Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 July 12 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to List of bus routes in Taichung. Closing early as overall consensus is to redirect, No point in dragging it on, ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 15:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Taichung City Bus Route 17

Taichung City Bus Route 17 (  | 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 need for this when we have List of bus routes in Taichung, Sources are pretty much either service updates or times & maps,
I personally prefer redirecting but would rather see what others think first. – Davey2010 Talk 23:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

vary detail of information. Article of individual bus route can provide more detail and precious information such timetable, name of each stops, history and notable character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The Local Vocal

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

Entirely unsourced one-line stub about a local recording studio, which makes no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:CORP. Has been tagged as a possible WP:HOAX, although I don't know if we can really assume that definitively — it may just be a non-notable local business. But either way it's a delete if it can't be sourced. Bearcat ( talk) 23:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as lacking sources. Stuartyeates ( talk) 03:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The original version of the article (which you can see here) shows that this was one person's attempt to promote their own business on Wikipedia. Even their username "Afoxbiz" confirms this. Basically this is/was a recording studio that some guy set up in his house. If no one objects I'm going to go ahead and snow close this as delete since there's zero coverage out there (as this was some guy with a recording set up in his house) other than Wikipedia mirrors and was an over the top, blatantly promotional attempt to provide his business with legitimacy in the early days of Wikipedia. I'll reopen this if anyone can show otherwise, but from what I can see this isn't going to end with anything other than a delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Goldbach (Tollense)

Goldbach (Tollense) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete - Only one sentence in the article. Don't really need an article about a river. It is already mentioned in List of rivers of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern so not needed to have a very small page telling you that a river is a river. Thursby16 ( talk) 22:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Most rivers are notable, and this one can be expanded with reliable sources, for example the sources on the German Wiki. Current article is bad, but that isn't grounds for deletion. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Joseph2302. Yes, the sources in the German WP page seem to indicate notability. Being a one-sentence article is reason for a stub notice, not deletion.-- Oakshade ( talk) 01:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Named rivers are almost always going to be notable. This is the kind of basic stuff that should be in an encyclopedia. The German article indicates multiple sources. I respectfully suggest that the nom be withdrawn. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the article, while needing improvement, does pass the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 07:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Westfield Mission Valley

AfDs for this article:
Westfield Mission Valley (  | 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 want a TNT, due to the fact that it's probably not notable, and the current article was written by conflicted editors and has 0 encyclopedic value. My solution would be to redirect the page to Westfield Group until such a time that a neutral tone article showing notability has been created. I was bold and tried to do this, but got reverted. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • delete just corporate spam, fails WP:ORG Jytdog ( talk) 23:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • RESTORE CONTENT THAT WAS DELETED This is a major mall in the city. It has been the focus of extreme media coverage. Now the article can't even be improved upon or have citations added since the article has been fully locked. Removing all of the content while a AFD is ongoing to make the article look less notable is a major good faith violation.-- JOJ Hutton 01:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, clearly notable, plenty of hits in GNews, GBooks, GScholar, and HighBeam. Nominator should do WP:BEFORE. The fact that there may have been a COI problem does not mean you delete every article as a knee-jerk reaction. GregJackP  Boomer! 02:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GregJackP  Boomer! 02:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Then you are either not looking sufficiently well or defining "independent" in a non-standard way. Carrite ( talk) 18:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - First off, it is complete bullshit to lock down the gutted version of this article ahead of an AfD. Material deleted may have been unsourced, but it was uncontroversial and not necessarily wrong, and it is utterly impossible to improve the article at AfD in this state. This is absolutely a violation of the spirit of AfD and a classic example of the abuse of administrative tools to settle a content matter. Full protection should immediately be lifted and content restored for the duration of this debate. Carrite ( talk) 17:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - For much of the developed world malls are the downtown shopping areas of today. We treat towns with kid gloves but here we are intent upon using a steamroller, largely because of the activities of anti-COI partisans. Well, guess what, this shopping mall passes our general notability guideline for having been dealt with substantially in multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability. HERE is coverage of an art installation at the mall by the San Diego Cultural Arts Alliance via KPBS. And MORE on that project via Pomerado News. And THIS IS the San Diego Union-Times, reporting extensively and substantially on a mall expansion in 2008, noting that this facility has been in place since the John F. Kennedy administration. And HERE is coverage of Mission Valley Center in the "Mall Hall of Fame." This article cites other works as sources (deadlinks, unfortunately), including www.history.sandiego.edu/ and Mitch Glaser's "Paradox Unbound" via history.sandiego.edu/ and Libby Brydolf's "Mission Valley's Transformation" (1998), via www.sandiegometro.com/ And so on and on and on by anybody willing to follow WP:BEFORE and actually search the internet for sources. Carrite ( talk) 18:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
It doesn't count towards GNG, but HERE'S a photo of the mall at opening day in March 1961 — over half a century ago. And AGAIN the San Diego Union-Tribune talking about the 1958 decision to authorize the mall, regarded as a seminal event in local history. COVERAGE of a temporary skating rink and Mission Valley Mall from Mission Valley News. And SAN DIEGO TRIBUNE covering the Mall as a party in a lawsuit over a shooting there which I have not mentioned previously. The number of news stories in the San Diego press between 1958 and launch in 1961 are no doubt substantial. And on and on... I've gotta go to work. Carrite ( talk) 18:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Westfield Plaza Bonita

Westfield Plaza Bonita (  | 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 want a TNT, due to the fact that it's probably not notable, and the current article was written by conflicted editors and has 0 encyclopedic value. My solution would be to redirect the page to Westfield Group until such a time that a neutral tone article showing notability has been created. I was bold and tried to do this, but got reverted. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, clearly notable, when searched with "Plaza Bonita", plenty of hits in GNews, GBooks, GScholar, and HighBeam. Nominator should do WP:BEFORE. The fact that there may have been a COI problem does not mean you delete every article as a knee-jerk reaction. GregJackP  Boomer! 01:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GregJackP  Boomer! 01:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the article should be kept as it meets the notability guidelines. Kudpung's advice is good for the subject of the article. Davewild ( talk) 07:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Mike Johnson (yodeler)

Mike Johnson (yodeler) (  | 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 neutral and procedural nomination made on behalf of the contributing editor, who has requested on his talk page that this be deleted. He is, however, not the only contributor, so speedy deletion as originator is closed to him. The draft he created was accepted at WP:AFC, and much of the unrerefenced (and much desired by him) facts were stripped out. He now wishes those alleged facts to be reinstated or the article to be deleted.

I will record my own opinion below in due course. I am simply making this nomination on his behalf since he expresses the desire strongly but appears to be unaware of how to proceed

It has been explained to him that it is unlikely to be deleted because the gentleman is notable. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep After studying the plaudits and accolades given to the gentleman there is more that sufficient for keeping this article being a no brainer. He passes the criteria for notability. He is a public figure and well known in his musical genre. We should not delete based on the whim of an editor who wishes to exert WP:OWN over this article. Fiddle Faddle 23:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets Notability easily as a relatively unique performer who's attracted national-level attention as an African-American country music yodeler. Subject is a public figure, so I don't agree with deleting the article simply because he's not pleased with our removing unsourced/POV content that he wishes to have included. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 00:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 16:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (opining as a proxy for the initial contributing editor) It is abundantly clear everywhere except in this discussion, that the original editor and the subject of this autobiography wishes to delete the material. He has placed this information on user talk pages, though not with a rationale other than not being happy with the content of the current article. I am thus recording this opinion here without copying and pasting the material, and in the interests of completeness. Should that editor post here then this proxy deletion !vote is irrelevant and may be struck by any editor without reference to me and must be disregarded by the closing admin. Fiddle Faddle 17:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, I definitely want the article deleted if you insist on using the butchered result currently posted. I submitted a 3-page piece which MatthewVanitis edited and it looked good. However, his final edit, an approximate 10-word piece is an extreme butchering that in no way gives your readers an insight into my ‘country music’ credentials. Especially when I look at other artists’ Wikipedia coverage, I consider this an insult!

Notability be damned. You have a chance to get it right even in Matthew’s brief passage, yet your arrogant stance of 

“So while we of course recognize that in the larger world, accuracy is the goal, on an encyclopedia our concern is how documentable a fact is…”

I believe legitimate encyclopedias are concerned with accuracy, the very reason most people use them.

“So on a certain level, we literally don't care whether a fact in Plantenga's book or in a Washington Post article is completely accurate, we care that it's clearly documented. I find this position arrogant. Especially when informed by the source the documented information is wrong.

“Whereas if you make "corrections" based on your personal knowledge, that just makes the article weaker because each such edit decreases its Verifiability.” Nonsense. My music archives contains hundreds of supporting documents and photographs. Where do you think these ‘writers’ get their information?

MatthewVanitis’ final edit and post: Mike Johnson (born 1946) is an African-American country music singer, songwriter, and yodeler living in Arlington, Virginia. Raised in a Catholic family in Washington, DC, Johnson began yodeling in the 1950s, influenced by the music of Jimmie Rodgers, Gene Autry, and Roy Rogers, and by the "Tarzan yell" of actor Johnny Weissmuller.[1] Johnson served in the US Navy in the Vietnam War from 1967 to 1969, and later became a truck driver,[2] first recording his music in 1981 and selling the homemade tapes at a Union 76 gas station in Alabama.[3] Johnson founded Pata del Lobo Music publishing in 1982, and Roughshod Records in 1987.[3]

Bart’s presentation erroneously implies that I started recording homemade tapes at home and releasing them. “…first recording his music in 1981 and selling the homemade tapes at a Union 76 gas station…”

My first release was a 45rpm record resulting from a 5-song recording session in Nashville Tennessee. You don’t do homemade releases in a studio! In 1983 I produced one homemade cassette and it was never sold in any gas station. In 1986 I released a Nashville recorded and produced cassette which was also sold at the Union 76 Truck Stop in Montgomery, Alabama, and about 10 other truck stops around the country. The inclusion of Nashville is a very important distinction when dealing with country artists. I have never been known as the “No.1 Black Yodelin’ Trucker.”

If you can’t go with these minor changes below, delete everything. I’m not that desperate to be on your site. “Mike Johnson (born 1946) is an African-American country music singer, songwriter, yodeler, living in Arlington, Virginia, and most famously known as Country Music’s No.1 Black Yodeler. Raised in a Catholic family in Washington, DC, Johnson began yodeling in the 1950s, influenced by the music of Jimmie Rodgers, Gene Autry, and Roy Rogers, and by the “Tarzan yell” of actor Johnny Weissmuller. Johnson served in the US Navy in the Vietnam War from 1967 to 1969. He went to Nashville in 1981 for his first recording session and released a 45 rpm single. Johnson founded Pata del Lobo Music publishing in 1982 and Roughshod Records in 1987. The label released its 49th and 50th CDs in November 2014.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Yodel No.1 ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Poseidon 644

Poseidon 644 (  | 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 cannot find any sources. If this is real, it's certainly not notable. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Bartholomew Sullivan

AfDs for this article:
Bartholomew Sullivan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"In 1999, he won the American Society of Newspaper Editors' Jesse Laventhol Prize for Deadline Writing." That's borderline about whether it's enough of a claim of significance to prevent speedy deletion. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple

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

No evidence provided as to why this temple is notable. PROD was removed. Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Spaceman Spiff 17:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article would need to be wholly re-written and sourced by an editor for me to change my mind. Sulfurboy ( talk) 22:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - It should also be noted there has been vandal issues on this page that maintenance templates have been repeatedly removed. Sulfurboy ( talk) 22:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Numerous attempts have been made to work with the author, but no communication has gotten through. As of now, this article looks like a picture book, no an encyclopedic article. I had added a PROD a few days ago, but it was removed by the author. Garchy ( talk) 23:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per WP:NOT, WP:NOTABLE and WP:VERIFY. In it's current state, as Garchy said, an un-sourced (or poorly sourced) picture book or photo album with little encyclopaedic value without explanatory text. The editor has been blocked [1] for 24 hours per my report for edit warring over the maintenance templates. Nb I have been editing that page and put lots of message on the editor's talk page, so have a bit of a COI! - 220 of Borg 05:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Daniel Banguel

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

Quasi-promotional WP:BLP of a public speaker, resting almost entirely on primary sources. Although there are a couple of reliable sources here, every one of them is covering him specifically in the context of an unsuccessful candidacy for election to his local school board — which isn't a role that would satisfy WP:NPOL even if he'd won the election. Which means that the article isn't making or sourcing a proper claim of notability that would make him a keepable topic, because neither primary sources nor coverage of an unsuccessful campaign for a non-notable office count for anything toward meeting WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Ali Yaseen

Ali Yaseen (  | 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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Football at the Asian Games is a youth tournament, meaning it is explicitly excluded as a source of notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. His minimal involvement in the games, unsurprisingly, has also not generated sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
It is the same age limit in football competitions as with the Olympic Games, three overage players are allowed among each squad in the Football at the 2014 Asian Games – Men. It is a not youth tournament as players over 23 actually played in the game and further Football is only part of 2014 Asian Games with over 36 Asian Games sports and a medal winner in the Asian games is notable . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 needs to be discussed at WP:RFD. Giant Snowman 17:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Richard Parker (footballer)

Richard Parker (footballer) (  | 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 player's name is Reginald Parker, not Richard Parker Beatpoet ( talk) 21:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Song Dogs

Song Dogs (  | 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 about a band which makes no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, strikes a very advertorial rather than encyclopedic tone — and was written by a member of the band (compare creator's username to the name of the guitarist), which makes it a WP:COI violation. Most of the sourcing here, further, is of the bloggy variety, with the few appropriately reliable sources (New York Times, WXPN) being short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to get a band over WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they accomplish something that satisfies NMUSIC, but right now it's a promotional advertisement rather than a proper encyclopedia article, and thus needs to be deleted. Bearcat ( talk) 21:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Was deleted per G12 by User:Doc James (non-admin closure). Raymie ( t • c) 19:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Vitamin D and pre-eclampsia

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

Plenty of apparent copyvios, but I'm not sure if the entire article is copied. Is there anything here worth saving? Adam9007 ( talk) 18:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who participated in the discussion. If you aren't too pleased with this decision, please take it to the article talk page or renominate the article. Missvain ( talk) 14:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Christopher Karpowitz

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

Delete: this may just be my opinion, and a minority one at that, but this stub article seems to be self-serving: a resume/Curriculum Vitae (CV), better suited elsewhere. Quis separabit? 02:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 00:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 00:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not heavily-enough cited to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, best paper award is not at the level of #C2, and what else is there? — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He clearly meets the notability for academics requirement that the person has been quoted and gone to by major national media outlets as an expert. He is also the co-director of BYU's Center for Elections and Democracy, and his "Silent Sex" book is clearlya major publication that has had significant impact. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Karpowitz's top two articles have 66 and 65 cittations per google scholar. I was trying to figure out his citiatiojn index, but do not know how to do that. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 18:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kraxler ( talk) 22:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The Marx Lounge Alfredo Jaar

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

No indication of importance, WP:CCOS. Fails WP:GNG. Was previously up at PROD but the tag was removed and no reason was left as why. -- Anar chyte 00:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 00:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 00:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 00:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 00:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm finding some evidence that there should be coverage somewhere since it was mentioned in this book, but so far I'm leaning towards a redirect to the author. It looks like it wasn't just at one museum but at least two, from what I can see. It looks like it was somewhat of a traveling exhibit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I also moved it back to its original name. I'm not sure why the original editor moved it to the other name since there were no other articles by that name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'm finding it hard to pin down when this was first shown. So far the earliest has been at the Liverpool Biennial in 2010. I don't think that we have an exact policy on artwork specifically, but this appears to have been a major exhibit at several notable events/places or part of a major exhibition. I'm leaning more towards keeping this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It took some serious digging, but I finally found coverage for this art piece. It looks like it was shown at multiple locations as an integral part of a major art exhibition or on its own. I found quite a bit of coverage for this in Spanish language newspapers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The articles on this piece aren't just routine mentions - this piece has received quite a bit of coverage. In the Culture24 link Jaar talks about the piece and in Diario de Sevilla the article's writer actually gives their opinion on the work. If they were just offhand mentioning it that'd be one thing, but their commentary turns the article into a review of sorts for the installation. (IE, they say that it was a fairly timely piece, that it would be thought provoking, and that it'd open up debate.) Many of the other news articles do the same thing for the most part. What also pushed this for me is that this was a pretty central piece whenever it was shown, which is something that would be considered a sign of notability for artworks as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 17:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Hélder Costa

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

Not notable. Three of the five sources given are passing mentions rather than anything in depth. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 16:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the nomination itself states that two sources are in depth. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, current (poorly formatted) sourcing is not the best (an interview for a blog, three passing mentions and a book by the same Costa) but apparently the subject is notable, even if most of the coverage is offline. There is a 1981 monograph about him (Dramaturgia de Hélder Costa by Gil Vicente), there is a chapter about him in the 35th volume of the French encyclopedia Revue d'histoire du théâtre, and an entry in História da literatura portuguesa: As correntes contemporâneas by Francisco Lyon de Castro. Enough for a claim of notability IMO. Cavarrone 05:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 23:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Ibn Sina Medical College

AfDs for this article:
Ibn Sina Medical 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)

appears to be a legit degree-granting institution, but there is nothing notable about it. I searched google, google books, and news and found no independent sources discussing this institution Jytdog ( talk) 16:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep:- per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 21:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Hm. Thanks for linking to that. That is bizarre - there are no sources from which to build an article. Let's change direction on that, shall we? Jytdog ( talk) 21:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
What do you mean by That is bizarre - there are no sources from which to build an article ??? What about Progress bangladesh, Arab News, The daily star, All Bangladesh and Somoy Tv? Are they not sources? A stub is an article and that can be built from any of the sources provided above. If the unsourced claims in the article seemed dubious, that can easily be removed per WP:UNSOURCED. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 22:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, of course, as standard practice. I really do not know why this is nominated. We can and should have articles on every university and every freestanding school of medicine or other university level professional school. (In the case of med schools that are parts of universities, we generally make separate articles on them as ell, if there is enough information--but this is free standing, so even if the information were minimal, there would be no suitable merge). DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I do not see why WIkipedia should be a directory of all colleges by default -- WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikicology, typically we require there to be sufficient independent sources from which to construct an article - the crime and strike sources you provided are each just a passing mention and wouldn't justify an article for any other kind of place, and the arab news article you cite is about a different college in Saudi Arabia. But it seems there is some bias (?) toward universities that makes us have very low standards for them. C'est la Wikipedia and I bow to the community. Please consider this AfD withdrawn. Jytdog ( talk) 23:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
thanks for letting me know about the Arab news. Same name and same type of school, so I didn't bother to look closely. Since you had withdrawn your nomination, am glad to close this debate. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 23:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Vardges Satumyan

Vardges Satumyan (  | 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 BLPPROD but source was added. However this footballer is not notable per WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in any WP:FPL and should for that reason be deleted. Qed237  (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237  (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

List of images and subjects in Gray's Anatomy

List of images and subjects in Gray's Anatomy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles proposed for deletion:

The topics covered here have no business being on WP. They are directly from a textbook, and we do not give this treatment to other sources. We are not a repository of such knowledge, and it is not encyclopedic to have the sources alone. Such information is already in the public domain editions of the 1918 textbook and doesn't need to be here.

In addition, they've already served their purpose. Many of these articles were created in 2006 when a large amount of content was taken from Gray's Anatomy 20th edition (1918) and put onto Wikipedia, a process that greatly expanded our anatomical content. The relevant pages have already been entered into anatomy articles (and now transwikied to wikidata) and so are now redundant.

In view of what I've said, I'm proposing deletion.

Notes:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Stylus Music School

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

Defunct private "career training institution" fails WP:ORG. Vrac ( talk) 20:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There's not much information about this and one of the best things I found was this which seems to be for an Ohio "Stylus Music School" (from 1907?) and this is another good case of an old article (September 2007) with no improvement and I'm not seeing a possibility of any improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

IKeyMonitor

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable app - all sources are trivial mentions in lists of software, or writeups based on press releases. bonadea contributions talk 20:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
None of your statements show how notability is met. LibStar ( talk) 05:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent sources. The refs in the article are all incidental mentions with the exception of the still-brief coverage on tweaktown.com, which does not seem reliable as they have no posted editorial policy and may post advertorial content. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 17:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
refer WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar ( talk) 05:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete fails WP:GNG. gets passing mentions but nothing in-depth. Article is an advert which is further demonstrated by single purpose editors appearing in this AfD. LibStar ( talk) 05:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but convert the article to a stub. The non-relevant and unnecessary information like software use and requirements can be weeded out and the large table of features can be merged into the intro stub paragraph. The app has been written about in EJ insight and Krebs on security blogs, and a few other security blogs, which could help pass the notability criteria. If not for an article then at least for a stub. I would make the required changes to tone down its content which does not meets Wikipedia's policy. PipperPopper ( talk) 14:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC) — PipperPopper ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Could you please provide links to the security blog coverage? Dialectric ( talk) 15:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to renomination. Missvain ( talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Con of the North

AfDs for this article:
Con of the North (  | 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 verify that this meets notability. Last AfD 6 years ago, with no consensus. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years. Hopefully, we can now get some resolution. Boleyn ( talk) 19:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

"(T)agged for notability for over 7 years" isn't exactly accurate. About six and a half years ago it was deleted (replaced with a redirect). Someone undeleted it a couple weeks ago for whatever reason, but didn't do anything to the article. I'm only here because I got an email from Wikipedia about this deletion discussion.
I gave up back then as I couldn't make any sense out of what the Wikipedia folks want; comparing the Con of the North article at the time to similar game convention articles at the time that weren't marked with notability issues and put up for deletion gave no guidance.
My recommendation would be to Keep for now and let a new era of interested editors take a crack at it. It's been six years, after all. Parody ( talk) 05:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for making a clearer statement than I did, Parody. I brought it to AfD because of the revertion, but a redirect to List_of_gaming_conventions#West_North_Central is a reasonable alternative to deletion, in my opinion. In terms of its notability, looking at what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS often isn't useful, but please look at WP:NOTABILITY. Do you think it meets the guidelines as notable, and if so, are you able to verify it? Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 06:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Re: Redirecting: It's not in that list as that list specifically requires an article. Without an entry in the list a redirect is inappropriate. (In fact, when someone added the article back to the list after the recent undeletion someone else immediately removed the entry citing "write the article first".)
Re: Notability: I think it's just as notable as other game conventions that have not had their Wikipedia articles deleted. Whether that means notability in this niche needs better consideration or more game convention articles need deletion isn't for me to decide. Verification is difficult in either case, as many conventions don't go searching for press coverage to be proven notable in Wikipedia terms. Parody ( talk) 01:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Brahmo Dharma

Brahmo Dharma (  | 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 unsourced since 2008. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 14:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Fourth Alien

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

All plot summary, no secondary sources. I suggest we either delete or redirect to Roswell (TV series). QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 11:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete (without redirect) - unsourced fan article about non-notable plot element. The overall plot is already available (with a lot of detail) in the main article. Unlikely as search term in an encyclopedia. GermanJoe ( talk) 13:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Coverage at the target (" it is revealed she is a fourth alien hybrid just like them") is insufficient to justify a mainspace redirect. ( WP:TARGET) Better for the Wikipedia search engine to be invoked. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain ( talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Anhayla

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

Stanley has no reliable, independent, secondary sources demonstrating notability. There are no items under WP:NMUSIC that would apply to Stanley. 217IP ( talk) 03:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subject meets 1 & 12 of WP:BAND. Has significant coverage from independent sources. Passes WP:GNG. – 323MU ( talk) 10:37 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 03:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Pakistani heads of state or government

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

Attempts to merge four lists, List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan, List of Presidents of Pakistan, Governor-General of Pakistan and Chief Martial Law Administrator#Pakistan which cover two separate roles, Head of state and Head of government. It makes no sense. It has one series of numbering regardless of role. Even if the numbering were split, how would it resolve for the periods when the Presidency became an executive presidency assuming both roles? The sixth column gives no clue as to the role of the individual. This page attempts to do too much and does it poorly. Bazj ( talk) 14:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bazj ( talk) 14:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bazj ( talk) 14:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bazj ( talk) 14:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: Wikimandia Your examples don't support your argument. Both the lists you cite are just of Heads of State. Within those articles each position is neatly separated out into a separate list. They also have the supporting articles for Heads of government, Prime Minister of Yugoslavia and List of Prime Ministers of Bulgaria. Your argument would require the articles List of heads of state or government of Yugoslavia and List of heads of state or government of Bulgaria.
My point is that this article mushes 4 posts and 2 roles into 1 poorly organised list. Bazj ( talk) 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete the head of state is different from head of government, whilst I don't support the list article at the very least it needs to be 2 different article. LibStar ( talk) 16:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete:- I reluctantly object to keep because Head of government is not the same as Head of state and List of heads of state of Pakistan already exist. We can have an article on List of heads of government of Pakistan but on List of Pakistani heads of state or government seemed unreasonable. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 12:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Article has been improved quite a lot and now has multiple sources. ( non-admin closure) JAaron95 Talk 14:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Eternal Buddha

Eternal Buddha (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
You aren't linking through inline citations, though. You're just adding a list of cites to the bottom of the page. Ogress smash! 02:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Ogress And? It's enough for now. "Wikipedia does not require the use of inline citations except to support direct quotations, material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged and contentious material about living persons." Template:More footnotes Rupert Loup ( talk) 10:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Rupert loup: I did not see this because you did not format that properly, you need to use {{ping}}, not [[ping]]. That might be technically true, but readers are not going to be able to determine that the alleged cites have anything at all to do with the page unless you source statements. This is, after all, an AfD and the article is in awful shape. I added a comment because I wanted to suggest you add inline cites: it's a much better argument than a pile of books in a bibliography that might only be there for show. I have not voted to delete, only commented. Ogress smash! 18:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who participated in the discussion. If you are concerned about this decision please bring it up on the A Fada Oriana talk page or renominate for deletion. Missvain ( talk) 14:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

A Fada Oriana

A Fada Oriana (  | 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:NBOOK: has had no references for 4 and a half years and no non-trivial reviews of the book appear to exist. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 13:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep. Sophia de Mello Breyner Andresen was inducted to the Portuguese National Pantheon in 2014, as one of the most significant writers in Portuguese history. Her books are still best sellers, a reference in public school, adapted for theatre, and so on. Specifically A Fada Oriana is one of the best known of her books. (yet, somehow shamefully, I do not recall reading a single one of them... I guess it got into school curricula more recently years after I was a child myself) I added a few references for these facts. My prose is not the best, and there are better references for sure, but currently they tend to get buried beneath the many news about selling books, school notes, and Sophias' recent induction to the Pantheon- Nabla ( talk)
  • Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK, here are the present references cited in the article, thankyou Nabla:
1. [8] - The Sea Girl and the Oriana Fairy reach the Pantheon, The Observer (Portugal), - Portuguese writers and artists discussing legacy of Andresen including Oriana,
2. [9] - MEC Associates to the homage to Sophia De Mello Breyner Andresen - Portuguese Ministry of Education honoring Anderson and stating the works used in schools - "In basic education, the list of authors and Portuguese texts hosts, for example, The Oriana fairy",
3. [10] - Sophia de Mello Breyner Andresen tale today takes the stage at the Port The magical world of Fairy Oriana - Theatrical performance of Oriana, appears to be media release/announcement, not a review.
4. [11] - The Oriana Fairy "this afternoon at the Centro Cultural de Campo Maior - another article announcing theatrical production,
5. [12] - The Fairy Oriana: A Fairy Oriana, Sophia de Mello Breyner Adresen Under the Master in Illustration - a graphic designer's illustrated version of book (book was originally illustrated by Teresa Calem).

I have found the following through google which also contribute to show notability:

[13] - Mexico: Launch translation to Spanish of Sophia de Mello Breyner Andresen - Press release anouncing launch of Spanish translation of the book at the 32nd International Children's Book Fair of 2012
[14] ORIANA Animation British Columbia as part of the 6th annual Vancouver Women in Film Festival, March 4-6 - film showing announcement, "A whimsical 3D animated fairytale adapted from the iconic Portuguese novel"
[15] Recent Portuguese Publications Bulletin 42 September 2004 Part XVI: Literature, Literary History, Criticism, Essays, Correspondence - Book dealer's catalogue advertising CARDONA, Irene, and Maria Amelia Almeida. The Oriana Fairy Sophia de Mello Breyner Andresen: analysis of the work. 4th ed. Lisbon: Text Publishing, 2003. Collection New Readings, dealer's description is "Aimed at 5th year Portuguese elementary school students, we feel this book can be useful for university undergraduates studying Portuguese literature outside of Portugal."
[16] The presence of “marvellous” in Sophia de Mello Breyner Andresen’s ‘A fada Oriana’ by Maria do Carmo Mendes, researcher and professor of Comparitive literature at Minho University, Portugal - a paper presented at 2008 International Conference on Children's Literature and Culture
[17] "In the Path of True Teaching of Children's Literature" The "Fairy Oriana" of Sophia de Mello Breyner Andresen - Master degree dissertation discussing the study of The Fairy Oriana in the 4th grade.
(this link triggered wikiblacklist so editors will just have to trust me (or google it themselves:)) Canon: reminiscences of students and teachers - paper produced by School of Education of Viseu (IPV), Port and Douro Wines Institute discussing Portuguese school literary canon which includes this book.
[18] The magical world of fairy Oriana by Ana Cristina Pereira - review of theatre presentation, slightly advertorial(?)
From the above, it can be seen that this books meets WP:NBOOK ie. 1 and 4. Please note, that as i do not speak/read Portuguese i have had to rely on english-language google and google translate to find these, there are still more but I think this should be enough. (Although some wikilawyers may state otherwise ), I am sure that Portuguese speaking/reading editors would be able to find more (it is funny though that the article as it presently appears in the Portuguese Wikipedia does not have any references) Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Standard Methodology for Analytical Models

Standard Methodology for Analytical Models (  | 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 fails all notability guidelines. There is a single linked-in post by the same author that mentions this "standard" methodology. In other words, it is WP:OR, and the authors wants to promote/advertise his own methodology and coin a new name. HelpUsStopSpam ( talk) 12:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply


94.210.76.161 ( talk) disagree. This is not an advertisement of promotion of my own methodology. It is a writeup on how IBM does analytical engagements. As such, it is interesting to read for other analytical practitioners. As mentioned in the article, the work of data scientists contains a lot of tacit knowledge. That is, the ways of working are not put in books or readable format. I tried to change that with this write up. Again: no original research, I document a process that many people (also outside of IBM) follow, but has never been put in writing. — Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. HelpUsStopSpam ( talk) 22:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. HelpUsStopSpam ( talk) 22:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply


114.108.212.96 ( talk)how can this still be up for deletion if in the discussions there's no objection? I researched many other Wiki pages, to find that many topics on Wiki are in fact write-ups on things that exist, but have not been explained in so much detail before. For example, look at https://transferwise.com/support/customer/en/portal/articles This contains all the articles of Transferwise, but none of those articles discusses the "how it works" section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransferWise. So, is this reason for deletion? — Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@ 114.108.212.96: Citing an article that you believe has issues does not address the substance of the issues with this article: 1) its is non-notable (no other mention of this other than recent posts by the author of the Wikipedia entry), 2) Original Research (no citations where this methodology has been discussed other than those connected with the author, 3) IP issues - it is unclear if this is the intellectual property of IBM and if the author has the authority to publish. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal or general publication. As such it should only record knowledge which can be demonstrated to be widely know and discussed other than by those who have created and/or own the intellectual property. 1.136.97.2 ( talk) 22:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, played a major role in notable movies.. ( non-admin closure) JAaron95 Talk 14:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Cody Walker (actor)

Cody Walker (actor) (  | 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 contains no verificaiton of their notability, as outlined for a biography of a living person. One film role does not verify them enough to constitute their own Wikipedia page. livelikemusic my talk page! 12:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Consensus to delete - Consensus seems to be that this is not an encyclopedic topic. While those seeking to keep did demonstrate that sources exist they did not demonstrate that this had any notability beyond being a fringe theory. Thus the result is deletion without prejudice against recreation if you can address the concerns in this AfD.

If anyone is interested in merging to Southern United States they can request undeletion for the purposes of merging, but I don't see a consensus for that here. I would suggest getting consensus at Talk:Southern United States first as it is a long article and probably needs to pick and choose its content. Chillum 20:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

White Southerners

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

Unsourced; original research. A topic like this would need a lot of backing research considering the controversy surrounding it. Sulfurboy ( talk) 05:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Article utterly fails WP:GNG. I'm finding a few blogs and some other sources that refer to "southerners" being a socioethnic group, but nothing of substance and reliability that would warrant an article. - Aoidh ( talk) 05:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete!!! Surely a hoax? Alec Station ( talk) 12:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seems to be written to make some kind of point, or let off steam, or whatever. Merge to Southern United States. The article is much better now, but the material is already covered in the main article. The info here is worthwhile and could be added there. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 17:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It's not a hoax and I'm not letting off steam. This is a legit article about the Southern ethnicity. We are a separate people with our own history, culture, etc and I thought it'd be a good idea to type up a Wikipedia article about us. Now mind you I have a bit of a problem with procrastinating and I am taking the time tonight to really make the article look good. I have sources, etc. I am currently planning it out on a word document. So please, don't delete it.( MelungeonEire ( talk) 03:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)) reply
  • I ask that you don't delete this. I've put a bit of work on the article and I ask all of you to help me with it. Down South, we consider Southern to be an ethnicity and it has been proven by various historians that we are ethnically and culturally distinct from the rest of the United States. I plan on continuously working on this article from now on. ( MelungeonEire ( talk) 05:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks Larry. I crossed out my delete and changed to merge to Southern United States. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 01:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree with this merge. Great work Larry. My main concern from here is the edgy nature of this article. I'm not saying it should be excluded because of that, but I would encourage any editors reading this to add it to their watch page, because I could see this page being abused quite quickly. Sulfurboy ( talk) 01:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I've got the article on my watchlist, but I'd be happy with a merge to Southern United States because it seems to be a pretty niche view that Southerners constitute an ethnic group, and better covered there than in its own article unless more sources can be found. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete - This article makes me cringe! Southerners in and of themselves are not an "ethnic group" anymore than mid-westerners, northerners, or any other part of the United States. There is nothing WP:NPOV about leading off with "White Southerners" as the criteria. Is the author implying that anyone without white skin cannot be considered a Southerner? We don't need this flawed POV, cited with decades old sourcing, merged. This has one point of view, and it doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria. No way. — Maile ( talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, that single opinion does not warrant an article, as WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources, not one (questionable) individual. Especially given that this single author's opinions are over 30 years old, if there were any merit to this article's subject someone would have picked up on it and there would be sources but there seems to be nothing of the sort. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • On a purely technical note, it's untrue to say that the article is based on the work of one author alone. Predating Reed is Lewis Killian's work, and some other authors are mentioned. The idea has also received secondary coverage (e.g. from Dillman and M. G. Smith). Dillman notes that "this concept of Southerners as a distinct American ethnic group has been presented for more than a decade, and it continues to gain momentum". Whether we agree with use of the concept or not, it's clearly not just the idea of one author. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler ( talk) 21:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not ethnicity or encyclopaedic content KiwikiKiWi ( talk) 08:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • KiwikiKiWi, can I push you to cite some policies that your delete vote is informed by? The subject appears to meet WP:GNG, as far as I see it. Whether or not Southerners constitute an ethnic group is clearly open to debate, but this article does at least now attempt to reflect that debate. As I mentioned above, the article doesn't say that Southerners are an ethnic group, but that they are considered by some authors to be an ethnic group. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Synwood

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

Synwood is just a non-notable brand name for a synthetic wood product. This article appears to be merely promotional. It is entirely unreferenced. Gnome de plume ( talk) 11:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 23:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 15:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Kolitha H Sellahewa

Kolitha H Sellahewa (  | 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 physician. Fails WP:GNG. Article was speedily deleted on 6 July 2015 for not indicating the importance of the subject but was recreated on 9 July 2015. obi2canibe talk contr 11:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

1317 Logan Avenue

1317 Logan Avenue (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly non-notable and fails WP:GNG. Not eligible for A7 and PROD removed. ~ Rob Talk 11:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 15:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Miss Netherlands Earth

Miss Netherlands Earth (  | 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 pageant, fails WP:GNG. No independent sources The Banner  talk 08:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Perion Codefuel

Perion Codefuel (  | 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 for non notable software. Teh refs are either press reviews or mere notices. For example, ref 1, claimed to be a Reuters areticle , is marked by Reuters as a press release for which it is not responsible. As for the promotionalism,some examples: "The DisplayFuel network offers advertisers a variety of dynamic media channels to promote their products to millions of users across a range of geos"; "Both methods ensure lasting user engagement and monetization" (not to mention the obvious promotionalism involved in trying to write two articles with many of the same refs. on essentially the same subject from different aspects--when neither are really notable) DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Moving to Draft:Super administrator (Google Apps) per user request. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 20:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Super administrator (Google Apps)

Super administrator (Google Apps) (  | 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 understand that the article creator is new and is still learning Wikipedia's various guidelines and policies. However, the subject of this article (a permission in Google Apps), has not been the subject of reliable coverage. A search for sources reveals mainly tutorials or pages on Google Apps itself, rather than this and its other permissions. I'm not against this being merged to the Google Apps article, but as it stands I don't think this needs a separate article. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 03:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Hold your cows, pigs and horses! The notice I placed on the article actually says "Please do not rush to mark it for deletion". I think that's exactly the opposite of what has happened here. I am not autoconfirmed yet, so I cannot move/merge pages. However, once I am able to do this, I can take care of this issue myself. ChecKemzV ( talk) 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
@ ChecKemzV: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Begging for mercy. Also, autoconfirmed status is only necessary for moving pages; it's not required for merging pages (you could simply copy the current article's content to a relevant article, provided you attribute the change. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 14:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Rhodes Bantam

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

Relisted nomination from DRV discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_July_10#Rhodes_Bantam. Nakon 02:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 18:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 15:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Robert Hendrie Wilson

Robert Hendrie Wilson (  | 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 assertion of adequate notability. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines and WP:NAUTHOR. No indication any of his books pass WP:NBOOK. His books are from the 1970's so there might be coverage I can not find. Jbh Talk 18:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Edited nomination statement As Charles Matthews pointed out below 'no assertion of notability' would be grounds for CSD A7. More properly there is no assertion or claim of notability that meets GNG, NAUTHOR, ANYBIO or any other notability guideline. Jbh Talk 02:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The subject's entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (which is already rather cryptically cited in the article) verifies the facts currently in the article, and I would tend to regard the fact that the entry exists as a fairly strong indicator of his notability. However, beyond the facts already in the article, the encyclopedia entry only mentions that he is a journalist and travel writer (and is therefore presumably the same person as the co-author of a guide to Italy that turns up on Google searches). And there doesn't appear to be much else online - my guess is that there are further sources from the 1970s that are still offline, but unless we can find them, we have no means of telling whether they would be sufficient (together with the encyclopedia entry) to firmly establish notability. PWilkinson ( talk) 18:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Please see SF Encyclopedia - Note on Content. They "have attempted to give an individual entry to every writer who has published an (inarguably) sf book in English – or had one translated into English...". Inclusion in E of SF provides zero indication of notability. I agree there might be some coverage from the 70's but until someone finds it 'might' is not a reason for an article per notability requires verification. There needs to be some indication that sources actually exist.

      Thank you for taking a look at the article. Jbh Talk 19:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, included also in The Science Fiction Source Book (1984). I don't agree with the blanket dismissal of the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. If you cite the GNG, which I think is a poor crutch at the best of times, this sort of reference in a reliable source should be admitted. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Charles Matthews: 'Admitting' it, whatever that means, is not the issue. All the entry says is he wrote four books and his birth date. There is nothing notable in the entry and the mere fact of having an entry is not notable since the inclusion criteria is 'written a science fiction book'. WP:NAUTHOR requires that an author have done something other than simply write a book or even several. Does The Science Fiction Source Book (1984) you mention have any additional information on him? Can you provide the entry so I can use it to improve the article? It would be a great help if you could since it is the only other source I know of. Thank you. Jbh Talk 20:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
On the second point, the book is visible to me in a Google Books snippet, found by the search "Wilson, Robert Hendrie"; the sort of search that I would think comes under WP:BEFORE#Nominating article(s) for deletion, section D, where it mentions Google Books search. While we are on guidelines, your argument goes to show that you should have nominated this article for speedy deletion, by the way, under section B of the "please be sure to" there.
Actually I take another view. The reason that the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction can "get away" with including obscure authors is that people want to look them up. A reference work such as this one can give somewhat better coverage. I also saw, as below, that Wilson is now a journalist, but he has published a travel book also. An article on him would serve a need. Charles Matthews ( talk) 05:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The Google Books version simply shows him as one of 3-4 authors on one page in the index. As near as I can see it is little, if anything, more than than the E of SF entry. 'Wanting to look up' and 'serving a need' are not, in my firm opinion, legitimate reasons for keeping the article unless it can be shown he has passed the minimal guidelines we have for notability which I do not think bare mentions contribute to. Of course others have different opinions on on this so we have AfD. Cheers. Jbh Talk 11:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Indeed, WP:GNG is a sufficient condition for inclusion of a topic, not a necessary one: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So I regard its use as an argument for deletion to be tendentious, even fallacious. This is a reference site, so of course whether or not people generally would want to look up a topic here is relevant.
To go back to the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, the article links to one on Robert Hale Limited the publishers. Now we should have an article on the publishers, who had a stable of authors, and what we know about Wilson could usefully appear in such an article. I.e. if that other article existed I'd be happy to merge this one into it. Charles Matthews ( talk) 04:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
You are welcome to your view of the notability guidelines but Wikipedia policy and practice is that if a subject does not meet GNG or a subject specific notability guideline it should be deleted.

I am unaware of any articles which simply list a publisher's stable of authors unless those authors are in and of themselves notable. In particular this would be a way to get any published author a redirect page. That is something beyond the scope of AfD. Jbh Talk 11:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

"Wikipedia policy"? WP:DEL-REASON mentions GNG only obliquely: under #7, you could say. I would set the bar quite high for "thorough research".
Certainly many people do in practice call for deletion on the basis of GNG, at AfD, and also many people nominate without (as you show) troubling with the steps actually called for by WP:BEFORE. This is a view of guidelines that sees them mainly as a way of winning arguments, rather than what they mainly are intended for, namely to indicate the expectations that Wikipedia has of editors.
There is another source that mentions Wilson, by the way, Souls in Metal: an anthology of robot futures (1977). It is very easy to find on Google Books.
Now that I have done research on the publishers, I see much better what is going on, though. I am striking my "Keep": and WP:AUTHOR probably does apply. Charles Matthews ( talk) 04:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Charles Matthews: Thank you for continuing to look into this author. Jbh Talk 12:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. None of his works appear to be notable. This travel site calls him a "travel editor of Britain’s largest-circulation women’s magazine" and barely mentions his "four published novels". [21] Unless The Science Fiction Source Book has a significant writeup on him, he fails WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 02:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 02:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Rowing at the 2015 Pan American Games – Men's single sculls

Rowing at the 2015 Pan American Games – Men's single sculls (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge into Rowing at the 2015 Pan American Games. Eat me, I'm a red bean ( take a huge bite) i've made a huge mess 01:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC) I withdraw this nomination. Eat me, I'm a red bean ( take a huge bite) i've made a huge mess 01:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep This fits in with all the other Pan Am games articles, 2015 and prior: a main article for, in this case, rowing, with breakout articles for each of the individual sub-events. A main page article with all rowing events will get quite crowded otherwise, when all the detail is finally added. As an aside, if the nominator wants the article merged rather than straight-up deleted, then AfD was not the correct way to proceed. Crow Caw 01:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 03:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Regionrat

Regionrat (  | 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:NBOOK. Unsourced since creation. Prod contested in 2006, concern was "Spam/advertising. Judging by the creator's user-name, it's an ill-disguised attempt at self-promotion." Vrac ( talk) 00:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article whose editor name is close to that of the book's author. Amazon has a review which looks to be a copy-paste of a short piece of at-publication local media coverage, but searches (Highbeam, Google) are turning up nothing to indicate that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG criteria. AllyD ( talk) 06:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The only halfway decent mention I could find was in this journal article, which is only a brief passing mention via them quoting his book. That isn't enough to warrant the book having an article, so I'll have to go with a delete on this as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:NBOOK, have only been able to find these - [22] - a short university paper book review, [23] - The Region Rat: Folkloristic Contexts of People and Place, a discussion of the term, not the book. but happy for a redirect to Northwest Indiana, the region in question (maybe a section of the article can talk about the term, and mention the book?). Coolabahapple ( talk) 21:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I recommend caution with a redirect. Given the paucity of reference, nothing indicates that the subject name really is a notable nickname for the region. No reason for Wikipedia to support a neologism.-- Rpclod ( talk) 10:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was tagged for G3 speedy deletion (non-admin closure) Snuggums ( talk / edits) 19:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Von Grünberg-Babenberg

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

Completely unreferenced. Google searches show no results. Potentially non-notable family. Kevin12 x d 00:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_July_11&oldid=1142625801"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 July 12 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to List of bus routes in Taichung. Closing early as overall consensus is to redirect, No point in dragging it on, ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 15:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Taichung City Bus Route 17

Taichung City Bus Route 17 (  | 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 need for this when we have List of bus routes in Taichung, Sources are pretty much either service updates or times & maps,
I personally prefer redirecting but would rather see what others think first. – Davey2010 Talk 23:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

vary detail of information. Article of individual bus route can provide more detail and precious information such timetable, name of each stops, history and notable character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The Local Vocal

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

Entirely unsourced one-line stub about a local recording studio, which makes no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:CORP. Has been tagged as a possible WP:HOAX, although I don't know if we can really assume that definitively — it may just be a non-notable local business. But either way it's a delete if it can't be sourced. Bearcat ( talk) 23:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as lacking sources. Stuartyeates ( talk) 03:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The original version of the article (which you can see here) shows that this was one person's attempt to promote their own business on Wikipedia. Even their username "Afoxbiz" confirms this. Basically this is/was a recording studio that some guy set up in his house. If no one objects I'm going to go ahead and snow close this as delete since there's zero coverage out there (as this was some guy with a recording set up in his house) other than Wikipedia mirrors and was an over the top, blatantly promotional attempt to provide his business with legitimacy in the early days of Wikipedia. I'll reopen this if anyone can show otherwise, but from what I can see this isn't going to end with anything other than a delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Goldbach (Tollense)

Goldbach (Tollense) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete - Only one sentence in the article. Don't really need an article about a river. It is already mentioned in List of rivers of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern so not needed to have a very small page telling you that a river is a river. Thursby16 ( talk) 22:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Most rivers are notable, and this one can be expanded with reliable sources, for example the sources on the German Wiki. Current article is bad, but that isn't grounds for deletion. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Joseph2302. Yes, the sources in the German WP page seem to indicate notability. Being a one-sentence article is reason for a stub notice, not deletion.-- Oakshade ( talk) 01:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Named rivers are almost always going to be notable. This is the kind of basic stuff that should be in an encyclopedia. The German article indicates multiple sources. I respectfully suggest that the nom be withdrawn. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the article, while needing improvement, does pass the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 07:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Westfield Mission Valley

AfDs for this article:
Westfield Mission Valley (  | 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 want a TNT, due to the fact that it's probably not notable, and the current article was written by conflicted editors and has 0 encyclopedic value. My solution would be to redirect the page to Westfield Group until such a time that a neutral tone article showing notability has been created. I was bold and tried to do this, but got reverted. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • delete just corporate spam, fails WP:ORG Jytdog ( talk) 23:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • RESTORE CONTENT THAT WAS DELETED This is a major mall in the city. It has been the focus of extreme media coverage. Now the article can't even be improved upon or have citations added since the article has been fully locked. Removing all of the content while a AFD is ongoing to make the article look less notable is a major good faith violation.-- JOJ Hutton 01:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, clearly notable, plenty of hits in GNews, GBooks, GScholar, and HighBeam. Nominator should do WP:BEFORE. The fact that there may have been a COI problem does not mean you delete every article as a knee-jerk reaction. GregJackP  Boomer! 02:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GregJackP  Boomer! 02:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Then you are either not looking sufficiently well or defining "independent" in a non-standard way. Carrite ( talk) 18:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - First off, it is complete bullshit to lock down the gutted version of this article ahead of an AfD. Material deleted may have been unsourced, but it was uncontroversial and not necessarily wrong, and it is utterly impossible to improve the article at AfD in this state. This is absolutely a violation of the spirit of AfD and a classic example of the abuse of administrative tools to settle a content matter. Full protection should immediately be lifted and content restored for the duration of this debate. Carrite ( talk) 17:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - For much of the developed world malls are the downtown shopping areas of today. We treat towns with kid gloves but here we are intent upon using a steamroller, largely because of the activities of anti-COI partisans. Well, guess what, this shopping mall passes our general notability guideline for having been dealt with substantially in multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability. HERE is coverage of an art installation at the mall by the San Diego Cultural Arts Alliance via KPBS. And MORE on that project via Pomerado News. And THIS IS the San Diego Union-Times, reporting extensively and substantially on a mall expansion in 2008, noting that this facility has been in place since the John F. Kennedy administration. And HERE is coverage of Mission Valley Center in the "Mall Hall of Fame." This article cites other works as sources (deadlinks, unfortunately), including www.history.sandiego.edu/ and Mitch Glaser's "Paradox Unbound" via history.sandiego.edu/ and Libby Brydolf's "Mission Valley's Transformation" (1998), via www.sandiegometro.com/ And so on and on and on by anybody willing to follow WP:BEFORE and actually search the internet for sources. Carrite ( talk) 18:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
It doesn't count towards GNG, but HERE'S a photo of the mall at opening day in March 1961 — over half a century ago. And AGAIN the San Diego Union-Tribune talking about the 1958 decision to authorize the mall, regarded as a seminal event in local history. COVERAGE of a temporary skating rink and Mission Valley Mall from Mission Valley News. And SAN DIEGO TRIBUNE covering the Mall as a party in a lawsuit over a shooting there which I have not mentioned previously. The number of news stories in the San Diego press between 1958 and launch in 1961 are no doubt substantial. And on and on... I've gotta go to work. Carrite ( talk) 18:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Westfield Plaza Bonita

Westfield Plaza Bonita (  | 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 want a TNT, due to the fact that it's probably not notable, and the current article was written by conflicted editors and has 0 encyclopedic value. My solution would be to redirect the page to Westfield Group until such a time that a neutral tone article showing notability has been created. I was bold and tried to do this, but got reverted. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, clearly notable, when searched with "Plaza Bonita", plenty of hits in GNews, GBooks, GScholar, and HighBeam. Nominator should do WP:BEFORE. The fact that there may have been a COI problem does not mean you delete every article as a knee-jerk reaction. GregJackP  Boomer! 01:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GregJackP  Boomer! 01:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the article should be kept as it meets the notability guidelines. Kudpung's advice is good for the subject of the article. Davewild ( talk) 07:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Mike Johnson (yodeler)

Mike Johnson (yodeler) (  | 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 neutral and procedural nomination made on behalf of the contributing editor, who has requested on his talk page that this be deleted. He is, however, not the only contributor, so speedy deletion as originator is closed to him. The draft he created was accepted at WP:AFC, and much of the unrerefenced (and much desired by him) facts were stripped out. He now wishes those alleged facts to be reinstated or the article to be deleted.

I will record my own opinion below in due course. I am simply making this nomination on his behalf since he expresses the desire strongly but appears to be unaware of how to proceed

It has been explained to him that it is unlikely to be deleted because the gentleman is notable. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep After studying the plaudits and accolades given to the gentleman there is more that sufficient for keeping this article being a no brainer. He passes the criteria for notability. He is a public figure and well known in his musical genre. We should not delete based on the whim of an editor who wishes to exert WP:OWN over this article. Fiddle Faddle 23:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets Notability easily as a relatively unique performer who's attracted national-level attention as an African-American country music yodeler. Subject is a public figure, so I don't agree with deleting the article simply because he's not pleased with our removing unsourced/POV content that he wishes to have included. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 00:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 16:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (opining as a proxy for the initial contributing editor) It is abundantly clear everywhere except in this discussion, that the original editor and the subject of this autobiography wishes to delete the material. He has placed this information on user talk pages, though not with a rationale other than not being happy with the content of the current article. I am thus recording this opinion here without copying and pasting the material, and in the interests of completeness. Should that editor post here then this proxy deletion !vote is irrelevant and may be struck by any editor without reference to me and must be disregarded by the closing admin. Fiddle Faddle 17:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, I definitely want the article deleted if you insist on using the butchered result currently posted. I submitted a 3-page piece which MatthewVanitis edited and it looked good. However, his final edit, an approximate 10-word piece is an extreme butchering that in no way gives your readers an insight into my ‘country music’ credentials. Especially when I look at other artists’ Wikipedia coverage, I consider this an insult!

Notability be damned. You have a chance to get it right even in Matthew’s brief passage, yet your arrogant stance of 

“So while we of course recognize that in the larger world, accuracy is the goal, on an encyclopedia our concern is how documentable a fact is…”

I believe legitimate encyclopedias are concerned with accuracy, the very reason most people use them.

“So on a certain level, we literally don't care whether a fact in Plantenga's book or in a Washington Post article is completely accurate, we care that it's clearly documented. I find this position arrogant. Especially when informed by the source the documented information is wrong.

“Whereas if you make "corrections" based on your personal knowledge, that just makes the article weaker because each such edit decreases its Verifiability.” Nonsense. My music archives contains hundreds of supporting documents and photographs. Where do you think these ‘writers’ get their information?

MatthewVanitis’ final edit and post: Mike Johnson (born 1946) is an African-American country music singer, songwriter, and yodeler living in Arlington, Virginia. Raised in a Catholic family in Washington, DC, Johnson began yodeling in the 1950s, influenced by the music of Jimmie Rodgers, Gene Autry, and Roy Rogers, and by the "Tarzan yell" of actor Johnny Weissmuller.[1] Johnson served in the US Navy in the Vietnam War from 1967 to 1969, and later became a truck driver,[2] first recording his music in 1981 and selling the homemade tapes at a Union 76 gas station in Alabama.[3] Johnson founded Pata del Lobo Music publishing in 1982, and Roughshod Records in 1987.[3]

Bart’s presentation erroneously implies that I started recording homemade tapes at home and releasing them. “…first recording his music in 1981 and selling the homemade tapes at a Union 76 gas station…”

My first release was a 45rpm record resulting from a 5-song recording session in Nashville Tennessee. You don’t do homemade releases in a studio! In 1983 I produced one homemade cassette and it was never sold in any gas station. In 1986 I released a Nashville recorded and produced cassette which was also sold at the Union 76 Truck Stop in Montgomery, Alabama, and about 10 other truck stops around the country. The inclusion of Nashville is a very important distinction when dealing with country artists. I have never been known as the “No.1 Black Yodelin’ Trucker.”

If you can’t go with these minor changes below, delete everything. I’m not that desperate to be on your site. “Mike Johnson (born 1946) is an African-American country music singer, songwriter, yodeler, living in Arlington, Virginia, and most famously known as Country Music’s No.1 Black Yodeler. Raised in a Catholic family in Washington, DC, Johnson began yodeling in the 1950s, influenced by the music of Jimmie Rodgers, Gene Autry, and Roy Rogers, and by the “Tarzan yell” of actor Johnny Weissmuller. Johnson served in the US Navy in the Vietnam War from 1967 to 1969. He went to Nashville in 1981 for his first recording session and released a 45 rpm single. Johnson founded Pata del Lobo Music publishing in 1982 and Roughshod Records in 1987. The label released its 49th and 50th CDs in November 2014.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Yodel No.1 ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Poseidon 644

Poseidon 644 (  | 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 cannot find any sources. If this is real, it's certainly not notable. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Bartholomew Sullivan

AfDs for this article:
Bartholomew Sullivan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"In 1999, he won the American Society of Newspaper Editors' Jesse Laventhol Prize for Deadline Writing." That's borderline about whether it's enough of a claim of significance to prevent speedy deletion. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple

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

No evidence provided as to why this temple is notable. PROD was removed. Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Spaceman Spiff 17:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article would need to be wholly re-written and sourced by an editor for me to change my mind. Sulfurboy ( talk) 22:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - It should also be noted there has been vandal issues on this page that maintenance templates have been repeatedly removed. Sulfurboy ( talk) 22:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Numerous attempts have been made to work with the author, but no communication has gotten through. As of now, this article looks like a picture book, no an encyclopedic article. I had added a PROD a few days ago, but it was removed by the author. Garchy ( talk) 23:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per WP:NOT, WP:NOTABLE and WP:VERIFY. In it's current state, as Garchy said, an un-sourced (or poorly sourced) picture book or photo album with little encyclopaedic value without explanatory text. The editor has been blocked [1] for 24 hours per my report for edit warring over the maintenance templates. Nb I have been editing that page and put lots of message on the editor's talk page, so have a bit of a COI! - 220 of Borg 05:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Daniel Banguel

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

Quasi-promotional WP:BLP of a public speaker, resting almost entirely on primary sources. Although there are a couple of reliable sources here, every one of them is covering him specifically in the context of an unsuccessful candidacy for election to his local school board — which isn't a role that would satisfy WP:NPOL even if he'd won the election. Which means that the article isn't making or sourcing a proper claim of notability that would make him a keepable topic, because neither primary sources nor coverage of an unsuccessful campaign for a non-notable office count for anything toward meeting WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Ali Yaseen

Ali Yaseen (  | 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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Football at the Asian Games is a youth tournament, meaning it is explicitly excluded as a source of notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. His minimal involvement in the games, unsurprisingly, has also not generated sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
It is the same age limit in football competitions as with the Olympic Games, three overage players are allowed among each squad in the Football at the 2014 Asian Games – Men. It is a not youth tournament as players over 23 actually played in the game and further Football is only part of 2014 Asian Games with over 36 Asian Games sports and a medal winner in the Asian games is notable . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 needs to be discussed at WP:RFD. Giant Snowman 17:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Richard Parker (footballer)

Richard Parker (footballer) (  | 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 player's name is Reginald Parker, not Richard Parker Beatpoet ( talk) 21:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Song Dogs

Song Dogs (  | 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 about a band which makes no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, strikes a very advertorial rather than encyclopedic tone — and was written by a member of the band (compare creator's username to the name of the guitarist), which makes it a WP:COI violation. Most of the sourcing here, further, is of the bloggy variety, with the few appropriately reliable sources (New York Times, WXPN) being short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to get a band over WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they accomplish something that satisfies NMUSIC, but right now it's a promotional advertisement rather than a proper encyclopedia article, and thus needs to be deleted. Bearcat ( talk) 21:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Was deleted per G12 by User:Doc James (non-admin closure). Raymie ( t • c) 19:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Vitamin D and pre-eclampsia

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

Plenty of apparent copyvios, but I'm not sure if the entire article is copied. Is there anything here worth saving? Adam9007 ( talk) 18:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who participated in the discussion. If you aren't too pleased with this decision, please take it to the article talk page or renominate the article. Missvain ( talk) 14:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Christopher Karpowitz

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

Delete: this may just be my opinion, and a minority one at that, but this stub article seems to be self-serving: a resume/Curriculum Vitae (CV), better suited elsewhere. Quis separabit? 02:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 00:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 00:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not heavily-enough cited to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, best paper award is not at the level of #C2, and what else is there? — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He clearly meets the notability for academics requirement that the person has been quoted and gone to by major national media outlets as an expert. He is also the co-director of BYU's Center for Elections and Democracy, and his "Silent Sex" book is clearlya major publication that has had significant impact. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Karpowitz's top two articles have 66 and 65 cittations per google scholar. I was trying to figure out his citiatiojn index, but do not know how to do that. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 18:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kraxler ( talk) 22:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The Marx Lounge Alfredo Jaar

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

No indication of importance, WP:CCOS. Fails WP:GNG. Was previously up at PROD but the tag was removed and no reason was left as why. -- Anar chyte 00:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 00:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 00:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 00:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 00:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm finding some evidence that there should be coverage somewhere since it was mentioned in this book, but so far I'm leaning towards a redirect to the author. It looks like it wasn't just at one museum but at least two, from what I can see. It looks like it was somewhat of a traveling exhibit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I also moved it back to its original name. I'm not sure why the original editor moved it to the other name since there were no other articles by that name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'm finding it hard to pin down when this was first shown. So far the earliest has been at the Liverpool Biennial in 2010. I don't think that we have an exact policy on artwork specifically, but this appears to have been a major exhibit at several notable events/places or part of a major exhibition. I'm leaning more towards keeping this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It took some serious digging, but I finally found coverage for this art piece. It looks like it was shown at multiple locations as an integral part of a major art exhibition or on its own. I found quite a bit of coverage for this in Spanish language newspapers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The articles on this piece aren't just routine mentions - this piece has received quite a bit of coverage. In the Culture24 link Jaar talks about the piece and in Diario de Sevilla the article's writer actually gives their opinion on the work. If they were just offhand mentioning it that'd be one thing, but their commentary turns the article into a review of sorts for the installation. (IE, they say that it was a fairly timely piece, that it would be thought provoking, and that it'd open up debate.) Many of the other news articles do the same thing for the most part. What also pushed this for me is that this was a pretty central piece whenever it was shown, which is something that would be considered a sign of notability for artworks as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 17:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Hélder Costa

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

Not notable. Three of the five sources given are passing mentions rather than anything in depth. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 16:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the nomination itself states that two sources are in depth. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, current (poorly formatted) sourcing is not the best (an interview for a blog, three passing mentions and a book by the same Costa) but apparently the subject is notable, even if most of the coverage is offline. There is a 1981 monograph about him (Dramaturgia de Hélder Costa by Gil Vicente), there is a chapter about him in the 35th volume of the French encyclopedia Revue d'histoire du théâtre, and an entry in História da literatura portuguesa: As correntes contemporâneas by Francisco Lyon de Castro. Enough for a claim of notability IMO. Cavarrone 05:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 23:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Ibn Sina Medical College

AfDs for this article:
Ibn Sina Medical 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)

appears to be a legit degree-granting institution, but there is nothing notable about it. I searched google, google books, and news and found no independent sources discussing this institution Jytdog ( talk) 16:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep:- per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 21:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Hm. Thanks for linking to that. That is bizarre - there are no sources from which to build an article. Let's change direction on that, shall we? Jytdog ( talk) 21:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
What do you mean by That is bizarre - there are no sources from which to build an article ??? What about Progress bangladesh, Arab News, The daily star, All Bangladesh and Somoy Tv? Are they not sources? A stub is an article and that can be built from any of the sources provided above. If the unsourced claims in the article seemed dubious, that can easily be removed per WP:UNSOURCED. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 22:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, of course, as standard practice. I really do not know why this is nominated. We can and should have articles on every university and every freestanding school of medicine or other university level professional school. (In the case of med schools that are parts of universities, we generally make separate articles on them as ell, if there is enough information--but this is free standing, so even if the information were minimal, there would be no suitable merge). DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I do not see why WIkipedia should be a directory of all colleges by default -- WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikicology, typically we require there to be sufficient independent sources from which to construct an article - the crime and strike sources you provided are each just a passing mention and wouldn't justify an article for any other kind of place, and the arab news article you cite is about a different college in Saudi Arabia. But it seems there is some bias (?) toward universities that makes us have very low standards for them. C'est la Wikipedia and I bow to the community. Please consider this AfD withdrawn. Jytdog ( talk) 23:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
thanks for letting me know about the Arab news. Same name and same type of school, so I didn't bother to look closely. Since you had withdrawn your nomination, am glad to close this debate. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 23:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Vardges Satumyan

Vardges Satumyan (  | 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 BLPPROD but source was added. However this footballer is not notable per WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in any WP:FPL and should for that reason be deleted. Qed237  (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237  (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

List of images and subjects in Gray's Anatomy

List of images and subjects in Gray's Anatomy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles proposed for deletion:

The topics covered here have no business being on WP. They are directly from a textbook, and we do not give this treatment to other sources. We are not a repository of such knowledge, and it is not encyclopedic to have the sources alone. Such information is already in the public domain editions of the 1918 textbook and doesn't need to be here.

In addition, they've already served their purpose. Many of these articles were created in 2006 when a large amount of content was taken from Gray's Anatomy 20th edition (1918) and put onto Wikipedia, a process that greatly expanded our anatomical content. The relevant pages have already been entered into anatomy articles (and now transwikied to wikidata) and so are now redundant.

In view of what I've said, I'm proposing deletion.

Notes:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Stylus Music School

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

Defunct private "career training institution" fails WP:ORG. Vrac ( talk) 20:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There's not much information about this and one of the best things I found was this which seems to be for an Ohio "Stylus Music School" (from 1907?) and this is another good case of an old article (September 2007) with no improvement and I'm not seeing a possibility of any improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

IKeyMonitor

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable app - all sources are trivial mentions in lists of software, or writeups based on press releases. bonadea contributions talk 20:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
None of your statements show how notability is met. LibStar ( talk) 05:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent sources. The refs in the article are all incidental mentions with the exception of the still-brief coverage on tweaktown.com, which does not seem reliable as they have no posted editorial policy and may post advertorial content. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 17:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
refer WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar ( talk) 05:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete fails WP:GNG. gets passing mentions but nothing in-depth. Article is an advert which is further demonstrated by single purpose editors appearing in this AfD. LibStar ( talk) 05:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but convert the article to a stub. The non-relevant and unnecessary information like software use and requirements can be weeded out and the large table of features can be merged into the intro stub paragraph. The app has been written about in EJ insight and Krebs on security blogs, and a few other security blogs, which could help pass the notability criteria. If not for an article then at least for a stub. I would make the required changes to tone down its content which does not meets Wikipedia's policy. PipperPopper ( talk) 14:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC) — PipperPopper ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Could you please provide links to the security blog coverage? Dialectric ( talk) 15:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to renomination. Missvain ( talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Con of the North

AfDs for this article:
Con of the North (  | 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 verify that this meets notability. Last AfD 6 years ago, with no consensus. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years. Hopefully, we can now get some resolution. Boleyn ( talk) 19:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

"(T)agged for notability for over 7 years" isn't exactly accurate. About six and a half years ago it was deleted (replaced with a redirect). Someone undeleted it a couple weeks ago for whatever reason, but didn't do anything to the article. I'm only here because I got an email from Wikipedia about this deletion discussion.
I gave up back then as I couldn't make any sense out of what the Wikipedia folks want; comparing the Con of the North article at the time to similar game convention articles at the time that weren't marked with notability issues and put up for deletion gave no guidance.
My recommendation would be to Keep for now and let a new era of interested editors take a crack at it. It's been six years, after all. Parody ( talk) 05:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for making a clearer statement than I did, Parody. I brought it to AfD because of the revertion, but a redirect to List_of_gaming_conventions#West_North_Central is a reasonable alternative to deletion, in my opinion. In terms of its notability, looking at what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS often isn't useful, but please look at WP:NOTABILITY. Do you think it meets the guidelines as notable, and if so, are you able to verify it? Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 06:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Re: Redirecting: It's not in that list as that list specifically requires an article. Without an entry in the list a redirect is inappropriate. (In fact, when someone added the article back to the list after the recent undeletion someone else immediately removed the entry citing "write the article first".)
Re: Notability: I think it's just as notable as other game conventions that have not had their Wikipedia articles deleted. Whether that means notability in this niche needs better consideration or more game convention articles need deletion isn't for me to decide. Verification is difficult in either case, as many conventions don't go searching for press coverage to be proven notable in Wikipedia terms. Parody ( talk) 01:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Brahmo Dharma

Brahmo Dharma (  | 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 unsourced since 2008. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 14:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Fourth Alien

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

All plot summary, no secondary sources. I suggest we either delete or redirect to Roswell (TV series). QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 11:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete (without redirect) - unsourced fan article about non-notable plot element. The overall plot is already available (with a lot of detail) in the main article. Unlikely as search term in an encyclopedia. GermanJoe ( talk) 13:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Coverage at the target (" it is revealed she is a fourth alien hybrid just like them") is insufficient to justify a mainspace redirect. ( WP:TARGET) Better for the Wikipedia search engine to be invoked. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain ( talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Anhayla

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

Stanley has no reliable, independent, secondary sources demonstrating notability. There are no items under WP:NMUSIC that would apply to Stanley. 217IP ( talk) 03:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subject meets 1 & 12 of WP:BAND. Has significant coverage from independent sources. Passes WP:GNG. – 323MU ( talk) 10:37 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 03:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Pakistani heads of state or government

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

Attempts to merge four lists, List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan, List of Presidents of Pakistan, Governor-General of Pakistan and Chief Martial Law Administrator#Pakistan which cover two separate roles, Head of state and Head of government. It makes no sense. It has one series of numbering regardless of role. Even if the numbering were split, how would it resolve for the periods when the Presidency became an executive presidency assuming both roles? The sixth column gives no clue as to the role of the individual. This page attempts to do too much and does it poorly. Bazj ( talk) 14:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bazj ( talk) 14:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bazj ( talk) 14:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bazj ( talk) 14:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: Wikimandia Your examples don't support your argument. Both the lists you cite are just of Heads of State. Within those articles each position is neatly separated out into a separate list. They also have the supporting articles for Heads of government, Prime Minister of Yugoslavia and List of Prime Ministers of Bulgaria. Your argument would require the articles List of heads of state or government of Yugoslavia and List of heads of state or government of Bulgaria.
My point is that this article mushes 4 posts and 2 roles into 1 poorly organised list. Bazj ( talk) 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete the head of state is different from head of government, whilst I don't support the list article at the very least it needs to be 2 different article. LibStar ( talk) 16:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete:- I reluctantly object to keep because Head of government is not the same as Head of state and List of heads of state of Pakistan already exist. We can have an article on List of heads of government of Pakistan but on List of Pakistani heads of state or government seemed unreasonable. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 12:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Article has been improved quite a lot and now has multiple sources. ( non-admin closure) JAaron95 Talk 14:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Eternal Buddha

Eternal Buddha (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
You aren't linking through inline citations, though. You're just adding a list of cites to the bottom of the page. Ogress smash! 02:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Ogress And? It's enough for now. "Wikipedia does not require the use of inline citations except to support direct quotations, material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged and contentious material about living persons." Template:More footnotes Rupert Loup ( talk) 10:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Rupert loup: I did not see this because you did not format that properly, you need to use {{ping}}, not [[ping]]. That might be technically true, but readers are not going to be able to determine that the alleged cites have anything at all to do with the page unless you source statements. This is, after all, an AfD and the article is in awful shape. I added a comment because I wanted to suggest you add inline cites: it's a much better argument than a pile of books in a bibliography that might only be there for show. I have not voted to delete, only commented. Ogress smash! 18:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who participated in the discussion. If you are concerned about this decision please bring it up on the A Fada Oriana talk page or renominate for deletion. Missvain ( talk) 14:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

A Fada Oriana

A Fada Oriana (  | 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:NBOOK: has had no references for 4 and a half years and no non-trivial reviews of the book appear to exist. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 13:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep. Sophia de Mello Breyner Andresen was inducted to the Portuguese National Pantheon in 2014, as one of the most significant writers in Portuguese history. Her books are still best sellers, a reference in public school, adapted for theatre, and so on. Specifically A Fada Oriana is one of the best known of her books. (yet, somehow shamefully, I do not recall reading a single one of them... I guess it got into school curricula more recently years after I was a child myself) I added a few references for these facts. My prose is not the best, and there are better references for sure, but currently they tend to get buried beneath the many news about selling books, school notes, and Sophias' recent induction to the Pantheon- Nabla ( talk)
  • Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK, here are the present references cited in the article, thankyou Nabla:
1. [8] - The Sea Girl and the Oriana Fairy reach the Pantheon, The Observer (Portugal), - Portuguese writers and artists discussing legacy of Andresen including Oriana,
2. [9] - MEC Associates to the homage to Sophia De Mello Breyner Andresen - Portuguese Ministry of Education honoring Anderson and stating the works used in schools - "In basic education, the list of authors and Portuguese texts hosts, for example, The Oriana fairy",
3. [10] - Sophia de Mello Breyner Andresen tale today takes the stage at the Port The magical world of Fairy Oriana - Theatrical performance of Oriana, appears to be media release/announcement, not a review.
4. [11] - The Oriana Fairy "this afternoon at the Centro Cultural de Campo Maior - another article announcing theatrical production,
5. [12] - The Fairy Oriana: A Fairy Oriana, Sophia de Mello Breyner Adresen Under the Master in Illustration - a graphic designer's illustrated version of book (book was originally illustrated by Teresa Calem).

I have found the following through google which also contribute to show notability:

[13] - Mexico: Launch translation to Spanish of Sophia de Mello Breyner Andresen - Press release anouncing launch of Spanish translation of the book at the 32nd International Children's Book Fair of 2012
[14] ORIANA Animation British Columbia as part of the 6th annual Vancouver Women in Film Festival, March 4-6 - film showing announcement, "A whimsical 3D animated fairytale adapted from the iconic Portuguese novel"
[15] Recent Portuguese Publications Bulletin 42 September 2004 Part XVI: Literature, Literary History, Criticism, Essays, Correspondence - Book dealer's catalogue advertising CARDONA, Irene, and Maria Amelia Almeida. The Oriana Fairy Sophia de Mello Breyner Andresen: analysis of the work. 4th ed. Lisbon: Text Publishing, 2003. Collection New Readings, dealer's description is "Aimed at 5th year Portuguese elementary school students, we feel this book can be useful for university undergraduates studying Portuguese literature outside of Portugal."
[16] The presence of “marvellous” in Sophia de Mello Breyner Andresen’s ‘A fada Oriana’ by Maria do Carmo Mendes, researcher and professor of Comparitive literature at Minho University, Portugal - a paper presented at 2008 International Conference on Children's Literature and Culture
[17] "In the Path of True Teaching of Children's Literature" The "Fairy Oriana" of Sophia de Mello Breyner Andresen - Master degree dissertation discussing the study of The Fairy Oriana in the 4th grade.
(this link triggered wikiblacklist so editors will just have to trust me (or google it themselves:)) Canon: reminiscences of students and teachers - paper produced by School of Education of Viseu (IPV), Port and Douro Wines Institute discussing Portuguese school literary canon which includes this book.
[18] The magical world of fairy Oriana by Ana Cristina Pereira - review of theatre presentation, slightly advertorial(?)
From the above, it can be seen that this books meets WP:NBOOK ie. 1 and 4. Please note, that as i do not speak/read Portuguese i have had to rely on english-language google and google translate to find these, there are still more but I think this should be enough. (Although some wikilawyers may state otherwise ), I am sure that Portuguese speaking/reading editors would be able to find more (it is funny though that the article as it presently appears in the Portuguese Wikipedia does not have any references) Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 14:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Standard Methodology for Analytical Models

Standard Methodology for Analytical Models (  | 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 fails all notability guidelines. There is a single linked-in post by the same author that mentions this "standard" methodology. In other words, it is WP:OR, and the authors wants to promote/advertise his own methodology and coin a new name. HelpUsStopSpam ( talk) 12:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply


94.210.76.161 ( talk) disagree. This is not an advertisement of promotion of my own methodology. It is a writeup on how IBM does analytical engagements. As such, it is interesting to read for other analytical practitioners. As mentioned in the article, the work of data scientists contains a lot of tacit knowledge. That is, the ways of working are not put in books or readable format. I tried to change that with this write up. Again: no original research, I document a process that many people (also outside of IBM) follow, but has never been put in writing. — Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. HelpUsStopSpam ( talk) 22:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. HelpUsStopSpam ( talk) 22:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply


114.108.212.96 ( talk)how can this still be up for deletion if in the discussions there's no objection? I researched many other Wiki pages, to find that many topics on Wiki are in fact write-ups on things that exist, but have not been explained in so much detail before. For example, look at https://transferwise.com/support/customer/en/portal/articles This contains all the articles of Transferwise, but none of those articles discusses the "how it works" section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransferWise. So, is this reason for deletion? — Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@ 114.108.212.96: Citing an article that you believe has issues does not address the substance of the issues with this article: 1) its is non-notable (no other mention of this other than recent posts by the author of the Wikipedia entry), 2) Original Research (no citations where this methodology has been discussed other than those connected with the author, 3) IP issues - it is unclear if this is the intellectual property of IBM and if the author has the authority to publish. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal or general publication. As such it should only record knowledge which can be demonstrated to be widely know and discussed other than by those who have created and/or own the intellectual property. 1.136.97.2 ( talk) 22:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, played a major role in notable movies.. ( non-admin closure) JAaron95 Talk 14:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Cody Walker (actor)

Cody Walker (actor) (  | 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 contains no verificaiton of their notability, as outlined for a biography of a living person. One film role does not verify them enough to constitute their own Wikipedia page. livelikemusic my talk page! 12:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Consensus to delete - Consensus seems to be that this is not an encyclopedic topic. While those seeking to keep did demonstrate that sources exist they did not demonstrate that this had any notability beyond being a fringe theory. Thus the result is deletion without prejudice against recreation if you can address the concerns in this AfD.

If anyone is interested in merging to Southern United States they can request undeletion for the purposes of merging, but I don't see a consensus for that here. I would suggest getting consensus at Talk:Southern United States first as it is a long article and probably needs to pick and choose its content. Chillum 20:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

White Southerners

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

Unsourced; original research. A topic like this would need a lot of backing research considering the controversy surrounding it. Sulfurboy ( talk) 05:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Article utterly fails WP:GNG. I'm finding a few blogs and some other sources that refer to "southerners" being a socioethnic group, but nothing of substance and reliability that would warrant an article. - Aoidh ( talk) 05:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete!!! Surely a hoax? Alec Station ( talk) 12:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seems to be written to make some kind of point, or let off steam, or whatever. Merge to Southern United States. The article is much better now, but the material is already covered in the main article. The info here is worthwhile and could be added there. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 17:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It's not a hoax and I'm not letting off steam. This is a legit article about the Southern ethnicity. We are a separate people with our own history, culture, etc and I thought it'd be a good idea to type up a Wikipedia article about us. Now mind you I have a bit of a problem with procrastinating and I am taking the time tonight to really make the article look good. I have sources, etc. I am currently planning it out on a word document. So please, don't delete it.( MelungeonEire ( talk) 03:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)) reply
  • I ask that you don't delete this. I've put a bit of work on the article and I ask all of you to help me with it. Down South, we consider Southern to be an ethnicity and it has been proven by various historians that we are ethnically and culturally distinct from the rest of the United States. I plan on continuously working on this article from now on. ( MelungeonEire ( talk) 05:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks Larry. I crossed out my delete and changed to merge to Southern United States. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 01:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree with this merge. Great work Larry. My main concern from here is the edgy nature of this article. I'm not saying it should be excluded because of that, but I would encourage any editors reading this to add it to their watch page, because I could see this page being abused quite quickly. Sulfurboy ( talk) 01:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I've got the article on my watchlist, but I'd be happy with a merge to Southern United States because it seems to be a pretty niche view that Southerners constitute an ethnic group, and better covered there than in its own article unless more sources can be found. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete - This article makes me cringe! Southerners in and of themselves are not an "ethnic group" anymore than mid-westerners, northerners, or any other part of the United States. There is nothing WP:NPOV about leading off with "White Southerners" as the criteria. Is the author implying that anyone without white skin cannot be considered a Southerner? We don't need this flawed POV, cited with decades old sourcing, merged. This has one point of view, and it doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria. No way. — Maile ( talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, that single opinion does not warrant an article, as WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources, not one (questionable) individual. Especially given that this single author's opinions are over 30 years old, if there were any merit to this article's subject someone would have picked up on it and there would be sources but there seems to be nothing of the sort. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • On a purely technical note, it's untrue to say that the article is based on the work of one author alone. Predating Reed is Lewis Killian's work, and some other authors are mentioned. The idea has also received secondary coverage (e.g. from Dillman and M. G. Smith). Dillman notes that "this concept of Southerners as a distinct American ethnic group has been presented for more than a decade, and it continues to gain momentum". Whether we agree with use of the concept or not, it's clearly not just the idea of one author. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler ( talk) 21:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not ethnicity or encyclopaedic content KiwikiKiWi ( talk) 08:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • KiwikiKiWi, can I push you to cite some policies that your delete vote is informed by? The subject appears to meet WP:GNG, as far as I see it. Whether or not Southerners constitute an ethnic group is clearly open to debate, but this article does at least now attempt to reflect that debate. As I mentioned above, the article doesn't say that Southerners are an ethnic group, but that they are considered by some authors to be an ethnic group. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Synwood

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

Synwood is just a non-notable brand name for a synthetic wood product. This article appears to be merely promotional. It is entirely unreferenced. Gnome de plume ( talk) 11:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 23:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 15:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Kolitha H Sellahewa

Kolitha H Sellahewa (  | 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 physician. Fails WP:GNG. Article was speedily deleted on 6 July 2015 for not indicating the importance of the subject but was recreated on 9 July 2015. obi2canibe talk contr 11:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

1317 Logan Avenue

1317 Logan Avenue (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly non-notable and fails WP:GNG. Not eligible for A7 and PROD removed. ~ Rob Talk 11:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 15:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Miss Netherlands Earth

Miss Netherlands Earth (  | 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 pageant, fails WP:GNG. No independent sources The Banner  talk 08:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Perion Codefuel

Perion Codefuel (  | 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 for non notable software. Teh refs are either press reviews or mere notices. For example, ref 1, claimed to be a Reuters areticle , is marked by Reuters as a press release for which it is not responsible. As for the promotionalism,some examples: "The DisplayFuel network offers advertisers a variety of dynamic media channels to promote their products to millions of users across a range of geos"; "Both methods ensure lasting user engagement and monetization" (not to mention the obvious promotionalism involved in trying to write two articles with many of the same refs. on essentially the same subject from different aspects--when neither are really notable) DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Moving to Draft:Super administrator (Google Apps) per user request. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 20:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Super administrator (Google Apps)

Super administrator (Google Apps) (  | 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 understand that the article creator is new and is still learning Wikipedia's various guidelines and policies. However, the subject of this article (a permission in Google Apps), has not been the subject of reliable coverage. A search for sources reveals mainly tutorials or pages on Google Apps itself, rather than this and its other permissions. I'm not against this being merged to the Google Apps article, but as it stands I don't think this needs a separate article. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 03:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Hold your cows, pigs and horses! The notice I placed on the article actually says "Please do not rush to mark it for deletion". I think that's exactly the opposite of what has happened here. I am not autoconfirmed yet, so I cannot move/merge pages. However, once I am able to do this, I can take care of this issue myself. ChecKemzV ( talk) 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
@ ChecKemzV: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Begging for mercy. Also, autoconfirmed status is only necessary for moving pages; it's not required for merging pages (you could simply copy the current article's content to a relevant article, provided you attribute the change. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 14:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Rhodes Bantam

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

Relisted nomination from DRV discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_July_10#Rhodes_Bantam. Nakon 02:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 18:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain ( talk) 15:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Robert Hendrie Wilson

Robert Hendrie Wilson (  | 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 assertion of adequate notability. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines and WP:NAUTHOR. No indication any of his books pass WP:NBOOK. His books are from the 1970's so there might be coverage I can not find. Jbh Talk 18:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Edited nomination statement As Charles Matthews pointed out below 'no assertion of notability' would be grounds for CSD A7. More properly there is no assertion or claim of notability that meets GNG, NAUTHOR, ANYBIO or any other notability guideline. Jbh Talk 02:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The subject's entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (which is already rather cryptically cited in the article) verifies the facts currently in the article, and I would tend to regard the fact that the entry exists as a fairly strong indicator of his notability. However, beyond the facts already in the article, the encyclopedia entry only mentions that he is a journalist and travel writer (and is therefore presumably the same person as the co-author of a guide to Italy that turns up on Google searches). And there doesn't appear to be much else online - my guess is that there are further sources from the 1970s that are still offline, but unless we can find them, we have no means of telling whether they would be sufficient (together with the encyclopedia entry) to firmly establish notability. PWilkinson ( talk) 18:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Please see SF Encyclopedia - Note on Content. They "have attempted to give an individual entry to every writer who has published an (inarguably) sf book in English – or had one translated into English...". Inclusion in E of SF provides zero indication of notability. I agree there might be some coverage from the 70's but until someone finds it 'might' is not a reason for an article per notability requires verification. There needs to be some indication that sources actually exist.

      Thank you for taking a look at the article. Jbh Talk 19:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, included also in The Science Fiction Source Book (1984). I don't agree with the blanket dismissal of the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. If you cite the GNG, which I think is a poor crutch at the best of times, this sort of reference in a reliable source should be admitted. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Charles Matthews: 'Admitting' it, whatever that means, is not the issue. All the entry says is he wrote four books and his birth date. There is nothing notable in the entry and the mere fact of having an entry is not notable since the inclusion criteria is 'written a science fiction book'. WP:NAUTHOR requires that an author have done something other than simply write a book or even several. Does The Science Fiction Source Book (1984) you mention have any additional information on him? Can you provide the entry so I can use it to improve the article? It would be a great help if you could since it is the only other source I know of. Thank you. Jbh Talk 20:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
On the second point, the book is visible to me in a Google Books snippet, found by the search "Wilson, Robert Hendrie"; the sort of search that I would think comes under WP:BEFORE#Nominating article(s) for deletion, section D, where it mentions Google Books search. While we are on guidelines, your argument goes to show that you should have nominated this article for speedy deletion, by the way, under section B of the "please be sure to" there.
Actually I take another view. The reason that the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction can "get away" with including obscure authors is that people want to look them up. A reference work such as this one can give somewhat better coverage. I also saw, as below, that Wilson is now a journalist, but he has published a travel book also. An article on him would serve a need. Charles Matthews ( talk) 05:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The Google Books version simply shows him as one of 3-4 authors on one page in the index. As near as I can see it is little, if anything, more than than the E of SF entry. 'Wanting to look up' and 'serving a need' are not, in my firm opinion, legitimate reasons for keeping the article unless it can be shown he has passed the minimal guidelines we have for notability which I do not think bare mentions contribute to. Of course others have different opinions on on this so we have AfD. Cheers. Jbh Talk 11:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Indeed, WP:GNG is a sufficient condition for inclusion of a topic, not a necessary one: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So I regard its use as an argument for deletion to be tendentious, even fallacious. This is a reference site, so of course whether or not people generally would want to look up a topic here is relevant.
To go back to the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, the article links to one on Robert Hale Limited the publishers. Now we should have an article on the publishers, who had a stable of authors, and what we know about Wilson could usefully appear in such an article. I.e. if that other article existed I'd be happy to merge this one into it. Charles Matthews ( talk) 04:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply
You are welcome to your view of the notability guidelines but Wikipedia policy and practice is that if a subject does not meet GNG or a subject specific notability guideline it should be deleted.

I am unaware of any articles which simply list a publisher's stable of authors unless those authors are in and of themselves notable. In particular this would be a way to get any published author a redirect page. That is something beyond the scope of AfD. Jbh Talk 11:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

"Wikipedia policy"? WP:DEL-REASON mentions GNG only obliquely: under #7, you could say. I would set the bar quite high for "thorough research".
Certainly many people do in practice call for deletion on the basis of GNG, at AfD, and also many people nominate without (as you show) troubling with the steps actually called for by WP:BEFORE. This is a view of guidelines that sees them mainly as a way of winning arguments, rather than what they mainly are intended for, namely to indicate the expectations that Wikipedia has of editors.
There is another source that mentions Wilson, by the way, Souls in Metal: an anthology of robot futures (1977). It is very easy to find on Google Books.
Now that I have done research on the publishers, I see much better what is going on, though. I am striking my "Keep": and WP:AUTHOR probably does apply. Charles Matthews ( talk) 04:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Charles Matthews: Thank you for continuing to look into this author. Jbh Talk 12:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. None of his works appear to be notable. This travel site calls him a "travel editor of Britain’s largest-circulation women’s magazine" and barely mentions his "four published novels". [21] Unless The Science Fiction Source Book has a significant writeup on him, he fails WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 02:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 02:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Rowing at the 2015 Pan American Games – Men's single sculls

Rowing at the 2015 Pan American Games – Men's single sculls (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge into Rowing at the 2015 Pan American Games. Eat me, I'm a red bean ( take a huge bite) i've made a huge mess 01:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC) I withdraw this nomination. Eat me, I'm a red bean ( take a huge bite) i've made a huge mess 01:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep This fits in with all the other Pan Am games articles, 2015 and prior: a main article for, in this case, rowing, with breakout articles for each of the individual sub-events. A main page article with all rowing events will get quite crowded otherwise, when all the detail is finally added. As an aside, if the nominator wants the article merged rather than straight-up deleted, then AfD was not the correct way to proceed. Crow Caw 01:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 03:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Regionrat

Regionrat (  | 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:NBOOK. Unsourced since creation. Prod contested in 2006, concern was "Spam/advertising. Judging by the creator's user-name, it's an ill-disguised attempt at self-promotion." Vrac ( talk) 00:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article whose editor name is close to that of the book's author. Amazon has a review which looks to be a copy-paste of a short piece of at-publication local media coverage, but searches (Highbeam, Google) are turning up nothing to indicate that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG criteria. AllyD ( talk) 06:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The only halfway decent mention I could find was in this journal article, which is only a brief passing mention via them quoting his book. That isn't enough to warrant the book having an article, so I'll have to go with a delete on this as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:NBOOK, have only been able to find these - [22] - a short university paper book review, [23] - The Region Rat: Folkloristic Contexts of People and Place, a discussion of the term, not the book. but happy for a redirect to Northwest Indiana, the region in question (maybe a section of the article can talk about the term, and mention the book?). Coolabahapple ( talk) 21:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I recommend caution with a redirect. Given the paucity of reference, nothing indicates that the subject name really is a notable nickname for the region. No reason for Wikipedia to support a neologism.-- Rpclod ( talk) 10:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was tagged for G3 speedy deletion (non-admin closure) Snuggums ( talk / edits) 19:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Von Grünberg-Babenberg

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

Completely unreferenced. Google searches show no results. Potentially non-notable family. Kevin12 x d 00:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_July_11&oldid=1142625801"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE