The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. R2 —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 15:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Shimron Elit

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

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

No evidence of notability on google search, article strongly promotional in tone. Speedy has apparently been disputed. Dolescum ( talk) 23:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No evidence of notability presented. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Nothing of substance whatsoever can be found through Google search (for the name in Latin or in Hebrew), just social media stuff. The "record label" isn't notable either, and appears to just be him. The article creator & primary editor is User:Shimron, so it's pretty clearly a WP:COI issue too. — Gwalla | Talk 18:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment - the page has been moved to Draft: space and I've marked the ensuing redirect for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#R2. Ansh 666 01:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus is that this was too soon, and there appears to be a general consensus regarding the existence of notability.  —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Banc De Binary

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

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

Despite having 59 citations, I cannot find a single one in the current article that is actually acceptable. There are about a half-dozen primary sources from the SEC, citations to its Terms of Use, primary sources for promotional information about its awards (see WP:ORGAWARDS), and junk sources to describe its products. Investopedia is cited a few times.

Doing my own searches, I mostly only found short blurbs, press releases, and articles about the SEC and other US authorities prohibiting Banc De Binary from operating in the US without registering as a broker. (a short article on "SEC vs Banc De Binary" may be possible), but practically speaking there is nothing worth salvaging in the current article and any editor that choses to cover it would be better off starting from scratch. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep  Previous AfD closed on 21 May 2014.  This is too soon.  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Question I see an article in the WSJ; I also see some in the Daily Mail-- I know we do not rely on it for BLP, but is its financial reporting considered responsible? DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per all the reasons stated in the recent AfD debate, where a swarm of SPAs tried to delete the article to conceal all the "bad news" about the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Yes, some of the _dozens_ of cites are not useful to demonstrate notability, but some are. Sources from the SEC are not "primary"--this is not an article about the SEC. In addition to the SEC, I see cites from the Financial Mirror, The Independent, the The Wall Street Journal, etc. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 04:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • If we're talking about numbers, then such sources are primary, and to say otherwise is to misunderstand "primary" (or "secondary"). Drmies ( talk) 22:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Hobbes Goodyear. There are reliable sources in there. I can also see the Daily Mail. BethNaught ( talk) 06:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Well, User:BethNaught, see above. And which ones are reliable? Not the Daily Mail, surely--we shouldn't cite gossip tabloid to make a case for a company's notability by our standards. Drmies ( talk) 22:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep We just had an AfD on this article two weeks ago. Enough already. John Nagle ( talk) 06:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep When this article was initially created, it was puffery and nominated for deletion. At the time, the article creator said as follows: "I created this article as well as improving the article about the founder of the company. I believe the company to be notable as it is the only binary option platform that is regulated. In addition, it has won the World Finance 100 Award and was recognized as the Best Trading Platform by World Finance. There are additional references about the company on the founder's article as well (MSN.com Arabia, World Finance, and the Financial Times). Thank you for the consideration given." Sounds good enough for me. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The Independent is a blurb in which Banc is quoted/mentioned, The Wall Street Journal is about the lawsuit from SEC regulators (the lawsuit could warrant its own article), The Dail Mail looks like an op-ed, but I'm not sure. I don't actually see a Financial Times, MSN or World Finance sources in the article, so I don't know what sources are being referred to there. The awards do not remotely make them notable. Bad COI behavior is not a rationale for keeping the article. I see no evidence that the company (rather than the lawsuit we could start an article on) meets WP:CORP or that if it did, the current article would be worth keeping rather than starting from scratch. CorporateM ( Talk) 14:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The company initiated this article in furtherance of its corporate purposes, which according to the U.S. government are apparently to separate investors from their money. It unleashed an army of sockpuppets in furtherance of that goal, and recently offered a five-figure sum to ensure that Wikipedia would continue to be part of its marketing plan. In a situation like this, I think that, for the benefit of the public, we need to bend over backward to keep this article and source it correctly. Primary sources are not prohibited, and may be used when they don't require interpretation, as is the case here. Corporations are not people, and this is an excellent example of why they should not be treated as such in Wikipedia. Coretheapple ( talk) 15:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The company apparently wanted to delete this article because of the negative publicity it gets from it. The article from over a year ago, was a totally different story. Dream Focus 22:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

You are so right! And there's a reason for the article being negative publicity, which reason I am trying to assemble at talk. Sure, I assisted in getting it frozen, but there is a strong inertia against even defining what company is the subject of the article when the article relies on an outdated CFTC source that later self-corrected. That is, if edits attempting to properly disambiguate BDB Ltd from BDB Svcs Ltd can't even be countenanced, the entrenchment against this subject is deep indeed. You seem like the sort of person who might have suggestions useful for me at article talk or user talk. I'd appreciate it. (It's true, I have received an email from BDB before, but I don't want to be accused of COI.) Okteriel ( talk) 23:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep - This was found to be a Keep on May 21, 2014. Notability is not temporary and community standards have not changed in the last two weeks. Allowing renominations such as this would disrupt the AfD process. Carrite ( talk) 20:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Okteriel ( talk) 20:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Just waiting around for the snowball. Okteriel ( talk) 20:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Eight people said keep last time, this article clearing meeting the WP:GNG then and now. The only people trying to delete it were single purpose accounts, some of which proven to be connected to the company. There was no possible reason to start up this AFD again. Dream Focus 22:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G7 (one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 00:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

List of National Highways in India by new highway number

List of National Highways in India by new highway number (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

naveenpf ( talk) 23:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Robert R. Raymond

Robert R. Raymond (  | 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 non-notable perennial candidate with zero coverage in reliable independent sources. Tiller54 ( talk) 20:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tiller54 ( talk) 20:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non notable politician. Perpetual candidate but never elected. 68.232.186.227 ( talk) 22:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not a notable politician per notability policy; never elected. Vaca tion 9 13:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3. Also salted. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 05:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Battlefield 5

Battlefield 5 (  | 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 game coming out in 2018(?). Appears to be unrelated to Hardline, and even its existence is just fan speculation and a leak or two. Konveyor Belt 19:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) Konveyor Belt 20:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete - One mention from a VA on IDMB is nowhere near sufficient to demonstrate existence. -- MASEM ( t) 20:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete Under G3, same as the last time it was created. The iDBM entry appears to be a hoax, and the actors listed have nonsensical bios as well. This was last discussed at WP:VG a month or two ago. -- ferret ( talk) 20:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 17:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

BenGAYliz

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

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

Unnotable dating site, no reliable sources found Zeus ^{u| c} 15:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - not notable, and I cannot find any reliable sources either Nz 101 - Talk :: Contribs 04:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep notable because it is the first such site, also reliable sources are provided. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 16:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic. Agyle ( talk) 00:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep I am bengali and depend on the wikipedia for information and references. bengayliz is actually good resource for the Bangladeshi people. Deletion the page not be good idea i think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.47.123 ( talk) 13:32, 29 May 2014

This isn't a question about whether it is good or useful, but whether independent sources like newspapers provide information about the site. Agyle ( talk) 00:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - reliable sources establish the subject's notability. DJAMP4444 ( talk) 19:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - as per WP:RELIABLESOURCES. DJAMP4444 ( talk) 00:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No evidence of notability whatsoever, I think both editors above need to read WP:RELIABLESOURCES before !voting per it!. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 22:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. While the website may be important to the community it serves, it has received virtually no attention in independent published sources; a caption in a photo in PinkPaper.com is all that can be cited, and that does not rise to the requirement of "multiple sources" with "significant coverage" described in Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Also, the photo caption seems to be wrong about the site launching in December 2008; there is a book that cites a 2007 BenGAYliz article (search for "bengayliz" in books.google.com), and blog posts and other non-reliable web sources refer to BenGAYliz before then. Agyle ( talk) 00:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Although it's a social networking site, it has always been a non profitable site and have been serving for the small minority community that is a community within a minority community it self (meaning Bangladesh being a prominently a Islamic country strictly abided by Bangladeshi penal code "section 377", making homosexuality illegal). Though it's based in UK, the website itself is a way of protesting for the legalisation of homosexuality in Bangladesh, and not only that but people do gain access to various source of information such as where to find relevant help with regards to sexual health, health centres, coping with homophobia and dealing with stress etc caused by dealing with sexuality, all of which can be of great helping sources regardless of sexual orientation. benGAYliz has been used as source of reference in many newspapers, Wordpress blogs, academic literature as well as many LGBT websites. So yes it is a note able source which can be verified if searched in Google by typing "bengayliz". LGBTIBANGLADESH 15:29, 7 June 2014 — LGBTIBANGLADESH ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

‎

LGBTIBANGLADESH, this decision is going to hinge only on independent coverage in published sources like newspapers and academic literature; Wordpress blogs and community websites are generally not considered "reliable sources" on Wikipedia (see WP:RS), and the website's importance, purpose, and usefulness have no bearing on this question of notability (which again, depends on independent coverage of the topic). I searched fairly extensively for English-language sources using Google and came up with very little; if you can link any newspaper or academic articles with significant (or even modest) coverage about the website, in any language, please link them here, so that people can consider them. Agyle ( talk) 01:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - as per Davey2010 1292simon ( talk) 22:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails GNG/NWEB. Happy to change my vote if more sources emerge. As Agyle said, those arguing that this is a valuable resource should keep in mind that reliable sources in any language can help to keep the article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep (1)There are two references both kosher per wp:rs, (2) the site is notable because it is the first such site in the kingdom. (3) The caption isn't wrong the launch succeeded the site's creation by some years. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 14:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • That they are reliable sources (i.e. meet WP:RS) doesn't mean the subject's presence in them constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources." It's the "significant coverage" in question here. One source just has it in a long list and the other mentions something important, but does so only briefly in a photo caption. I agree being the first such site is important, but we need to be more to go on. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Agree with the fact that the coverage isn't significant, the site caters to a minority within a minority, it was taken cognisance of by an official programme. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 14:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment for closer: Please consider more deeply than the ratio of keep and delete opinions. The two cited sources that mention the subject are extremely deficient, and the arguments in favor of keeping never address the lack of significant reliable source coverage. Agyle ( talk) 18:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anne Delong - Let me know what you want me to do as far as redirection/userfication, etc. with the AFC submission and whatnot; consensus is to delete, but let me know what else needs to happen. Go Phightins ! 01:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hardscrabble (album)

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

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

This article has no sources of any kind and is mostly just a track listing from the album cover. There is an old draft article about this topic, Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Hardscrabble (album), which is better developed and has some album reviews, but this may not show sufficient notability either and unless more reliable sources are found may more appropriately be redirected to Benn Jordan. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Benn Jordon. SW3 5DL ( talk) 20:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC) reply

If this page were deleted, the better developed and sourced Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Hardscrabble (album) could be moved to this title and redirected, providing a better base for a future article if the album gains notability. — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Anne Delong: Or just create it off the redirect unless you want him to get article creation credit. If so, I can change the ivote. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - as per nom 1292simon ( talk) 22:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Anastasia Razvalyaeva

Anastasia Razvalyaeva (  | 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:MUSICBIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete promotional article, zero notability, piggy-backing Wikipedia for SEO purposes. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete not seeing any RS that would satisfy {{WP:MUSICBIO]]. PaintedCarpet ( talk) 19:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Not notable. The subject's official website is not considered to be a reliable source. DJAMP4444 ( talk) 19:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 22:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no sources to support the claims 1292simon ( talk) 23:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 20:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Angela Oberer

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

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

NN voiceover artist. Fails to meet GNG or other notability criteria. Speedy was declined without explanation. Appears NN from what the RSs say, despite the fact that her home page indicates that her special skills include: "Marathon Runner, Jump Rope, Frisbee, Swimming, (Backstroke, Freestyle, Breast Stroke), Hiking, Body Building, Motivational Speaking, Can drive stick-shift or automatic, Good with power tools, Gardening, Landscaping, Good with children, pets and elderly people, Computer savvy.". Epeefleche ( talk) 01:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- I would've added a PROD tag, unsourced BLP. OccultZone ( Talk) 10:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Another possiblity. It was tagged for a speedy A7, but that was summarily declined. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 22:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete no evidence she even comes close to meeting notability requirements for actors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - completely fails BLP in many ways 1292simon ( talk) 23:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Still, a voice-over actress with strong work history, unfortunately, voice-over artists do not get nearly the attention that stage & screen & TV actors get. Flipped through ten SERP pages, not much except the Backstage record, plus a blurb in Filmofilia, which doesn't seem to be sufficient for WP:GNG.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 19:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination, but no point relisting a third time - this has been open for > 1 month Go Phightins ! 01:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I/O (album)

I/O (album) (  | 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 album was never made. It was the working title for an album that Peter Gabriel was working on many years ago but he then abandoned it and even Gabriel has stated that nothing was ever finished and that it was just some ideas he had for an album. It doesn't warrant being an article because it obviously fails notability. Glamoria ( talk) 21:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep(ish) On the basis of what the article says, it appears that there is notability even though the album may not conform to the standard criteria. I'm willing to be dissuaded. Deb ( talk) 11:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete As the lead says "Gabriel stated that he had not actually completed the recording of any songs for I/O and that the project was merely a set of "song ideas" which remain unfinished"...No real value that I can see. If songs had been written and used on subsequent albums etc...then that may be different. SethWhales ^talk 08:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Anjali Mukerjee Health Total Pvt. Ltd.

Anjali Mukerjee Health Total Pvt. Ltd. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is overly promotional. Vanjagenije ( talk) 22:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Subject fails WP:CORP. A Google didn't find anything that came close to ringing the notability bell. Sources fail WP:RS and are promotional. Article is almost certainly WP:SPAM. CSD G-11 anyone? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Reads like an ad, too little information available from reliable sources, notability not demonstrated. Agree that speedy might be indicated. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 20:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as advert/promo bollox. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 22:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly, advertising for the company in question. Non-notable. Cowlibob ( talk) 10:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - lacks sources to establish notability 1292simon ( talk) 23:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the article won't be deleted per this discussion, there's no consensus as whether to retain or merge the article, although consensus is leaning toward a merge. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Elli Beny W Benak

Elli Beny W Benak (  | 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 or Merge with Jannat. Unsourced article about a studio album by Jannat, with no indication of why it would need a separate article. The only reference is about the artist, Jannat, not the album. Thomas.W ^talk 15:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Added and modified references in the article. This album is popular in Egypt and has gotten an EMI Golden Disk Award in 2009. User:JannatChannel

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge or Redirect with Jannat and possibly block User:JannatChannel for WP:COI editing. Dailymotion is not an RS, and I can't find RS for the award claim. Article itself is little more than a track listing. PaintedCarpet ( talk) 19:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Merge with Jannat. Clearly the analysis of PaintedCarpet is speedy, did he understand Arabic written in articles? also I find being accused of WP:COI really cheap and frustrating. For the record I'm new (inexperienced) with wikipedia rules. My interest in editing Jannat article can summarized in what follows : wast of time of finding and translating resources and zero pounds: keep in mind to not mix what happen in USA with what happens in the Arabic world. Musical industry here is by far less developed in media, so the difficulty to find reliable resources. ( talk) 02:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JannatChannel ( talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Fractal Audio Axe-FX

Fractal Audio Axe-FX (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources not notable I+delete+things+alot ( talk) 16:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 04:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. No reliable sources exist in the article, and there is no explanation of why this brand is notable. Bearian ( talk) 18:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Antique Amor

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

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

12.249.243.118 requested an AFD be started for this at WT:ANIME, after speedy deletion and prod nominations were both declined. The reason he gave for deletion is that it seems like an obvious hoax. At Talk:Antique Amor, he said "And the cast of this little fanfic includes a boy band member and Nickelodeon star, the lead singer of a visual kei band, and Miss Colombia 2011? Why this was not speedily deleted as an obvious WP:HOAX is beyond me". It also seems likely to me to be non-notable even if it isn't entirely a hoax. Calathan ( talk) 17:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is not a hoax but is not notable, the only things I could find were references in the form of blogs. Has there been any coverage of this in reliable news sources in Latin America? I would think there being big stars in the show that it would get that kind of attention. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not seem notable. Lucia Black ( talk) 18:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. Nominator should have read the very first sentence of WP:NOTDIR before invoking that section here. postdlf ( talk) 00:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States)

List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States) (  | 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 list was created as a content fork from Democratic Party (United States) and seems to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is an ongoing discussion on the party's talk page to determine whether the list can be retained there. gobonobo ^{+ c} 17:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not fit as a criticism of this particular article, as a quick glance will show. Additionally, oppose per WP:LIST, and WP:MOS. At Wikipedia lists have a purpose. This list fits perfectly into two of the three purposes. WP:LISTPURP From that guidance:

" Lists have three main purposes:

Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.

Navigation:Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles. Users without a specific research goal in mind might also find the articles listed in articles' see also sections useful. Lists are also provided in portals to assist in navigating their subjects, and lists are often placed in articles via the use of series boxes and other navigational templates."

Furthermore this list matches WP:LSC, WP:CSC Selection criteria

1. Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.
2. Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment."

This is a clean, robust list that is used within a template. It is useful, unambiguous, objective, each member of the list meets notability requirements, each has its own non-redirect article. It is, I suggest, a valuable list of information, one that additionally aids navigation. Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. If the members of the list are individually notable (have articles) then this is obviously good to keep, per wp:CLT that lists, categories, navigation templates are complementary. Also, somewhat related are recent AFDs in February 2014 for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice Party of California, in which consensus was that separate state-specific articles were valid if there was enough coverage, but otherwise state articles for these minor parties should probably redirect to a national list-article or national party article. Here, for the Democratic party, there is likely tons of history and coverage so every state one is individually notable. Whether or not every state article is valid, though, a list of them is completely obviously valid. -- do ncr am 19:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep The only section of WP:NOTDIRECTORY I could find that this article potentially violates is the first section, specifically lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. However, the section itself states that it is okay to have lists “if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic”. This isn’t a violation of policy and I fail to see the justification deletion. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This has a valid index function. American party politics are based on the primacy of state parties, for what it's worth; the national structures are more or less fundraising devices. The green links should not be in the body but that is an editing matter, not a notability question. Carrite ( talk) 03:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Randall Anthony Jonas

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

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

A text book writer and painter. He wrote three text books and one research article as a Masters student. Presumably, it is his thesis. Unable to find any reliable, independent references about him. Only mentions on social media. Name is common. Prod was removed for unknown reasons Bgwhite ( talk) 16:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - comes across as a resumé and/or an advertisement. The subject also lacks notability. DJAMP4444 ( talk) 19:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No evidence of being notable. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC). reply
• Thank-you for the comments and feedback. I have revised the page to the best of my ability. The following information is notable regrading the issue of deletion:

The research article is not an MA thesis. And so this presumption is false. The research is notable as it speaks about the democratization of knowledge in developing nations and the technological divide and free access to scholarship via the Internet.

The source is notable and referenced in a refereed journal on the page. The research was co authored with John Willinsky and that is now mentioned in reference to Wikepedia links: /info/en/?search=John_Willinsky

The independent references are also on the page, for example, The Swedish and German libraries, the actual publishers, the journal itself and more. Please see the references.

Regarding the quantity published, I do not see this as an issue. An author is an author. If there is a prequisite for quantity, I do not see one in my research regarding standards for entries.

If the page comes across as an advertisement or resume, that is my fault. This is the first time I have ever written up anything on Wikepedia and my inexperience is showing here.

I used an accepted page that has been online for many years. It is similar in content to mine. This individuals biography has even less sources and it is an accepted page and format. As such I used it as an example of what is OK - The page is here: /info/en/?search=Billy_Mavreas

I hope that the new references added in respect to the feedback given are now clear. Libraries, universities and publishers are the makeup of most of them.

Regarding the format and content, I used /info/en/?search=Billy_Mavreas as a guide and it is accpeted.

Thanks for the feedback. Roguewitch ( talk) 15:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC) — Roguewitch ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Please note that the referenced research is open access and does not in anyway breach copyright. As such it is a notable reference and usable here. Roguewitch ( talk) 23:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Inappropriate conduct by Roguewitch by changing the name of the article in the middle of an AfD debate. A search on GS for "Randall Anthony Jonas" gives zero cites. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Actually, Roguewitch appears to have changed the heading at the top of this discussion rather than doing anything directly to the article. I have undone this change, as it broke the link from here to the article under discussion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the explanation. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC). reply

• Delete. His co-authored "Access to research in Cameroonian universities" has only 15 citations in Google scholar. That's well under the bar for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Thanks for the feedback. I tried to change the name to "Randall Jonas" as this is the name on all the published works. It is probably better to be named "Randall Jonas" I am new to Wikipedia and I do not know how to do this.

The textbooks are referenced at The National Library of Sweden. The books are in at least 15 libraries in this country. [1]

Google books references the Cameroonian research here [2]

I have the library reference for the books and I do not know how to reference them properly, any feedback or help is appreciated, the reference is here: [3]

Roguewitch ( talk) 00:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I'm sorry, but Wikipedia requires significant coverage of a person in reliable secondary sources. I don't see that here. Lots and lots of professors write or edit books, but not all get an article. Bearian ( talk) 23:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 17:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Youflik (social networking site)

Youflik (social networking site) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Social networking website that does not appear to meet WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. The article claims that this is the first Indian social networking website - that is clearly incorrect, BIGADDA for instance existed well before Youflik did ( [4]), and that's just one example that I found after a short search. The claim that the site has 16,000 users is difficult to verify - there are no sources for the claim in any case. I can't find any significant coverage of the website in the press. There are a few articles about the launch of the site, some of which appear to be based on press releases, some of which seem original, but it's not enough to meet WP:GNG as far as I can see. bonadea contributions talk 16:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prithvi Raj S Amin - related AfD -- bonadea contributions talk 16:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete or complete rewrite – Article created by questionable SPA and edited by site's creator frequently; extreme conflict of interest. I don't believe this is notable. Origamite ^{\(·_·\) (/·_·)/} 17:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable website. PaintedCarpet ( talk) 19:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as non notable website. per above →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 22:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There are two Times of India articles about the the site (a 2012 one on the youflik.cu.cc version, and 2013 one on the youflik.com version], a The Hindu article, an Udayavana article, a DaijiWorld article, and many other well-established sources. However, all of these seem to be about the launch or relaunch of the site, published the week in which the two versions of the site were launched, making them somewhat of a "single-event" ( WP:ONEEVENT) story without the ongoing coverage needed for notability. The depth of coverage seems shallow as well; while the articles are about on the website and its creator, they don't go into much detail, and are very duplicative. I get the feeling newspapers simply regurgitated information from press releases issued by the company, without gathering or fact-checking information themselves, though that's speculation and doesn't matter for Wikipedia's notability criteria. I am not counting the cited digitfreak.com reference as a reliable source, as that seems like a blog. Agyle ( talk) 23:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Coverage seems routine and not really helpful in establishing notability. Article can be recreated later if it get more significant coverage. I agree that the current coverage looks to be basically press releases and blogs. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 14:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-notable with limited press coverage. Also clear conflict of interest of major contributors to this wiki. Cowlibob ( talk) 10:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with kudos to User:Colapeninsula for their work on the article. Mojo Hand ( talk) 16:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Achievers University

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

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

Universities do have some inherent notability but we still expect an article to contain independent references. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 16:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Universities are considered to be inherently notable by longstanding consensus and precedent. Proof of existence is sufficient. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep I added some sources. There is a bit of coverage in the Nigerian press, although it's not the most important institution of its type. But bearing in mind the usual policy on universities, there's no reason to delete. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 11:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a database of all universities in Nigeria in the official website of the National Universities Commission. Darreg ( talk) 02:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: no evidence of notability. RockMagnetist ( talk) 23:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Eurhythmy

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

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

Declined PROD. Essay about a fringe theory of physics with, AFAICT, no adherents outside a small group in Lisbon. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 16:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete No independent sources. Also the article has no meaningful content. Perhaps a hoax? Dingo1729 ( talk) 04:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g11, blatant advertising. Although I agree with Bejnar that an article should be written about Mr. Ong as a scam artist, the current copy is all self-promotion and arguably misleading. Anyone should feel free to start a neutral article. NawlinWiki ( talk) 16:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Ong Kean Swan

Ong Kean Swan (  | 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 references. Removal of CSD and BLPPROD templates ASCII-002 I ^Notify_Online 15:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete: Clear copyright infringement and the author has repeatedly removed the CSD templates without addressing the issue. Piguy101 ( talk) 15:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Should Garydog be reported to the sysops for blocking because of her/his poor behavior in articles and lack of discussing the problems at hand? Piguy101 ( talk) 15:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• I looked at the similarities between the source material and the article/stub, and there are enough differences that I declined the speedy deletion (for that reason of copyvio only). That having been said, this person can not in any way be said to be notable. Delete. FWIW, I am warning the noob once more. Bearian ( talk) 15:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete: Leaving the author's behaviour aside... Not notable, looks like an advert and possible COI. -- Stroppolo ^talk 15:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete: Not notable and looks like a resumé - not to mention the removal of templates by Garydog. DJAMP4444 ( talk) 15:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete seriously. WP:SNOW, creator WP:NOTHERE. Widefox; talk 00:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep and rewrite extensively. This scam artist takes money from investors and gambles with it using "his system". "此通告的目的：圆梦集团负责人的PETER ONG和PHILIP ONG经常到处演讲". Baccarat Institute. He was arrested in 2013 for impersonating Perak royalty. Earlier he was a distributor for Melilea, a company selling health and beauty products, and provided confidential information on their "sharp" business practices to the newspapers. Melilea lost its 2007 defamation suit against the newspapers but won against him and other distributors. Coverage includes:

• "#01: 'Tengku Ong' Didakwa Di Mahkamah". Crime Watch. 22 March 2013. his arrest with photos
• "'Tengku Ong' mengaku tidak bersalah menyamar kerabat diraja". Astro Awani. 20 March 2013. arrest with photos
• "Ahli perniagaan Cina menyamar kerabat diraja Perak didakwa". Kosmo! Online. 20 March 2013. arrest
• "Spreading birthday joy by giving". The Star Online. 8 November 2013. with photo
• "Firm loses lawsuit against Kayveas and three others". The Star Online. 28 May 2012.
• "Company loses suit against NSTP". New Straits Times. 28 May 2012.
• "Saman fitnah RM20 juta syarikat jualan lansung terhadap Kayveas ditolak". Sinar Harian. 27 March 2012.

I did not find coverage of his insurance business or coffee business. -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Cold as Ice (novel)

Cold as Ice (novel) (  | 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 book I+delete+things+alot ( talk) 17:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Book fails WP:GNG. Maybe a redirect to Charles Sheffield would work. wirenote ( talk) 17:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep just like the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ganymede Club, this SF novel received lots of press and a similar work-up can be made as was done for The Ganymede Club. See, for starters, the listing at ISFDB. The book was first published in 1992, has been through several editions and remains in print more than twenty years later. -- Bejnar ( talk) 01:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep and speedy close. The ISFDB page for this novel lists enough reviews to establish the coverage that demonstrates notability. The nom has apparently ignored the requirements of WP:BEFORE and displays a curious interest in deleting the works of a rather notable author. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 23:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Bejnar. As with the The Ganymede Club AfD, this book appears to have received sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:BK.  Gongshow    talk 02:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 20:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

List of hotels in the Philippines

List of hotels in the Philippines (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

long list of empty sections, red linked (=non-notable) hotels, international hotel chains and links to disambiguation pages. In this way it does not serve any purpose and it should be a candidate for WP:TNT The Banner  talk 13:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• The problem content is largely the work of one IP editor within the past couple months, so reverting back to an earlier stage (such as here, though there may be a better point) will clear out nearly everything you're complaining about. Please do check the edit history of articles you nominate in the future when the problem is the content but not the topic. postdlf ( talk) 16:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Only after posting the AfD I noticed that it was AfD'ed earlier for exactly the same as my arguments. clearly, doing nice is not solving the problem of this article. You will only have less red links when reverting and p**s off an IP. The Banner  talk 16:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
    • To which I need only respond WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. postdlf ( talk) 18:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
      • I did not ask for clean up, I have asked for removal to make a clean start possible, conform WP:TNT. The Banner  talk 18:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Carrite ( talk) 17:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

This has become an index of blue links. I will stand down to ease the reading of consensus. Carrite ( talk) 03:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep and cleanup. Part of a bigger series of Category:Lists of hotels by country. Revert it back to the last good version and ask for page protection (say 2-4 weeks) and address the issue of the IP edits on the talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • What version do you suggest? A quick look gives me the idea that the article was never really better than the present state. The Banner  talk 18:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
    • The current version. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Lugnuts, and my comments in the previous AFD: that there are a sufficient number of notable hotels in the Philippines to merit an index of them per WP:LISTPURP and the list should exist as a complement to Category:Hotels in the Philippines per WP:CLN. WP:VAGUEWAVEing at NOTDIR doesn't remotely rebut that, nor does pointing to bad edits made to the page (as you will probably have with any list of businesses of any type), which in any event were mostly recent. If such edits persist after reversion, then I'm all for page protection (particularly as they all came from IPs, so semi-protection alone might do the trick). And as there is a better version in the page history to revert to as I note above, WP:TNT is inapplicable. postdlf ( talk) 18:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep WP:TNT is not a policy and is explicitly contradicted by our actual policies: WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Nominations which are so grossly erroneous should be speedily closed. Andrew ( talk) 18:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• The list has now been improved to a point where the nominator's concerns are no longer relevant, mainly just by reverting as I said above. I added a couple more entries I found in the corresponding category; there may be more that I missed. I don't know enough about Philippines geography to know whether the current header subdivisions make sense so I left that intact for now. Maybe a single sortable table with columns for province and/or city would make more sense given that there aren't such a large number overall. postdlf ( talk) 20:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. To the extent that any problems remain, they're fixable.— S Marshall T/ C 22:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep per Postdlf who's removed all the shit & tidied it up :) - Thanks Postdlf :), As for the nom - AFD's aren't for cleanup and you could've just removed all the shit yourself?. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 22:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I have never asked for clean up. That is 100% the own initiative of Postdlf. The Banner  talk 23:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I know, I just don't know why you haden't checked the history prior to nominating ? But it's all fixed so all's good :) →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 12:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
      • I admit, not good enough to find the earlier AfD for the same reason. But seeing the cry for help from Postdlf, the article looks like a red link-magnet. The Banner  talk 07:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Following good work by Postdlf this is now a perfectly respectable list. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 23:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• More eyes on the list, please; the same editor (both as an IP and as a registered editor) is persisting in restoring the same edits in the same manner, with minimal communication. postdlf ( talk) 15:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per WP:HEY - with the red limk-cruft removed. Bearian ( talk) 18:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to 5 Seconds of Summer. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

List of awards and nominations received by 5 Seconds of Summer

List of awards and nominations received by 5 Seconds of Summer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

There are so few awards here that the information can easily be returned to the main 5 Seconds of Summer band article. This should never have been split out. Binksternet ( talk) 13:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge to 5 Seconds of Summer. Too few nominations and putting the table back into the main article wouldn't make the article too unweildy. PaintedCarpet ( talk) 19:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge - Agreed. No reason for this to be split off from the main article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no outstanding deletes, as Lady Lotus has striken her comment. kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 14:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Galipatam

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

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

Upcoming film with little coverage, it is WP:TOOSOON for an article BOVINEBOY 2008 11:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

:Delete agree with nom, too soon and too few sources. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Galipatam Naveen Gandhi Sampath Nandi Aadi Erica Fernandes Kristina Akheeva Rahul Ravindran

• Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3), as filming has completed, release is expected, [5] [6] and the production meets requisite notability criteria. [7] [8] [9] Article serves the project by remaining and being improved through regular editing. Even were this were to be deleted, it would be undeleted or recreated in a very few days or weeks. So let's get this one fixed up. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw. The sources provided are very thin on actual information and seem promotional, but it does appear to meet WP:GNG. BOVINEBOY 2008 22:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article fails WP:EVENT. TLSuda ( talk) 13:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Shirt-sleeves summit

Shirt-sleeves summit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of the significance of this event. Any coverage this receives would fall under WP:ROUTINE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge There's more about it in the China–United States relations than in this article. Peter James ( talk) 15:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:ROUTINE reporting, nothing to indicate any WP:LASTING significance of this event. LGA  _talk ^edits 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• delete fails WP:EVENT. No long term significance. LibStar ( talk) 10:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete then Redirect to China–United States relations Non-notable routine event with no enduring historical significance.  Philg88 ^{♦ talk} 04:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Frailes, Spain. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Frailes (Jaén)

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

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

Nearly identical to the older article Frailes, Spain. The Banner  talk 11:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as copy of existing article. This could have been dealt with by changing it to a redirect. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect The editor who created Frailes (Jaén) added the same content to the existing article (which had previously been a stub) a few minutes later, and this is a plausible redirect. Peter James ( talk) 15:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Frailes, Spain, copy of existing article.-- Staberinde ( talk) 12:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep. WP:Non-admin closure. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 05:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

T. P. Singh Rawat

T. P. Singh Rawat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find any proof this person exists. According to this article List_of_members_of_the_14th_Lok_Sabha B. C. Khanduri was elected from Garwhal - and was in post for the 13th and 15th Lok Sabha. A google search just shows wiki mirrors Gbawden ( talk) 09:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment I think I found him [10] --Shivam ( U- T- C) 10:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep The nominator should have raised the query on the talk page before proceeding to nominate for deletion. As described he was elected in a bye election. Anyway I have now provided the references from parliament website. Shyamsunder ( talk) 10:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

*Delete There is certainly no reason for a "speedy keep" here based on a belief in a necessity of raising an issue on a talk page before nominating for deletion. I wouldn't even call that rude. But my own search for independent reliable secondary sources on this person turned up almost nothing. I was able to establish to my satisfaction that he does appear to exist, which is more than the nominator was able to do (and which suggests that the nomination was perhaps done in some haste?), but existence does not translate to notability, and notability I was not able to establish. If there are some reliable independent sources in foreign languages (Hindi? Urdu? etc.) perhaps these could be used to establish notability; failing that, I do not see a reason to retain this article at this point. KDS4444 ^Talk 10:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shyamsunder ( talk) 10:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shivam ( U- T- C) 10:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former MP and former MLA. Source found by Shivamsetu confirms it. More sources found under T. P. S. Rawat: [11], [12], [13] and [14]. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• (edit conflict) Keep, [15] states that he was elected twice to the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly and that he was elected in a by-election in Feb 2008 to the Lok Sabha. http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/SE_2002/Stat_rep_2002_UT.pdf and http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/SE_2002/Stat_rep_2002_UT.pdf confirms his election to the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly (as an INC candidate), which means that he passes WP:POLITICIAN. It is weird that he doesn't show up at http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/ByeElection/07to08/bye07_08.htm , nor any mention of a 2008 bye-election at http://ceo.uk.gov.in , but him being a LS members is mentioned in the Tribune article above and articles like http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/lok-sabha-elections-2014/news/TPS-quits-AAP-joins-Cong/articleshow/33679981.cms . The article clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN for notability, but I'd suggest removing details on LS membership until we have unequivocal confirmation of the election. Also, the cabinet minister part might refer to Trivendra Singh Rawat (who, of course, deserves an article of his own as well). -- Soman ( talk) 12:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A general (passes WP:SOLDIER) and a member of a national legislature (passes WP:POLITICIAN). Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment; here is his maiden speech in parliament; http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/psearch/result14.aspx?dbsl=10172 . Here is has tabled six motions on the railway budget http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/psearch/result14.aspx?dbsl=10096 (still weird that Election Commission doesn't list his election, but he has clearly been a MP somehow). -- Soman ( talk) 14:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment news report about Rawat swearing oath as parliamentarian http://news.oneindia.in/2008/03/03/lt-gen-retd-tej-pal-singh-rawat-takes-oath-1204533551.html -- Soman ( talk) 14:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Simone Holcomb

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

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

Don't think this person is really notable, besides the one event mentioned in the article Gbawden ( talk) 08:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

*Keep It took me very little time to find an article on her in the LA Times as shown here, and other news sources also seem to cover her more than trivially. My concern, however, is that she only has notoriety for this single incident. Worse, the article as it stands reads like a blow-by-blow account of a legal fight, not an article about the subject. If I could make the original author re-write the piece according to Wikipedia guidelines for such articles, I would do so. But I can't, and I am not interested in rewriting it myself. So understand that my "keep" vote is based only on the technicality that she appears to have gotten the necessary news coverage. As a Wikipedia article, however, it needs a good deal of brushing up. Delete per WP:SINGLEEVENT KDS4444 ^Talk 10:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I've cleaned the article up some, but really- she's only known for the one incident. Other than some fairly light coverage in 2003, she hasn't been in the news since. I haven't been able to find anything that followed up the incident, as some sources were saying that she still faced some military legal repercussions but I can't see where anything else happened. There might be merit in making a page entitled List of US military who went AWOL or similar, as cases like these do gain media attention and could be used to help write about AWOL and the US military or something along those lines. I'm not terribly into writing articles about those sort of things, so I wouldn't know where to begin with that, but I can see where a list of notable AWOL soldiers (by country) would be a potentially good page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is a case of WP:BLP1E. EricSerge ( talk) 20:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:BLP1E. —   dain omite   14:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Dario Lopez

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

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

A minor businessman with a minor business. As has been noted many times before, you're not notable just for doing your job. There are references, but although they establish that this person exists and describe what he does, they don't appear to establish any real notability. In what way is he more notable than the proprietors of any of the hundreds of other mobile phone accessory businesses to be found on every high street in London? RomanSpa ( talk) 07:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - well, you're not notable just for doing your job unless your job is President of the United States or something. But yeah, there's nothing to suggest this fellow is notable by our standards. The coverage all basically relates to one event; his being recognised as the UK's top e-bay seller. It's not particular in-depth coverage and most of the information included is very trivial. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 07:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- A comany with a staff of 13 and turnover of £3M does not sound notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

List of California politicians

List of California politicians (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. this is mostly external links to govt websites, which presumably will list the most current political officeholders. the list as presented here is out of date. I think the overall list is unworkeable and unfixable, and i dont see the encyclopedic use of such a list, which would need near constant monitoring to be accurate to any degree. title also doesnt reflect content really, as it doesnt include state level politicians. the small cities councilmembers dont need listing here, and many are not even linked to the articles on them. simply too many issues to bring it up to any coherence. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Agree the concept is unworkable; it would have to include tens of thousands of names to be accurate and could never be kept current. This is what categories are for. A more targeted list such as "list of local politicians in California", restricted to current officeholders, might be a little more workable, but even so I would question its encyclopedic value. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I'm surprised this has survived eight years in more or less this form. And no, MelanieN, this is absolutely not what categories are for. postdlf ( talk) 14:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• comment We do have Category:California politicians, but its really more of a container category, as everyone in this category is likely to fit into a more specific one. I see your point about its not what cats are for, if you mean we shouldnt have flat categories when we really need nested categories. A list is complementary to nested categories when you , the reader, need to see every article/item together, as long as the list itself is supportable (which, of course, i think is not in this case). Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I meant the purpose this list is presently serving is not what categories are for; MelanieN's comment about categories immediately followed her observation that the list of all present local officeholders would need to have "tens of thousands of names" and be "kept current", as if we would somehow want a category to try that even though most don't have articles. I don't know what else she intended by that comment, and generally if it makes for a bad list it makes for an even worse category. Incidentally, I created Category:California politicians (good god, was it really ten years ago?). We should at some point have a master list of lists created to index our articles on California politicians in parallel to the category structure and to organize on one page the contents of Category:Lists of California politicians. postdlf ( talk) 18:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Got it. agreed. on the first part. not sure about the indexing, let me parse it first. probably a good idea once i understand it:) Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 01:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• This is indeed pretty unworkable and outdated. I note, for example, that one city's listed incumbent mayor was postscripted with a link to a PDF indicating that he died in 2011 (and yet he's still listed three years later as still being the incumbent mayor, instead of somebody, oh, correcting the list to name the actual new mayor?) — and Antonio Villaraigosa, as well, is still listed as the incumbent mayor of LA (I'm Canadian and I knew right away that he isn't the mayor anymore, without even having to check.) Furthermore, in many cases this was serving as a web directory of links to the councilmembers' profiles on the counties' or cities' own websites — which, per WP:ELNO, we're not allowed to do. There's simply not much value in this list; as currently constituted, it's just a WP:NOTDIR violation with no redeeming qualities. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 00:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (G11) Dudel250 Chat PROD Log CSD Logs 10:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Maine bound adventure center

Maine bound adventure center (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Topic isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia article, article is more of an advertisement, and there isn't enough encyclopedic material to warrant a merge beyond perhaps a sentence or two. ElKevbo ( talk) 04:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Outside of University of Maine and social media, there are no reliable sources about the center. Only could find ad like and brief mentions. If anything, copy a few sentences into the main University of Maine pages. Bgwhite ( talk) 04:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-notable unreferenced article with no reliable sources found. Minimal content can be recreated in a new section at University of Maine.  Philg88 ^{♦ talk} 05:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Part of the information is already found on University of Maine. Most of the information reads like an advertisement. It looks like the UofM page could maybe use a section such as "Recreation" or maybe "Student life" where this would fit in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisarepa ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ^{♦ talk} 05:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per WP:SNOWBALL And Failing WP:GNG Dudel250 Chat PROD Log CSD Logs 07:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as spam. I've tagged it as a speedy and started the merger discussion on the UoM talk page. There is merit to having a small subsection about student life and including a few sentences about the group, but by large the page is so spammy that there's not a lot worth saving. The opening paragraph wasn't so bad, so I put that in the discussion section at Talk:University_of_Maine#Merge_proposal. I don't even really think that there needs to be a merger proposal so much as a brainstorming session on trying to find what can be put in the section other than this group, as UoM is a huge college and has more going on that should be included. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• I've speedied it. Even if you were going to redirect, you wouldn't do it from this article title. Deb ( talk) 10:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Judith Van Veldhuysen

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

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP about a deputy leader of a political party. I might accept that as a valid claim of notability if a substantial volume of reliable source coverage specifically about her were actually present, but the only reference here is a primary source — her biography on the political party's own website — and being the deputy leader of a political party is not a claim that entitles a person to an automatic presumption of notability under WP:POLITICIAN if the sourcing ain't up to scratch. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 03:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 03:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 03:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. First, she is deputy leader, not leader. Second, she is a party leader in the province, not nationally. Third, it is a minor party that has never held a seat in the province, and it appears that the largest percentage of the vote they have ever received was 8%. And by far most importantly, I have thus far been unable to find any news articles, etc., that even mention her, much less that she is the subject of. Paisarepa ( talk) 06:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, strictly speaking, your second and third points are irrelevant to the question of whether she's notable enough for an article or not — the number of seats that a political party has or hasn't held in the legislature has no bearing on whether the leader is notable enough for a Wikipedia article or not, nor does whether the party operates at the provincial/state or the federal level. Being the deputy leader rather than the top banana can enter into it, however — and you're correct that the lack of strong sourcing about her is definitely the coup de grâce. Bearcat ( talk) 04:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete - impressive sounding lede, but mighty thin resume. Quis separabit? 23:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non notable politician. 68.232.186.227 ( talk) 22:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 20:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Clinical care extender

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

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

advertising/promotion The Banner  talk 10:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Agree, this is promotional (although you wouldn't know it from the title) and non-notable. A Google search for "clinical care extender" found only websites belonging to the sponsor of the program, COPE Health Solutions. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by FreeRangeFrog(CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Krishna Mali

Krishna Mali (  | 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 does not clearly indicate notabilty. No reliable sources given. Obvious COI. _noisy jinx ^huh? 13:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• SPEEDY DELETE It should be, rather, "clearly does not meet notability guidelines". What a crock of crap. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete The 19 year old subject comprehensively fails the inclusion criteria for a biographical article. In my view this also qualifies for speedy deletion under A7: There is no credible claim to notability in the article whatsoever. Voceditenore ( talk) 10:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete - good grief. Passing admins should feel free to close this. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 12:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete Article qualifies for a speedy. It is an auto biography and is non notable. —  LeoFrank  ^Talk 13:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Johnson Elementary School

Johnson Elementary 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)

NN elementary school. I cannot see any special indicia of notability; in such circumstances, we generally do not keep such articles as stand-alone articles. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche ( talk) 00:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Johnson (town), Vermont per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. I wish this result could be rendered speedily without recourse to AfD. Carrite ( talk) 17:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Carrite -- I agree with your last sentence. Epeefleche ( talk) 20:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:ORG. The problem with a redirect is that there is a bunch of schools with the same name so chances are that redirecting to Johnson (town), Vermont will send the reader to a non-relevant page. Disambiguating between non-notable schools would not, of course, be a good idea leaving deletion as the most practical solution. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 23:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per WW.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Number 5 7 13:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hagan Elementary School

Hagan Elementary 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)

NN elementary school. We don't generally retain stand-alone articles for such schools, absent unusual circumstances that I don't see here. Prior AfD was over 7 years ago, before the current general approach of not keeping elementary schools absent unusual circumstances. Epeefleche ( talk) 00:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No secondary sources to demonstrate notability. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 21:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Poughkeepsie (town), New York#Education per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite ( talk) 17:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:ORG. The problem with a redirect is that there are at least two schools with the same name so redirecting to Poughkeepsie (town), New York may send the reader to a non-relevant page. Disambiguating between non-notable schools would not, of course, be a good idea leaving deletion as the most practical solution. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:ORG. no demonstration of sources to establish notability. LibStar ( talk) 04:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect; there are various techniques to use in disambiguation. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - It is impressive that the article lasted as long as it did. Nothing notable. Nickmalik ( talk) 18:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Beer Chips

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

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

Meets criteria for WP:A7 and WP:G11. Prof. Mc ( talk) 11:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete, promotional article for non-notable product. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. I have copy edited the article to address promotional tone. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep as Northamerica1000's found alot of sources so now passes GNG. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 04:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Probably destined to remain a stub forever, but it's got enough coverage to be notable. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 16:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 16:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Unsocial Amigos

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

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

Poorly sourced article about a self-published book. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 01:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:NBOOK criteria Nz101 ^Userpage _Talkpage 04:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom, Nz101. - 「dsprc」 ^{[ talk ]} 05:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 06:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

TxtNation, Inc.

TxtNation, Inc. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article was deleted in 2007 after afd. No indication that company meets WP:CORP due to a lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Dewritech ( talk) 18:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins ! 01:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) RadioFan ( talk) 00:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The Westin Excelsior Rome

The Westin Excelsior Rome (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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