T.J. Watson research center.

Yehudalindell ( talk) 12:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  1. ^ TISSEC past editors: http://tissec.acm.org/content/people/past-editors/
  2. ^ IACR board of directors: http://www.iacr.org/bod.html
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 14:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 15:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Anselmi Davide (Drummer)

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

provided sources are not reliable. Research has provided no further support of notability. This article was quickly created ostensibly to counter the deletion per WP:A9 of Overture ( Davide Anselmi ) and its recreation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

It's very clever and obviously a sock. If it gets blocked it will be the end of editing for the original creator. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dea db eef 09:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Dea db eef 09:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dea db eef 09:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, per the article creator (G7). Mojo Hand ( talk) 18:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Fallen Destiny episodes

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

Author contested prod; article is a subtopic of still-prodded Fallen Destiny, a planned Anime series for 2016. Both articles fail WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG, etc. Dea db eef 08:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Dea db eef 08:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete per G11 User promoting their own creation. [22] [23] [24] SephyTheThird ( talk) 15:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Disney Queens

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

Honestly I don't think this is a notable topic, one that needs a separate article. It could be listified into a "List of Disney queens" article or something, but I don't think there's coverage about "Disney queens" as a whole, instead they're about the individual characters. These could instead be discussed in a different Disney article or at List of fictional monarchs. At first, I was thinking of requesting a merge to another topic rather than an AfD, but I couldn't find an appropriate target, so here it is. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 08:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The categorization into "Good Queens" and "Evil Queens" seems arbitrary, POV and WP:OR. DOCUMENT ★ ERROR
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar  ⨹ 15:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Manaf Alshamsi

Manaf Alshamsi (  | 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:NFOOTBALL, there are no references stating the subject has appeared in a professional league. Elspamo4 ( talk) 05:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Editors are free to take normal editorial steps such as merger if they feel it appropriate. Stifle ( talk) 12:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Our Fragile Intellect

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

According to Google Scholar, part I or Crabtree's article has been cited 11 times and part II 6 times. A couple of critical rejoinders to Crabtree's article were published in the same journal in 2013 and there were some articles in the popular press about Crabtree's paper, but I don't think that makes this unoriginal and already forgotten dysgenic thesis notable enough to have an article devoted to it. There was a previous deletion discussion a year ago which did not reach consensus, but I think the passage of time has made the topic's lack of notability clear.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 12:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. I have a very low threshold for notability for scientific research topics (essentially, I think we should have evidence that multiple independent research groups have studied the topic) but I think the bar for notability for individual papers should be much higher — there are so many research papers published that we should only have articles about the unusually well-known ones, and 17 citations is far from unusual. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 14:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nominator. -- ceradon ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – In the last RfD there were essentially 3 arguments made about the notability of this paper: (1) It was discussed in about 100 articles in the popular press, reaching a far wider audience than Trends in Genetics. Call this the secular meaning of "notable". (2) GNG notable, in that there was enough RS material to write a substantial article. (3) 17 citations in GS is not enough for an academic paper. Now a year has passed and we are back to argument (3). I think the passage of one year is a rather weak reason, given "once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage" ( WP:NOTTEMPORARY). It looks like (3) has to stand on its own merits, then and now. Is there a policy for papers that stresses the number of citations? Also it seems that we haven't notified Viriditas, who was the creator and main proponent of arguments (1) and (2). –  Margin1522 ( talk) 23:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Topic has received scant notice as of yet within the scientific community. Fails all notability guidelines. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 00:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 05:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The first AfD close was incorrect, in my opinion, as there was clearly superior arguments presented to keep the article. Nothing has changed since then, and I still think this article should be kept because it was once a notable subject. Notability does not diminish over time. Binksternet ( talk) 05:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree and disagree with Binksternet. The first close was incorrect, yes, but it's because there really isn't a solid rationale for keeping this based on how we traditionally handle these sorts of articles. I don't see what has changed to make me change my mind, either. It just hasn't received the sort of attention we'd want. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are very substantial independent coverage of this paper, and this passes GNG (how does it "fail all notability guidelines"?!). It is true this has not received much reception in the scientific community, but its sheer GNG notability should be enough to let it stand on its own. ☃ Unicodesnowman ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Gerald Crabtree. I agree with nom's and David Eppstein's reasoning regarding the independent notability of the topic as a scientific publication. Regarding Margin1522's comment: no, there is no policy or guideline that I know of where citation scores are explicitly used, but there is precedent for using them in AfD debates: a high citation score is a proxy for the availability of supporting or contradicting sources, which can then be inspected individually. Lacking high citation scores, another indicator must be found. I'll repeat my argument from 2013: if the only sources that can be found are news articles, then the publication must be regarded as a news event ("professor publishes controversial theory") and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE applies, as well as WP:NOTTEMPORARY: "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability". In this case, all sources are from November 2012, except a column in the FT which fails WP:RS because its author admits to being poorly informed regarding genetics (and betrays a lacking knowledge of ancient history as well), and a single letter to Trends in Genetics. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 13:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • How do we distinguish popular press coverage generated by press releases from independent take-up in the professional literature?. I proposed deletion of this article soon after it was posted, because I am part of a journal club that studies current papers on this topic and related topics. The author got a lot of press release support for publicity for a paper that was on a new topic (for him), and there was a brief flurry of mention of the paper in the popular press. A few response articles in scientific journals basically showed how much of the prior literature on the topic the author had missed. The paper that is the subject of the Wikipedia article here is not influential. If the standard for notability for individual articles in the scientific literature is being mentioned in a press release that is taken up by some popular publications, Wikipedia could turn into something like PhysOrg, I suppose. If the standard for notability for individual articles in the scientific literature is being mentioned in reliable, secondary sources edited by scientists on the same topic, then this paper doesn't make the standard. (Meanwhile, dozens of other papers in the topics I research regularly do make the standard, as do quite a few monographs that are absent from Wikipedia.) I guess it's up to the Wikipedia community to decide whether to be a reliable encyclopedia or a press-release digest, but I thought I was here to build an encyclopedia. (After edit, so new time stamp:) Just after posting this, I was visiting an online community for scientific discussion and learned about a United Kingdom National Health Service guide to research scientists about how to get press coverage. It is an ongoing problem in scientific research that some stories are a lot more likely to be covered by the press than others, regardless of genuine scientific importance. I'll share the link here. Your guide to hitting the headlines -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 15:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Gerald Crabtree. I came here from the ping to editors who commented in the previous AfD. Looking at the page as it has come to be now, the "reception" section is entirely about negative receptions in the scientific community, and the "cultural trope" section is basically about this work echoing cultural ideas that preceded it, rather than exerting influence of its own. I agree with Qwertyus that this AfD should evaluate the page as a news event more than as a scientific concept. I do think the topic is interesting and encyclopedic in the context of Crabtree's work, and it seems to me that the biographical page is currently incomplete without it, so a merge would improve that biographical page. But I think that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE points against keeping this standalone page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The problem there is that WP is not a news service. See WP:NOTNEWS. Articles are about topics, not about "stories". Another thing to consider is that news outlets have an abysmal record of covering science topics. Journalists, even science journalists, rarely have in-depth familiarity with science topics, and they often misinterpret or get taken by bullshitters and self-promoters because they lack perspective. That's why we assign A LOT more weight to academic sources when creating articles on science topics. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
It sounds like you were replying to me, but I am advocating against a standalone page, so perhaps I misunderstand what you mean. Perhaps you were replying to WeijiBaikeBianji? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Poorly received things can be notable. Criticism is normal and a good sign of notability. -- Green C 04:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Your point about negative reviews not being incompatible with notability is a good one, and it caused me to take a second look. The problem, as I see it, remains however. It's not like the paper generated a large amount of discussion and controversy. For a primary scientific paper, it's not too unusual for there to be some responses from experts saying that it didn't really prove what it claimed to prove. As the "trope" section of the page indicates, the paper simply did not exert a significant impact on the subject, even though it echoed ideas that came before. There are huge numbers of "published science paper"s, and for the most part, they are not notable unless they exert a subsequent influence. Scientists who are notable as persons and have biographical pages here have published many individual journal papers, and we do not normally have pages on each one, even when the work was very important. As for merging, it does seem to be a prominent part of Crabtree's work, so there would be no reason for its coverage after the merge to be too abbreviated. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Gerald Crabtree per the above arguments. Viriditas ( talk) 20:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes GNG with flying colors. The only question is why so many would prefer to ignore GNG and delete. The arguments are somewhat reaching IMO ie. a "news event" when it's actually a published science paper, not a news event at all. The nom is based on a special guideline but it still passes GNG. 10 sources +. It could be merged, but it would have to be reduced in size and content will be lost so it's not really a middle road compromise. -- Green C 04:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment High-profile journals and universities with good publicity machines manage turn several new scientific studies, especially ones with supposedly sensational implications, into media events every week in the sense that lots of newspapers and websites will reprint slightly altered versions of the associated press releases (or superficial commentaries thereon). I think it goes against the spirit of policies such as WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:NOTSCANDAL to turn this clickbait material into Wikipedia articles. Crabtree's article is an excellent example of this kind of study: devoid of scientific interest, but intensely publicized for a brief period of time because of its "bold" claims and intense PR efforts.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 08:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Week keep – I think this has been a good discussion that has made a lot of good points about the handling of scientific papers in the popular press. I agree with those points and mostly with the policy reasons for downgrading the article. Basically I am OK with merging it to Gerald Crabtree. But my concern (per GreenC) is that bringing over enough of it would overwhelm that article in terms of his overall career. Was it really that important in the course of his career? It seems like there would be problems with WP:DUE and WP:ARTICLESIZE. In terms of WP:DUE, I think it might be better add a sentence or two about this paper to his article and just leave this article as is, as what it is – a media event, a kind of footnote to a long-standing cultural debate. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 22:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I keep having trouble with the idea that a merge would cause a due weight problem at the bio page, but the material is still notable as a standalone page. If it really is notable, then due weight would justify significant coverage at the bio page, and if that would not be justified, then the notability here is suspect. In the event of a merge, I think one could reasonably omit the "cultural trope" section, since none of it is really about the impact of the paper. One could also summarize and greatly shorten the "reception" section. Doing that, it would not at all overwhelm the bio page. Also, other sections of the bio page could reasonably be expanded.
I think there is a good chance that this AfD is heading towards "no consensus". In that event, editors who favor merging or deleting might want to consider that a merge does not require an AfD discussion. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

List of New Zealand supercentenarians

List of New Zealand supercentenarians (  | 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 are only 2 confirmed supercentenarians included in this article. Removing all non-supercentenarians would leave insufficient material to justify 1 list let alone 3. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 05:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 14:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 14:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mojo Hand ( talk) 02:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Nicole Aniston

Nicole Aniston (  | 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:Pornbio notability requirements. Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 04:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Nominator has not made an argument for deletion. Linking to a policy is not enough, you need to explain why it does not meet the policy. Since you have nominated so many articles with the same lack of rational I am not going to do your homework for you. Chillum 17:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
While nice, non-industry coverage is not a policy nor a guideline. It is reasonable that she would receive coverage in and for the industry for which she works. PORNBIO does not supersede the GNG. Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets consistent with prior outcomes. No serious argument that the subject passes PORNBIO. Even some Playmates of the Year are redirected to Playmate lists, and Pet of the Year, especially post-Guccione, is a substantially weaker indicator of significance. The dump of Google search results without examining the supposed "sources" is no more convincing or valid that a "just non-notable" delete vote would be: the most superficially important sources, from the Huffington Post, turn out almost entirely to be spurious, just links to unrelated articles which embed a gallery of a few dozen pornstars pictures at the end; the Vegas Sun links turn out to be a small number of press releases/PR puff pieces amid scores of unrelated pages including links to the PR pages, and the links to British newspapers (tabloids) turn out to be nothing more than links to gossip columns which mention Jennifer Aniston in one item and anyone named Nicole in another. (There are also a number of reviews/articles regarding a 2010 film where Jennifer Aniston played a character named Nicole, from which this performer clearly lifted her nom de porn.) All the kerfluffle about the nominator's substandard nomination statemens shouldn't obscure the subject's lack of notability and the essential fact that this is just another porn BLP without reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 16:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
What prior outcomes? Please list them. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Justine Joli

Justine Joli (  | 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:Pornbio notability. Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 04:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Nominator has not made an argument for deletion. Linking to a policy is not enough, you need to explain why it does not meet the policy. Since you have nominated so many articles with the same lack of rational I am not going to do your homework for you. Chillum 17:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - trolling by nominator - user:Раціональне анархіст - mass reporting articles to AfD. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     19:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep appears to meet WP:GNG through industry coverage for her multiple award nominations. Mainstream media is nice, but is not a policy nor a guideline. It is reasonable that someone in the adult industry would be covered by adult industry media. PORNBIO is a supplement to the GNG and does not supersede it. Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. Take it as a learning experience--now there should be no question that non-English sources count towards notability. postdlf ( talk) 21:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Valentina Nappi

Valentina Nappi (  | 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; fails WP:Pornbio with no award wins. Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 04:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Nominator has not made an argument for deletion. Linking to a policy is not enough, you need to explain why it does not meet the policy. Since you have nominated so many articles with the same lack of rational I am not going to do your homework for you. Chillum 17:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. In line with established practice, recommendations from users with few or no contributions outside this topic have been given less weight. Stifle ( talk) 12:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Seventeen (band)

Seventeen (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)

There is literally nothing in this article. Their one song did not even chart. They had some variety shows, but that is about it. A merge with Pledis Entertainment is fine, but there is nothing notable mentioned about the band at all. The references contain four Allkpop links, one Soompi, one Facebook and one Baidu link. TerryAlex ( talk) 03:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. VikÞor | Talk 04:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. VikÞor | Talk 04:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment a group that has not been debuted is too soon for its own article.-- TerryAlex ( talk) 23:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Shouldn't that apply to iKON as well then? SEVENTEEN has released music, held their own concerts, attended concerts, members have appeared in music videos and they have appeared in variety shows. I don't see how when they are actually on the brim of debuting, deleting their Wiki page will be of any use. I've added sources, if there needs to be more I'll add more. Plenty of news sites covering them outside of tabloids and gossip sites. Aquamaraqua ( talk) 05:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Not sure where the idea of "not even allkpop report on this band" came from. They reported plenty, including that they have mixtape out, that they'd be guesting in concerts and that Hansol will be in variety. On top of that they'll be debuting soon anyways, so why delete the whole page and have fans go through the trouble of putting it back up again? Extremely counter productive and pointless if you ask me. Mihnchangbyul ( talk) 23:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: They hold concerts and livestreams as well as host their own internet-based show. Apart from this Pledis Entertainment do also treat them as an existing group by handling matters such as keeping a steady schedule and updating their site in the same fashion as their full fledged artists. Nyappychan ( talk) 03:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Reminder: notability is established through evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Self-published materials (youtube, livestreams, artist website) are not acceptable. For "keep" voters, you need to show evidence of notability by Wikipedia standards. Everything else is irrelevant. Shinyang-i ( talk) 05:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The Association of Swedish Engineering Industries

The Association of Swedish Engineering Industries (  | 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 GNG. This unreferenced and unsourced article is about a minor trade association in Sweden and written in very promotional vernacular. A thorough search fails to find the scope of RS to redeem it. DOCUMENT ★ ERROR 03:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Lousy article as it is now (though I removed some of the worst promotional language), but not without relevance. It's a fairly major trade association from a Swedish perspective and has been around since 1896. I imagine pretty much all relevant sources would be in Swedish, and refer either to "Verkstadsföreningen" (as it was called from 1896 to 1992), "Föreningen Sveriges Verkstadsindustrier" (as it was called from 1992 to 2002) or "Teknikföretagen" (as it's called now) (source: National Archives of Sweden). There seems to be a number of books on the subject, e.g. Verkstadsföreningen – 1896–1945 by Georg Styrman (1946), Arbetsgivarpolitik under full sysselsättning – en ekonomisk-historisk studie av Verkstadsföreningen by Torbjörn Lundqvist, economic historian (2010). A quick search in a Swedish news archive gives thousands of hits (including some false hits, but they seem to be a minority). / Julle ( talk) 05:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Julle, you seem to be well informed. As a Swedish native can you not add some sources to the article? -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Well informed and well informed. I work in tech in Sweden, so of course I'm aware of them, but there are probably tens of thousands who know more about this subject than I do, and I don't have easy access to the books written on the subject. I've added a brief paragraph on the history of the association and written the National Swedish Archive to ask if there's really no better way to link to their information since they restructed their website. / Julle ( talk) 10:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (or Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (or Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (or Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
-- do ncr am 18:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Pathshala

Pathshala (  | 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 organization created to promote the orgamization. failed verification. Most of the sources are not working, and blog sources. Rahat ( Talk * Contributions) 08:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Drik001 is clearly a violation of username policy. –  nafSadh did say 04:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Looks like Drik001 is exempted under Grandfather clause, but yet been blocked because of WP:SPAM. –  nafSadh did say 04:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete because, while this institution presents itself as a college, its degree course is not recognised and it claims to be in the process of affiliating (in some way) with the country's main university. If it was a recognised further education college I'd have probably said "weak keep", on the basis we keep lamost all articles about secondary schools, colleges and universities. Another factor against recommended a keep is the complete lack of reliable coverage about the institution. Sionk ( talk) 15:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect. Pathsaha itself do not warrant its own article. It is an organization of Drik and can be discussed there, briefly. Keeping a redirect will be good idea. –  nafSadh did say 04:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 02:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst ! 01:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 08:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Luc Beausoleil

Luc Beausoleil (  | 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 hockey player has never played in a top league and doesn't meet any other criteria for WP:NHOCKEY. His minor league awards fall short of "preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American)". T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 04:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig ( talk) 07:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The Central Hockey League is a lower level league per WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Merely playing a lot of games in this league does not denote notability. Second team in the Q league also does not denote notability. As for the Selke award, it's not a skill-based award so I don't think it qualifies (but if there's precedent for this, someone let me know). T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 19:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Also, according to hockeydb.com he is 8th all-time in goals scored. That meets the requirement of all-time top ten career scorer in a lower minor league. RonSigPi ( talk) 14:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Pre-eminent honour is meant to be those exact three things after much wikilawyering done in the past. Single season awards and scoring races were not intended, the reason for the career mention is to specifically point out being good a single year wasn't enough (with the exception of first team all-star, that being said the top point getter probably was on the first all-star team). Top 8 in goals scored would probably meet it as its currently worded, scorer in hockey usually means total points not just goals but I can see this as being just as reasonable. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
From my reading of WP:NHOCKEY/LA Alpenliga is a lower-level league. I still say keep, but I dont think the Alpenliga adds anything. RonSigPi ( talk) 22:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. ( non-admin closure) Dea db eef 01:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Nicolas Ruston

Nicolas Ruston (  | 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. Created by almost- WP:SPA and prod removed by IP. Tagged for notability for almost 7 years. Boleyn ( talk) 21:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 21 December 2014 (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 (talk) @ 15:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 12:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Hari Singh Nalwa (Scientist)

Hari Singh Nalwa (Scientist) (  | 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 BLP, which is written like a resume, makes an inadequate case for WP:GNG. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Strong keep, speedy close. Review of GScholar search results alone [34] makes a strong case for notability under applicable academic/scientific SNGs. While extensive recent additions to the article may involve NPOV/NFC issues, AFD is not for cleanup. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 22:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:PROF says that for an academic to meet GNG, their work needs to have had a significant impact on the field. A look at HSN's work on google scholar suggests that they have had such. This is also helpful; it says that he founded a journal, which is pretty significant for an academic. As hullabulloo says, the article is pretty terrible, but that has nothing to do with the notability of the topic. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Coverage is mostly routine, tangential or trivial, and does not add up to enough to base an article on by a long shot, and my own searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Fails WP:PROF by a wide mile, and all of our other notability guidelines as well. Agree that this is a vanity article written by the subject for self-promotional purposes, and also suspect sock-puppetry by the author/subject of the article. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify: He's actually the president/CEO of American Scientific Publishers. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 11:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
ASP is also notable, wonder why it still got no article. Noteswork ( talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Derp (hacker group)

Derp (hacker group) (  | 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 group is not notable. -- Kobra ( talk) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Fixed malformed AfD created 19 November 2014 by VoodooKobra. Listing under today's date since almost nobody would've seen it. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:47, 28 December 2014 (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 (banter) @ 21:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig ( talk) 07:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Jessica Oyelowo

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

Notability is not established. JDDJS ( talk) 04:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 14:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (state) @ 14:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 14:27, 28 December 2014 (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 (speak) @ 21:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 07:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Light+building

Light+building (  | 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:NOTABILITY Boleyn ( talk) 20:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 04:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (prattle) @ 21:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Probably notable. The real name of the event seems to be in German. If someone could figure it out and provide some sources then certainly keep. If the article stays as it is, delete. Borock ( talk) 01:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep: The largest trade fair about architectural lighting and building technology on this planet. Overwhelming coverage in every industry publication ( [40] [41] [42]), and significant coverage in many general publications ( [43] [44]). While the sourcing could be improved, the article clearly states why it is notable, and that rationale is easily verified. -- Latebird ( talk) 19:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 07:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Live on the Green Music Festival

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

Advert of very questionable notability. Laun chba ller 18:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 04:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
That's exactly what I meant by "of questionable notability". If there are no secondary sources, how can it pass WP:GNG?-- Laun chba ller 00:00, 29 December 2014 (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 (pronounce) @ 21:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Since there have been only two voes including the nominator, and the article was already relisted twice, I close the nomination as delete, but there is no prejudice against recreation or userfication provided the recreated article does not fail WP:GNG.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Darius Arya

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

Passing mentions and primary sources. EEng ( talk) 17:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 04:59, 28 December 2014 (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) @ 21:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Squid Kid

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

Could not find any sources that shows any notability for the subject. All the sources given in the article are either unreliable or directs people to the creators website or iTunes page to purchase it. GamerPro64 06:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (report) @ 14:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 21:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The distinct lack of policy-based arguments here almost led me to relist this again, but closing as a keep given that the nominator is now amenable to keeping and renaming. Michig ( talk) 07:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Grīmekhalaṃ

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

First of all, the title should be anglicized.( WP:UE) But I don't think this article is worth moving. Although there are some notes, I wonder the editor is really capable of reading these books. Akiyama(tentative) ( talk) 11:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Support Should be merged into Mara. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! ( talk) 11:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (comment) @ 14:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
(No)I made this page. Object.This page「 w:en:Airavata#In popular culture」video game listed.In fact, this page is the same, too.I object from the above-mentioned reason. Lantan2004 ( talk) 01:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
(name)The right name is "Girimekhala"(?) Lantan2004 ( talk) 02:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (prattle) @ 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I give advance notice I do not understand Pali. But the title "Grīmekhalaṃ" is a nominative case of "Grīmekhala", I hear. It means the title can be interpreted into "Girimekhala is". It's kind of weired, isn't it? From the very first, the title should be anglicized.( WP:UE)
It appears to me that Lantan2004 who energetically tussling with editing the article and らんたん the founder of the article are the same person. In that case he/she, on the one hand, said it was translated from ja:ギリメカラ on English Wikipedia, but on the other he/she said it was translated from en:Grīmekhalaṃ on Japanese Wikipedia [45]. I'm afraid that he/she hit upon the device to fudge up evidences.
However I do not insist obstinately that it should be deleated. I would say keep so long as any of you got started a discussion about renaming. And it should be undertaken as per the guidelines.-- Akiyama(tentative) ( talk) 09:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The Wahid Institute

The Wahid Institute (  | 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 institute with reference consisting only of its own page. In theory qualfies for A7, but put it here just to be safe. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! ( talk) 11:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

You're probably just trying to direct some attention to the stub article so it gets extended, right? Otherwise your assumption of non-notability is hilarious. -- PanchoS ( talk) 11:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (confabulate) @ 14:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 14:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Considering that a large portion of the article is a (possible) copyright violation, there is a lack of references to support the current content, and notability is uncertain in the comments below, this is a case where WP:TNT is the reasonable course. This deletion shouldn't be a reason for someone not to restart the page as a properly sourced article (indicating notabilty) and written in one's own words. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Radioactive ion beam optimization

Radioactive ion beam optimization (  | 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 of optimizing radioactive beams is not of general interest, and is not the subject of scholarly research. While the design and construction of RIB facilities certainly warrants coverage in wikipedia, the actual details of optimizing the beam are entirely specific to a given facility, and of little interest to anyone other than the operators of that facility. Further, the content of this article is so incoherent as to justify stubification at minimum, since there's little that can be salvaged here. PianoDan ( talk) 19:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I phrased that poorly - there is definitely research on improving ion beams. However, this is definitely a niche, very technical topic, and not something which belongs here. PianoDan ( talk) 19:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:24, 24 December 2014 (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 (spout) @ 14:06, 28 December 2014 (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 (chew) @ 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: there certainly is something wrong with the article (in its present state, at least) though niche interests per se are not a problem on Wikipedia. More problematic is the essay-like tone and structure, and that half of the article is a verbatim quote of someone's thesis—not promising signs of a notable concept. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 04:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Remove the copyvio, rewrite the lead and keep. (My assumption is that RIBO is a procedure or science which physicists are actually pursuing; if not, and the term is just one man's non-adopted pet label, then delete.)-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 10:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Sade Serena

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

Weakly sourced promotional article fails WP:ENT and WP:BAND Logical Cowboy ( talk) 03:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:12, 22 December 2014 (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 (spout) @ 14:14, 28 December 2014 (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) @ 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - If charting on the Heatseekers meets notability, then I would say she has it due to Germination (EP).-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 10:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Old Aztecs Rugby Club

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

Lack of available sources suggests that the subject fails to meet WP:ORG. - Mr X 16:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (announce) @ 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 07:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Prospects (TV series)

Prospects (TV series) (  | 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:NOTABILITY Boleyn ( talk) 17:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:35, 20 December 2014 (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) @ 15:57, 27 December 2014 (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 (proclaim) @ 21:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Bdlive24.com

Bdlive24.com (  | 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 sign of significance. More like Advertisement of the site. Ibrahim Husain Meraj ( talk) 16:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Changing to delete, per Rahat, for lack of RS. Keep – for now. The site itself looks slick and well produced, which would seem to indicate a significant number of users. I was struck by the claim that it has reporters in the field, which might indicate that it would qualify under WP:NMEDIA as a national news site. A couple of claims were recently tagged for verification, but the article itself has never been tagged for sources or notability. So I would recommend tagging it for those things and leaving it for a year of so. If it hasn't been improved by that time it can be relisted at AfD. The sources for notability might be in languages other than English. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 02:18, 23 December 2014 (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 (gas) @ 15:58, 27 December 2014 (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) @ 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Block N Load (video game)

Block N Load (video game) (  | 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 released yet - doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON at best. I prodded with those reasons, removed by Shadowen78 with the reason: 'The game exists and is available to pre-order on Steam (which ends on 12th Feb 2015 - this may be the release date but I have nothing to confirm that). The game is also in Open Beta where anyone can signup to play it.' Boleyn ( talk) 21:37, 27 December 2014 (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) 20:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discourse) @ 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. NeilN talk to me 21:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Wesley Degree College

Wesley Degree College (  | 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 article, it lacks notability. Other than its official website, you cannot read about this college anywhere. Bladesmulti ( talk) 11:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I tried some web searches for this article, all I could find was random facebook postings, other minor social networks such as educational social networks, etc., and similar links on their women's college campus. No reputable sources at all. RegistryKey (RegEdit) 14:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedied. This article was created as an out-of-whole-cloth copy of the college website. Nearly all of it has now been energetically removed (thank you User:Bladesmulti and User:Diannaa), but the fact is that the remaining stub is a word-for-word copy of this page (uncredited). We really can't keep it around any longer. I've speedied it. Sorry, but the template does say "the article must not be blanked" (original bolding), so what can I do? Removing the remaining copyvio would be blanking, leaving only the infobox. Therefore speedied. Please close. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC). reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_January_4&oldid=1142625879"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE