From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 October 1 November >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Robert Reynolds (manager/lawyer)

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

    Notability Zacaparum ( talk) 00:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    This article is mere self-promotion. This a a lawyer who represents famous people as a lawyer and a manager. He is not himself notable. He even goes so far as to list the successful records of his clients, as if that makes HIM notable. So what? Most famous people (including rock stars) have lawyers; that doesn't mean every such lawyer gets his own Wikipedia article.

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Even though I totally agree this should be deleted, It think it's worth mentioning that it's not any one in particular's responsibility to prove notability of a given article. It's a community effort.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:32, 5 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 13:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Praison's Last Chance

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

    Non-notable film lacking non-trivial resources. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix ( talk) 23:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Other than some primary sources, I can find nothing to suggest that this short film is ultimately notable enough for an article. The sources on the article are either IMDb (a database entry that cannot show notability), links to places that host the film, or places that are otherwise unusable. I'm sorry Mr. Praison, but it is just WP:TOOSOON for this to have an entry at this point in time. If/when the short gains more coverage, it can be re-created but not before that point. I'd also like to ask that you not create more articles about films that you have created, as none of them appear to be notable at this point in time and this can be seen as self promotion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - no significant coverage found in reliable sources; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NF.  Gongshow    talk 07:02, 2 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    The Fine Young Capitalists

    The Fine Young Capitalists (  | 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 few users on the article's talk page have noted that this organization is not notable outside of the Gamergate controversy, and I agree. There is no information in any RS's to indicate that this organization is notable enough for its own page, and the current content in the article is very WP:COATRACK-y to the GamerGate discussion. Since the organization is already described in the existing GamerGate article, I think this article should be deleted. Hustlecat ( talk) 22:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Delete per nom. The article fails to demonstrate that the organisation has any significant notability independent of the GamerGate controversy, and is essentially a coatrack regurgitating material better covered elsewhere. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per nom - Cwobeel (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep Article absolutely meets the general notability guideline, with 14 reliable sources. Similarly, OP making the argument that is essentially WP:BLP1E without the BLP bit does not affect policy. There is adequate sourcing for the article, and just because they've been embroidered in a controversy doesn't mean that they lose any of that notability. OP even admits this. 'Not notable outside of the Gamergate controversy'. They are notable, have met the GNG, and as such, meet the notability guideline. Full stop. There's no policy based deletion argument here. OP also makes an erroneous argument saying There is no information in any RS's to indicate that this organization is notable enough for its own page, and the current content in the article is very WP:COATRACK-y to the GamerGate discussion. They've met their due coverage verbosely in reliable sources in due quantity, and COATRACK is an essay which refers to tangentially related to content added to the pages. It has no due weight in a deletion debate. Due to them overtly meeting the GNG, the page should be kept full heartedly. I also don't see much rush to delete Zoe Quinn, who is presumably in the same category guideline wise as TFYC. In spite of BLP1E applying surely to their article as well, and appropriately; it is a biography. Tutelary ( talk) 22:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tutelary ( talk) 22:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Comment. The Zoe Quinn article is in a different category as the majority of RS's state she is central to the conflict. That is not the case for the article in question, which per the RS's is tangential to the conflict. Hustlecat ( talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hustlecat ( talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Hustlecat ( talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hustlecat ( talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Do you have a policy based reason to delete other than the essay WP:COATRACK? As mentioned, it already easily meets the general notability guideline. With 14 reliable sources, it's kind of a mystery to me on why you think it isn't notable. Not exactly a mystery, just a bit confusing with no policy/guideline to backup the deletion request. Tutelary ( talk) 23:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    If there is information in the RS's that show the subject is notable separately from GamerGate, the article should be updated to reflect that. As it currently stands, it is not independently notable - per WP:INHERITORG, WP:ORGDEPTH, and WP:AUD. I am suggesting deletion because this article's content overlaps heavily with the existing GamerGate one. Hustlecat ( talk) 23:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    It doesn't need to be. There is no equivalent rule for BLP1E except with organizations. WP:ORGDEPTH, the guideline you just linked explicitly disagrees with you. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage has not been 'trivial' and has been independent and substantial. Again, 14 sources demonstrate notability for the topic and easily meets the guideline. WP:INHERITORG doesn't particularly apply because there wasn't any 'inheriting' going on. If you're trying to imply it's trying to inherit notability from GamerGate, this is untrue because TFYC themselves have been the subject of multiple independent and reliable sources, and per the guideline, makes it notable. Trying to say that 'Oh, they're only notable in the context of GamerGate' so they should be deleted isn't a valid reason to dismiss the 14 reliable sources already here. Finally, WP:AUD does not apply because it's received a good amount of coverage not from just local sources, but diverse sources so it does not apply. Tutelary ( talk) 00:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Just dug into the current references list a little more. In the case that the article is merged or remains up, they should be more closely scrutinized. A couple quick examples: the subject's own site is not an RS for their own notability. A couple of the gaming blogs listed should also be confirmed as RS's before their information is used as fact or proof of notability. I'm also not sure if CinemaBlend or The Mary Sue can be counted as RS's as I've seen discussion to the contrary here in the past. Either way there are definitely fewer than 14 RS's on this. Hustlecat ( talk) 00:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • weak delete It's liable to be limited to a COATRACKing of the gamergate controversy article, but there are sources out there. I suspect that the majority of them are linked wholly or largely to GG and not really about TFYC by themselves. For evidence on what a cluster flock this can turn into if we're not willing to delete coatracked articles look at the federalist. Protonk ( talk) 00:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. The group has absolutely no notability outside their involvement in the gamergate fiasco, and precious little even in that context. The article as it stands is a coatrack to polish the movement's image on an article with less scrutiny than Gamergate controversy. It fails WP:WEB's 'no inherited notability' clause, as it owes what notability it has entirely to gamergate, and fails the GNG in that it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Very few of the sources in the article are primarily about the subject as opposed to incidentally mentioning it in an article on another subject (i.e. Gamergate) and the few sources that it does have are quite weak in terms of reliability. -- TaraInDC ( talk) 01:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
      The only reasonably reliable sources are ones that mention the subject only incidentally. Of the 'non-trivial' and 'independent' sources (that is, sources that are primarily about the subject and don't originate from the subject) we have: APGNation, an unreliable source, Gameindustry.biz, GamePolitics.com, and Gameranx.com, all minor gaming sites with questionable reliablility (only the first has even been deemed usable by the Wikiproject for Video Games, their stock in trade) and articles in Cinema Blend (by William Usher, an overt Gamergate supporter) and Vice that are primarily about the subject's relation to gamergate. There's no way this passes WP:WEB or the gng. The Keeps smack of WP:ILIKEIT. -- TaraInDC ( talk) 13:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Obvious keep per pre-GamerGate coverage in Gamesindustry.biz and GamePolitics. Additionally the coverage in Forbes, Reason, Cinema Blend several times, The Daily Dot, TechCrunch twice, Vice, The Mary Sue, Pocket Gamer, and The Verge, even if during GamerGate, all strongly point to this group meeting WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Mind you people are keeping out more detailed information on TFYC at the GamerGate article because they think the preceding sources are not sufficient to warrant extensive attention given the enormity of sources in the GamerGate article. The sources do more than warrant an independent article and there was no serious push for deletion during the entire time it was up for DYK or after it was on the front page of Wikipedia. The "coatrack" argument has no validity as this focuses as much as possible on only the details concerning TFYC.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Well-sourced, well-referenced article, that is educational and encyclopedic and helps inform our readers and editors, alike. :) — Cirt ( talk) 03:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG. COATRACKing calls for trimming extraneous text, not deletion. Cut back on the material on TFYC in the GamerGate articles and keep a rein on the GamerGate information in this article. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 08:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. It is notable ("significant" "reliable" "independent" "sources" cover it; no reason is shown to "presume" it is not suitable) as per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. While article content could use work to reduce GG related content and increase details of the company itself & its activities; it is not obviously or necessarily a WP:COATRACK, and deletion is NOT CLEANUP. - Ryk72 ( talk) 11:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep, because it is notable as an independent "game jam" session from Gamergate, and also succeeds the WP:GNG Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. I think it has that coatrack appearance because the actual organization's management and its activities aren't covered in depth by the refs. This said, it meets the GNG for the sourcing from RS listed above, even if it means an article almost exclusively about Gamergate at this point. If a conversation is warranted on whether the article needs to exist outside its Gamergate article mention (which I take to be the intent of this nom), it should be saved for when we're processing the Gamergate retrospectives. But if it comes to that, it should be a talk page discussion and not an AfD, because we would still be redirecting this title and not killing the topic altogether. czar  ♔, DYK reviewer 02:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • DeleteNot notable, Wikipedia should not be used for fund-raising (crowd-sourcing) or as a credential; entry reads as it is, self promotional . -- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out ( talk) 07:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - it is well sourced and referenced article. It seems notable enough to warrant an article. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 22:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. No established notability outside the Gamergate controversy. As TaraInDC says, the bulk of sources are actually about Gamergate and only mention this subject incidentally. Others are some combination of questionable, non-independent, or self-published. Anything valuable not already covered at Gamergate controversy can be merged there.-- Cúchullain t/ c 01:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - The term is clearly related to the Gamergate controversy. Most of the delete !votes are explicit about this fact. Last I checked the article isn't defamatory or otherwise problematic. At 450+k GHITS it is abundantly clear that this is an important search term. At the bare minimum we should be looking at a merge or redirect. We're supposed to assist all readers, not selectively confound them. Straight deletion as !voted for by a number of voters above is nonsense. - Thibbs ( talk) 12:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: The notability of this subject cannot be extricated from its GamerGate ties. The only reason it received any press was because the group managed to capitalize off of people hating Zoe Quinn.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 08:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep clearly meets GNG. Whether we need to make the article less about GG is a discussion for another day. KonveyorBelt 21:53, 5 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Skyway Enterprises Flight 7101

    Skyway Enterprises Flight 7101 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:NOTNEWS. WP:GNG, generally there is no need for every fatal accident to be included, use some common sense Petebutt ( talk) 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Keep if it has been published in reliable newsources such as (online) newspapers. Sander.v.Ginkel ( talk) 00:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Not if it has ONLY appeared in the news with no notable deaths, or consequences. Still Delete-- Petebutt ( talk) 13:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note Should it be listed on List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft? Sander.v.Ginkel ( talk) 00:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    barely warrants that but fill your boots.-- Petebutt ( talk) 09:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Non-notable cargo flight with only one fatality. Brandmeister talk 18:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    2 fatalities: one confirmed dead, one missing and presumed dead.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Prof Rakesh Sinha

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

    Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC as the article fails to make clear what makes him notable. The Banner  talk 22:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep What makes him notable? The fact that he founded a right-wing thinktank. Given the present political situation, these right-wingers often show up in the news and people need to look them up (myself included). In fact, I was looking for information about this man a few days ago, but didn't find it because the page has a spurious "Prof" in the title! I will massage the page into NPOV. Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    The reason I was looking him up a couple of days ago was that he is the Government of India's `official' biographer of the founder of the RSS, K. B. Hedgewar, which makes him some soft of a right-wing guru in the present times. Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: as non-notable. Too many people using Wikipedia like LinkedIn or to get their 15 minutes of fame. Quis separabit? 03:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: notable because of significant contribution as a professor and writer to Indian political history. RSS is an ideology and being listed as official biographer of its founder by Government of India makes the writer notable. Also regular column in daily national builds his repetition well beyond 15 mins of frame — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritubhan ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    A Sweet Spot in Time

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

    Not a notable film, conflict of interest BOVINEBOY 2008 21:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Could you please explain what could make it 'notable'? Thank you very much. I'd love to work with you to keep this page up. MrBean65 ( talk) 18:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Hello, could you please explain to me what makes a notable film? Thanks! MrBean65 ( talk) 22:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete at this point in time there just isn't any coverage out there for this film. It'll release in a few days and if it gains that coverage before the AfD close date then I'll change my opinion, but offhand it doesn't really look like it will gain much coverage based on the little to no coverage it has received so far. This isn't a rule, mind you, but generally speaking the less coverage/talk there is about a film prior to its release the less likely it will be that a film will receive in reliable sources once it's released. That this film is by a 14 year old filmmaker may make it more likely that it'd gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. (I'm going by the information at the now deleted article Jonah Bryson.) On a side note, please be aware that even though the documentary will feature notable people, that does not give notability in and of itself. ( WP:NOTINHERITED) You will also need to be careful in how you state their involvement, ie- whether they're speaking directly to the director or if he used archived footage from various talks they gave. That's mostly an aside for how you describe this at IMDb or any other location in general, since you don't want people to say that the descriptions are misleading. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Also, @ MrBean65:, I'm concerned that we have had multiple accounts try to create pages for Bryson in various forms or functions. If you are the same user as User:Jonah.bryson2 or User:Jonah Bryson you need to just state this on your userpage and give somewhat of an explanation as to why you have a new account. It's not uncommon to have people create new accounts due to losing passwords, but we do need some sort of explanation since sometimes we'll have people try to make pages with new accounts in order to try to avoid detection. This somewhat concerned me since you created a page for Bryson at Jonah Bryson (Filmmaker & Musician) as opposed to just Jonah Bryson and each time someone has tried to create a page for him or his stuff, it's been with a brand new account. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Note: In the past this film also existed at A Sweet Spot in Time (film). If this is deleted I would recommend that this not be re-added by anyone involved with the film production or with Bryson until an experienced editor OKs the page. TBH, I'd recommend that you just request it from another editor and let them create it since this seems to be a habit: create the page, it gets deleted, a new account gets opened and a new attempt is made. At some point this stops being an honest attempt to create a page and starts resembling self-promotion and could be seen as disruptive to the point where blocking may become necessary. I will say that I'm going to salt all but the basic pages ( Jonah Bryson and this page's name) to discourage recreation at those pages. And again, I would highly discourage recreating any pages for Bryson or his work at this point in time until or unless you do it via an experienced editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 5 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Yana Buchina

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

    Doesn't meet any of the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Tennis. INeverCry 20:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:22, 1 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Haji Muhammad Safoori

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

    Article about a poet who doesn't pass notability threshold. No indept coverage, just passing mentions which is not enough to establish notability. Only a single news source. Jim Carter 20:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 20:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 20:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:21, 1 November 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 List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Randykitty ( talk) 14:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Holly J. Sinclair

    Holly J. Sinclair (  | 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 ton of plot details, unsourced and non-notable. Gloss 02:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:01, 26 October 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 16:35, 31 October 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    John Courtney (diplomat)

    John Courtney (diplomat) (  | 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:BIO. As shown in other AfDs , Ambassadors are not inherently notable, the only coverage I found merely confirms he was ambassador, and he was rather unremarkable in that role. LibStar ( talk) 15:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:40, 31 October 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Simeon Suggs

    Simeon Suggs (  | 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 literary character doesn't seem to have received any attention outside the works of Kemelman. Not notable at all. Prod contested on talk page, but reason given there to retain the article not convincing. Fram ( talk) 15:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:37, 31 October 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 Zentralstadion (1956). Randykitty ( talk) 14:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Central Stadium (Leipzig, GDR)

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

    Contested CSD, but this stadium is clearly identical with Red Bull Arena (Leipzig). The Banner  talk 14:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • KeepMerge to Zentralstadion (1956). The two stadiums are distinct in the same way as Wembley Stadium and its predecessor Wembley Stadium (1923); the additional content created at this page should be added to the old stadium article. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 15:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Zentralstadion (1956) already exists; the creator of this new article initially improved that, then decided instead to make a new article and redirect that one there (I've undone the redirect). This article is claiming the precursor stadium never closed. It's a POV fork. Yngvadottir ( talk) 15:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep
    1. It fulfills all interests, due the mass events there.
    2. It is world- known.
    3. It has an other size and design than the stadium today. The stands can not be entered.
    4. The article size would be too big emerged into the Red Bull (Arena), after the Wikipedia guidelines.
    5. The Red Bull Arena is an other stadium for itself and is closed to the old stadium wall.
    6. The article has been patrolled, by administrators.
    7. Before the article here, it was excluded from the Red Bull Arena Leipzig, due the architecture and form with shapes.
    8. The two stadiums are distinct in the same way as Wembley Stadium and its predecessor Wembley Stadium (1923).
    9. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. The Red Bull, Arena has it's own soul and era and also the Central Stadium. Both articles are unfinished.
    10. Those two stadiums are distinguish extreme from each other.
    11. Two different political systems the two stadiums have.
    12. Both stadiums are linked to each other.
    13. It fulfills the guideline: Wikipedia:Splitting
    14. Wikipedia is browser orientated and readers wants to have the overview with short loading times.
    15. Wikipedia is not a book.
    16. All sources are existing.
    17. You can redirect the article from the begin until the renovation/closing. For example: Central Stadium, Leipzig (1956-2000)
    Nukefirestadium ( talk) 15:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    1. Use an English name. -- Nukefirestadium ( talk) 15:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    +++That is the English Wikipedia and the article name should be in English and not in German. The year 1956 alone is wrong and nonsense. -- Nukefirestadium ( talk) 16:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC) ++++Central Stadium (German: Zentralstadion, German pronunciation: [tsɛnˈtra:lˈʃta:di̯ɔn])-- Nukefirestadium ( talk) 16:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Here They all have the name Central Stadium.-- Nukefirestadium ( talk) 16:27, 31 October 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Christina Fallin

    AfDs for this article:
    Christina Fallin (  | 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 believe this article is merely here to seek additional publicity. While there are sources that do address the subject at hand, there is little reason to maintain a page about the subject at this time. There aren't any user names left ( talk) 14:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Plenty of in-depth reliable sources to establish WP:GNG. I am One of Many ( talk) 15:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. "Little reason to maintain a page about the subject at this time" is not grounds for deletion; see WP:DONTLIKE. The footnotes in the article show that the press coverage in Oklahoma sources is extensive, there's coverage in Native American news websites, and the Washington Post profiled her as "the most interesting governor’s daughter in the country". This passes GNG.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Though I doubt the article exists for positive publicity for its subject. Most of the sources are very low grade, not suitable for a BLP. The trashy, feverish, tabloid-style sources seem only interested in her because she is the daughter of someone famous. The subject may well be, or may one day become, a legitimate artist or musician making serious artistic statements - but there are no sources around at the moment that say that (to establish notability for the subject). Look at one of the non-trashy sources [1], again it really is all about her being the daughter of someone famous. Would anyone be mentioning her if she were not the daughter of a state governor? Notability is not inherited. Merely being interesting is not notability. Is there even a single critical review of the band "Pink Pony"? The supposed "controversy" involves people and groups who are even less notable than the subject and who express extremist opinions that are very marginal: it is a case of undue weight to place then in a blp article as criticism of someone. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 17:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Tabloid sources like USA Today would not be suitable for blp articles about controversies. The content of these articles is as important as the source. "Christina Fallin made headlines in 2011 after videos for a magazine showed her strolling around the governor's mansion in avant-garde fashions." Headline news! Must have been a very slow news day. This is not notability suitable for an encyclopedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 20:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Plenty of good sources to establish notability.-- Dcheagle • talk • contribs 19:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep it pains me to say keep, it also pains me to know that Americans are so foolishly stupid that they interested in this fool. The fact that Americans are foolish provides positive proof of her notability. It is a sad day in America and on Wikipeida. Detrimentally notable she is-- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out ( talk) 08:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: subject of the article easily met WP:GNG. There are enough evidence of notability. Wikicology ( talk) 12:46, 2 November 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 procedural close. This redirect is currently listed at Redirects for Discussion. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 14:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    The Final 1

    AfDs for this article:
    The Final 1 (  | 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 wrong redirect. 333-blue 14:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

    The result was procedural close. This redirect is currently listed at Redirects for Discussion. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 14:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    The Final 1

    The Final 1 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Wrong redirect. 333-blue 13:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

    The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Lyla (band)

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

    Fails WP:BAND JMHamo ( talk) 12:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    That they are a real Indonesian band is not the problem. -- Falcadore ( talk) 14:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - appears to be NN band. Where is the support for the "Hit" singles? reddogsix ( talk) 16:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Delete: Subject of the article fails WP:BAND. I can't find enough reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Wikicology ( talk) 17:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Disband - It doesn't matter if the band is Indonesian, or any nationality for that matter. All bands must satisfy WP:BAND and WP:GNG, and this passes neither. No charting songs, and lacks coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 11:37, 7 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    John Chapman (Massachusetts)

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

    Per Wikipedia:BLP1E and Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. Unelected political candidate who has been covered only in the context of a single event (2014 election) Hirolovesswords ( talk) 12:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Candidate for office, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Tiller54 ( talk) 15:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per WP:POLITICIAN (not per BLP1E) if he loses the U.S. congressional election next Tuesday. At this late stage, I suggest further AFDs for non-incumbent candidates in this election be withheld until after Nov. 4, because the discussions won't likely be closed before then and it's better to start a deletion nomination with a clear result. postdlf ( talk) 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete -- fat chance he'll win in P'town. Bearian ( talk) 22:45, 3 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    2014 NAB Challenge

    AfDs for this article:
    2014 NAB Challenge (  | 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 page is a fork of content with no standalone notability. The NAB Cup, which existed until 2013, was a pre-season competition which culminated in a Grand Final and a title-winner; however, the 2014 NAB Challenge, and now the 2015 NAB Challenge which has recently been announced, is a series of discrete pre-season practice matches, not culminating in a title. There is no significant coverage beyond routine coverage. Editors have previously sought to fork this content out of the larger 2014 AFL season article on the basis of its low importance to the larger article, which should lend weight to the argument that the content is insufficiently notable to sustain its own article. An argument given in favour of retention in 2014 was one of continuity between consecutive pre-season competitions; after two consecutive seasons without a title-holder, the argument of continuity should no longer hold, as any return to a pre-season competition with a title-winner would be properly interpreted as a re-establishment of the competition, not a continuation of the previous one. Aspirex ( talk) 10:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons:

    2015 NAB Challenge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Aspirex ( talk) 10:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Keep. It should be noted that Aspirex previously nominated 2014 NAB Challenge, and there were no delete !votes apart from the nominator's. In any case, I think the argument of continuity is a sound one - to suggest that "any return to a pre-season competition with a title-winner would be properly interpreted as a re-establishment of the competition" is pure crystal-balling. It can, of course, be difficult to define "signicant" coverage as opposed to "routine", but the flurry of newspaper articles across the country on various aspects of the draw ( [8] [9] [10]) suggests that we already have significant coverage for the 2015 competition. St Anselm ( talk) 11:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Comments: Your argument of maintaining continuity is the crystal-balling here, not mine – the continuity argument is predicated wholly on the assumption that there will one day be another notable event to bridge to. Additionally, although there are times when the distinction between "significant" and "routine" can be difficult to define, this is not one of them: you've presented a group of articles from regional newspapers, each discussing local fixtures which had been announced in the previous couple of days –this is obviously routine coverage, and I struggle to understand how you could argue otherwise. Finally, I will correct you by commenting that I was not the sole voice in favour of deletion if the pre-AfD discussion at the article's talk page is also considered. Aspirex ( talk) 11:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep if it was not notable, why would anyone care where the games were held? [11]. Each game is reported upon, but it isn't of sufficient importance to list each result in the main season articles. And sometimes it's the sum of the routine coverage that makes the whole notable. The-Pope ( talk) 15:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Comments The Norwood Oval article is an expansive opinion piece about the history and future of Port Adelaide's marketability in Adelaide; the actual relevance of that piece to the 2015 NAB Challenge is scant. And your comment about summing routine coverage is a complete fabrication not at all based upon WP:ROUTINE: a large body of routine coverage merely indicates it is an event with either a long duration or which covers a wide range of newspaper catchments – it still can't be used as the sole argument to attribute notability. The articles you have posted links to contain some notable content, but that is all talking about the importance of the games to the region or venue in which they are being played; that content should more appropriately go on the individual venue pages, as it is more directly important to that venue's history than it is to the specific NAB Challenge season; the paragraph at the main 2015 AFL season page about the pre-season could also be extended to list venues hosting their first ever pre-season games (or first games for a long time) without the need for a whole new page. More generally, I find it hard to understand your position that content you deem insufficiently important to go in a main AFL season page – a page which has possibly the least demanding inclusion criteria of any sports article I've dealt with (as evidenced by the exhaustive annual list of delisted players, including uncapped rookies and teenagers) – has enough notability to be forked. Aspirex ( talk) 05:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Each game of the NAB challenge is reported upon with as much detail as the league games. It is sufficient importance and coverage. -- SuperJew ( talk) 08:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. A baffling nomination. Competition involving the top flight teams, games are generally heavily reported upon in the media. I'm not sure what more coverage the nominator could be looking for; perhaps an eldritch scroll written in Roy Cazaly's blood? The argument that this material is non-notable because it's not included in another article is a complete non sequitur, information on the Australian Football League is not included in Australia either, but that's not a reason for deletion. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC). reply
      • The coverage I'm trying to encourage people to find is a single non- WP:ROUTINE article, such as a reference dating from after April 2014 which describes any aspect of the play or results of the 2014 NAB Challenge and treats it as a relevant form-line. NAB Challenge games are not considered among a player's senior statistics, the results of the games are seldom mentioned once the premiership season has begun, to many teams a win or loss of secondary importance even when the games are in progress. It should not be baffling to you that someone might question whether or not a series of games given such little retrospective attention is notable for encyclopedic documentation. Aspirex ( talk) 06:03, 6 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Stephen A. Parke

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

    Appears non-notable; Sources don't appear to be on the subject in detail, and are general. Subject has also requested deletion on WP:BLPN -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 06:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Delete: Regardless of whether the person requesting the deletion is really the BLP's subject, I agree with Mdann 52 that the subject does not seem to pass WP:BIO.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 16:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - per nominator. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 21:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - I would not !vote delete on this if not for the request, given that he seems to have made major contributions to his field, and the field (semiconductors) is hardly insignificant. Can we direct the user to WP:OTRS to confirm they are the article subject? Ivanvector ( talk) 21:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    To be more specific, he passes WP:NACADEMIC #1, #3 (which specifically mentions the IEEE), and #7. Better sourcing is required, however. Therefore I !vote keep, but please consider my argument null if the requester does confirm his ID. Ivanvector ( talk) 22:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    I have to disagree, as far as WP:NACADEMIC #1 and #7 I would agree if there were additional sources that showed a significant impact, adoption or use of the published/patented technologies. I don´t think #3 applies as he is not an IEEE Fellow. I myself have two patents on systems and methods related to semiconductor technology that were used by my employer in a successful commercial product. Thousands of other engineers do as well. Personally I am proud of my work, and to have contributed to the development of the state of the art in technology at the time. But in my personal view, I don't think we should be in an encyclopedia for it.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 09:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. per nominator. Request was made to me when I undid a page blanking. I think that the subject of the article could be considered a relatively unknown, non-public figure. Moreover, he is probably not notable per the analysis by Crystallizedcarbon. Although I think this is enough to support the deletion, the request makes the result definite for me. I also would prefer that the person making the request confirm his identity but I do not think that is a prerequisite in this case. (One could wonder why the article has been up for four years but perhaps Mr. Parke did not know about it or whether he could do anything about it.) If the person who is the real subject of the article is not the person who made the request, Mr. Parke could request the article be undeleted if he shows up later and proves his identity. I doubt that will happen because the rationale seems plausible. Donner60 ( talk) 18:34, 2 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Jonathan Lebed

    Jonathan Lebed (  | 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 proof that this person is notable enough to have a wiki page Redsky89 ( talk) 05:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Keep Jonathan Lebed was the sole subject of an extremely lengthy and detailed article written by famed financial author and journalist Michael Lewis, which was published in the New York Times in 2001. The handy Google Books search tool above shows that he has received significant coverage in severable books about the stock market and financial manipulation. He is notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep There are plenty of in-depth sources available to meet WP:GNG. I am One of Many ( talk) 15:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep, Poorly written article but he is notable in some circles.(once again I am peeved having to say keep)-- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out ( talk) 08:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • weak delete I found many reference in the search, but it should be included in the article itself to meet WP:N - IMDJ2 13:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    The fact that references are not in the body of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. Wikicology ( talk) 13:57, 4 November 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 Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Randykitty ( talk) 14:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    2014 Cristina Fernández de Kirchner's speech at UN

    2014 Cristina Fernández de Kirchner's speech at UN (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Based on unreliable sources ( Michel Chossudovsky's "Global Research", Iran State propaganda outlet Press TV and a fringe theory website called "Sleuth Journal"), notability as an event in reliable news outlets is far from being established. Major quality issues and fringe theory aspects. Serten ( talk) 03:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Delete – per WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (events). No indication that this speech has enduring historical significance or will be covered beyond a relatively short news cycle. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 12:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I have edited the article because I saw that Mhhossein started it and tried to help, fixing some things here and there (I added some more sources, I placed some conspiracy theories in context and described them as such, I added a photo and infobox, etc.). I did not include the sources mentioned, and I don't have an opinion about them. It has be taken into account that the article has been reduced and then nominated for deletion; before both things, the article was like this. I should point two details about the new article: although it is correct that Cristina considered Bergoglio a political enemy, she does have a good relation with him as Pope nowadays; see Pope Francis#Kirchners for the whole story (she's a populist and demagogue, and won't fight against a figure with such a universal good image; and he's the Pope, he will forgive her if she wants to stop fighting). The controversy that Pagni dismissed as "absurd" is not the alleged terrorist threat, it was a discussion about whenever Obama heard a translation of her speech via headphones or not. Cambalachero ( talk) 12:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: As said, I did some work in the article in the meanwhile. Its up to the community to decide, wether it should survive, I assume the current content would fit as well into other Kirchner related entries. Serten ( talk) 15:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: 1. The fact is that the article is not based on those mentioned sources. Repeating this allegation (that the article is based on fringe sources) is like an attempt for a tumult. These allegedly fringe sources are just an ignorable part. Note that:
    1. UN News Center, Israel Nation News, Clarin and Global research make the 'Content' section.
    2. The Guardian, Haaretz, Clarin and La Nación are used for 'Reactions'.
    3. 'Censorship' is made using sources such as; Press TV (one sentence), Sleuth (one sentence), La Nación and Telam.

    And clearly the lead part is an abstract of the whole, as you know. 2. The Sources (At least, most of the sources) are secondary reliable ones. So, Where's the problem? Mhhossein ( talk) 06:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Comment: Mhhossein tries to keep the previous version, lousy sources included, by editwarring, the full range of concerns applies. Serten ( talk) 09:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I don't mean any specific version. The alleged problems should be discussed one by one. According to WP:WAR, An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. Serten reverts, without paying attention to the discussions is more similar to editwarring. Although I've repeated that just one sentence is used from Press TV (which is removable if we reach a consensus), He says the whole article is based on Press TV! another alleged problem is citing Global research as a source, while the claim of this source [a] is verified by UN News Center, teleSUR and Fact Check: Argentina. Mhhossein ( talk) 10:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Have in mind that Telesur is an unreliable source, for basically the same problems of Press TV. -- Cambalachero ( talk) 16:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
        • Then UN News Center carries the burden and proves that Telesur is right in this case! Mhhossein ( talk) 17:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: per Mhhossein. The event and it's reactions was covered deeply by worldwide media. Pahlevun ( talk) 15:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Merge as suggested by Lfrankbalm. See WP:NOTNEWS... unless we're willing to cover each and every speech ever given before the UN Gen Assembly and mentioned in some media somewhere, which is pretty much every such speech. No evidence of anything lasting or dramatic here. one word struck by myself NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, originally I was "deleted" and when informed of the merge proposal changed to merge but forgot to change the last word. I meant merge. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    1. ^ Argentina president criticized the vulture funds and called them "economic terrorist" for destabilizing countries economy.
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - we are Wikipedia, not USApedia. Bearian ( talk) 22:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Merge per NewsAndEventsGuy and WP:NOTNEWS. Many speeches by world leaders at the UN General Assembly get some coverage at the time, but it isn't enduring. Barack Obama has spoken there multiple times, but we don't have articles specifically for those speeches, despite a category for Obama's speeches. David Cameron has spoken there, but there is no article for that speech, or any speech he's ever given as far as I can tell. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has spoken there, which got a lot of press at the time, and his speech is covered in his article, but it doesn't have its own that I can find. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 03:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete or Merge - Might be important to Kirchner's career, but as others have noted, this doesn't pass WP:NOTNEWS, and doesn't appear to have any immediate significance over speeches given by other nation leaders during their many appearances at the UN. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 12:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Merge or keep Sourcing is adequate; the other concerns raised above are valid. Merging the article into Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is the optimal solution. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 12:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Merge and Delete - Good speech, but doesn't necessarily deserve its own article. Note that Netanyanu's speech on the same topic didn't get a page, and to my knowledge, UN speeches don't get their own article. It's a well written article, but all the info can be merged into the article on Fernandez. Aerospeed ( Talk) 13:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: @ Aerospeed: "Being a UN speech" is not a good reason for not having a stand alone article. Is there any acceptable reason? thanks! Mhhossein ( talk) 13:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply
      @ Mhhossein:, it's not the fact that the speech came from the UN, it's that the speech isn't notable enough to give it its own article. Not that it was bad or anything, but it hasn't gotten enough significant attention from the media to get its own article. The article itself is well written, which is why I suggested to merge the contents of the article to de Kirchner's page. Look at some speech articles on Wikipedia such as the " Tear down this wall!" speech from Reagan, which got immediate recognition and became a slogan for anti-communism. But as good as de Kirchner's speech was, it sadly doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Aerospeed ( Talk) 13:35, 8 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Lisa Christine Holmberg

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

    Non-notable, fails WP:ACTORBIO, no major (or minor) roles, bit parts as noted. Unverified claims in history section, not mentioned in some of the references cited. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Delete - it fully fails both WP:GNG and WP:ACTORBIO. I've extensively searched for reviews about the subject, interviews, significant awards and any other sign of possible notability and I didn't find any. Even one document referenced in the article, that supposedly should serve as a proof of Holmberg's participation in a play with Leonard Nimoy does not cite Holmberg at all. Finally, the Wikipedia username of the main contributor to the article is the same username used in what it's supposedly the official Lisa Holmberg YouTube channel (look at the URL) and in my opinion a WP:COI is extremely likely in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LowLevel73 ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. I was going to nominate this for deletion after giving it a bit of grace time, but then I forgot. I agree with the nomination and LowLevel73, who said everything that I was going to say. The linked PDF resume also lists the username used to create the article as a contact e-mail, which basically proves to me that this is an autobiography. Too soon for an article on this actress. It can be recreated later, when there is coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. The only two news articles cited are misical reviews of the show itself, not the actor. LN only mentions her among a list of other cast and the Daily Herald doesn't even mention her. Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 09:41, 2 November 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 per WP:SNOW (obvious consensus) and WP:SK (as the nominator proposes redirection, which does not require deletion). Note that the first !vote was from the nominator and so was not an independent endorsement. Andrew ( talk) 13:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Jewish Messiah claimants

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

    Jewish Messiah Claimants has been nominated on the basis that the entry consists of "Original Research," with the content/inclusion of entries within this category being entirely subjective, with large areas of this article never being substantiated with citations, with other areas of the entry having support from unreliable sources, with the entries in the list having adequate representation in pre-existing and well documented List of messiah claimants, with indications within talk that sections of this article have been copied verbatim (plagiarized) from a single outside source. That as "original research" this entry has failed to develop from inception in 2006 to a properly sourced article and thus is still classified as a "start" quality article. Recommendation therefore to;

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep With 36 references and a dozen books that directly address the subject of Jewish Messiah claimants, I'm not sure what more to look for. Compared to this one, List of messiah claimants is rather poorly written and sourced; if anything a reverse merge might be justified. Given that there are rather distinct differences between a potential Jewish Messiah and those of other faiths, the additional details that are provided in this article are specifically relevant. The article can use editing, restructuring and more thorough referencing, but the source material is already in the article. Issues with content should be dealt with in the article and have no bearing on the notability of the article itself. Alansohn ( talk) 03:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • -Of the 36, 7 are potentially plagerized, of the minutia within the many sections hardly any attribution exists with this entry failing to develop since 2006.--Lfrankbalm ( talk) 12:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. The article is not original research as there is abundent scholarly literature discussing the topic. References supporting uncited paragraphs are readily available in the linked articles. Nominator should point out claimed unreliable sources, and either remove them or discuss them. If there are copyright violations, either remove them or paraphrase them. The "start" rating is not an argument for deletion; it is an argument to improve it or rerate it, or both. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • -Start tells us that the entry "is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources," this entry has a bevy of editors since 2006 discussing how they theologically-interpret the subjective for over eight years. We have a very verbose article that is essentially a research study of a topic for a variety of interested editors. (a theological debating society). A simple list (which already exists) is an adequate representation. --Lfrankbalm ( talk) 12:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per Users Alansohn ( talk · contribs) & Cullen328 ( talk · contribs) and it is really surprising that the nominator makes sweeping assertions about it being "OR" -- when no OR is visible to the naked eye at all -- but does not even cite one case to back himself up. This article/list is unique to Jewish history it relates to historical failures stemming from the notion of a Jewish Messiah, so it makes no sense to merge it with another "general list". It is also the lead article for its parent category Category:Jewish Messiah claimants where many of the cases cited in the list are discussed at more length with more WP:V & WP:RS. That it has not been developed much over the years is no reason to delete it either. WP has been around for many years and editors have come and gone. There are relatively few good Judaic editors who stick around for a long time, so that the work that had been started should not be eradicated on the flimsiest of excuses of WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 12:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • -I would say that many "Judaic editors," have approached this article from a theological stance, with many of the elements having to pass a theological-subjective debate for inclusion. I am certain that this issue and concern extend to other (subsidiary) articles as well that were written by the same approach. A definite distinction exists between theological interpretation and fact. There will be many people on the keep side interested in their pursuit of theological debate, nevertheless discussions along those lines belong in a theological venue with a secular encyclopedia reserved for neutrality of fact. --Lfrankbalm ( talk) 12:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. If this is a genuine copy & paste it should be discussed as a copyvio. At the moment there is plenty of material for a standalone article, and there are plenty of sources that focus on Jewish false messiahs alone (e.g. B.S. Hamburger's משיחי השקר ומתנגדיהם ). JFW |  T@lk 13:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep As explained above, the article's content is notable, distinct, not original research, and thus eligible for its own article. If there are potentially plagiarized sections, that requires clean up and proper sourcing, not wholesale deletion. Avi ( talk) 13:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep If the arguments raised above by the nominator as a justification for deletion are all correct (mainly that large sections are unsubstantiated or unreferenced), then those areas need to be substantiated and referenced. Overall the article can maybe be trimmed a bit, with some marginal claimants eventually removed, but not alltogether deleted. It needs work, as many WP entries in the area do, but it should not be deleted from WP. warshy (¥¥) 14:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • -Most of the article needs to be substantiated by citations, to do so would result in a total gutting of the entry which in turn would be "assumed, falsely as vandalism" by the many editors engaged in "making things up as they go along." --Lfrankbalm ( talk) 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm ( talk • contribs) reply
    • Keep I agree with the keeps above. The article is notable and if there are issues, they need to be fixed and the article kept. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 16:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • SNOW keep. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 16:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • SNOW Keep I don't see how religious topics can or should be discussed from an entirely secular stance. That's like saying that geographic subjects shouldn't be discussed from a geological stance. Obviously all POVs should be represented, and if there are not references to whatever secular-oriented sources might exist on the subject, they should be added. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Religious topics and minutia are by nature subject to interpretation, geographic topics are definitive, --Lfrankbalm ( talk) 21:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm ( talk • contribs) reply
    • Speedy keep, notable, seems not to be original research, referenced. Definitely should be kept. -- AmaryllisGardener talk 16:58, 31 October 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 and redirect to Naya Daur (1957 film). Randykitty ( talk) 14:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Mangke Saath Tumhara

    Mangke Saath Tumhara (  | 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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 12:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:54, 26 October 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 01:12, 31 October 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. Any promotional aspects can be cleaned up outside of AFD. Randykitty ( talk) 14:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Shatter Me

    Shatter Me (  | 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 book is not notable in and of itself. Clearly promotional material disguised as a Wikipedia book entry. Nyanburger ( talk) 13:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Disagree about it being strictly promotional material. The article has been contributed to by a number of editors over 2.5 years, and the original author wrote several other articles from scratch (including at least one book with a different author and publisher). I won't speak about the notability, as I'm unfamiliar with the guidelines, other than: obviously some people are interested in this book, so what's the harm in keeping it? It was receiving 150 views/day even before Lindsey Sterling's album by the same name. 194.94.44.220 ( talk) 16:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep, but clean. If it's down to whether or not it's promotional, I don't think that it's promotional enough to really warrant deleting on that reason alone- we can always clean up an article if it's salvageable, which this one appears to be since this wasn't really promotional as much as it was written with a fan-tone. As far as notability goes, I did see where the book got reviews from various sources, including the Horn Book Guide. There was also some coverage from EW, as well as in-depth coverage here, here, and here. It's not the strongest amount of sources, but it is enough to establish notability- especially since there does appear to have been more coverage. Of course, if anyone is willing I'd actually prefer that we have a page for the series as a whole as opposed to only the first book having an article: it's easier to prove notability for a series and this way we're not left with an article that only covers one book if it ends up that only the first entry has enough to merit its own page. I'd also say that the author may have received enough coverage to merit an entry of her own, as I've come across a lot of sources that mention her and the series, but focus predominantly on her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 28 October 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 01:11, 31 October 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. postdlf ( talk) 22:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Intramedullary Cement Osteosynthesis

    Intramedullary Cement Osteosynthesis (  | 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, by editor Iospress2014, probably fails WP:COI. The reference is a primary source, and the technique does not seem to have received coverage beyond that source. Perhaps this technique will someday become notable, but it is not now. ubiquity ( talk) 18:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    At the risk of speaking against my own proposal, I will note that the reference is from a peer-reviewed journal. Does an article in a peer-reviewed journal guarantee notability? ubiquity ( talk) 02:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    The reference is not the only primary source for this method and it has received coverage beyond that source as well. Indeed this method has initially been introduced in 2011 in 41st Malaysian Orthopedic Association Annual General Meeting / Annual Scientific Meeting & 5thASEAN Arthroplasty Association Meeting [1].

    Unlike conventional orthopedics surgical method that they use metal implants to stabilize fractures, this method does not need any metal construct to fix the bone, hence it obviates the majority of operative risks that may be associated with surgical techniques that involve metal implants such as plates, nails or screws. At the same time, cement that has been used in this method incorporates in the bone structure and improves mechanical properties and resistance of the treated bone therefore IMCO is very useful for patients with osteoporosis in which introduction of metal constructs may jeopardize the egg shell cortices of the bone. Allowing this article be remained in Wikipedia will facilitate orthopedics surgeons as well as researchers continuing this field and will be beneficial for patients with long bone fractures. IMCO is a surgical method and its use by other surgeon or researchers will not provide any credential or financial benefit for authors or editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iospress2014 ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    1. ^ http://www.bloomcomm.com/Data/41st-MOA-Programme.pdf
    • Delete for now a single just-published article in a peer-reviewed journal, especially from a less major publisher like IOS press, does not meet medical sourcing requirement; conference presentations add nothing to it. When it is referred to by others, then it will be notable--but an article by the inventor himself proves nothing about notability. The argument above shows a promotional intent: after orthopedic surgeons know about it and use it, only then will it be the appropriate time for an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 21 October 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, postdlf ( talk) 15:36, 23 October 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 01:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Delete per DGG, not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to be notable. Jinkinson talk to me 01:45, 31 October 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 Led Zeppelin discography#Compilation albums. Any content worth merging to the redirect target is still available in the article history. Randykitty ( talk) 10:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    The 10 Legendary Singles

    The 10 Legendary Singles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    PROD was denied and a citation added but this can rate a small mention in Led Zeppelin or Led Zeppelin discography. Regional-only albums are generally less notable. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Delete: Limited release only in New Zealand, not notable enough for its own article. SliverOfLight ( talk) 09:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep  By inspection, the Dave Lewis book published in London states that the collection is "notable and collectable"...and London is not local to New Zealand.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    That is a false claim. I have a copy of Dave Lewis's book. Nowhere in the article does it mention a page number. I have searched Lewis's book and nowhere does it state categorically that it is "notable AND collectable". I should also point out this collection is not even regarded as an official release. It was released without the knowledge of the band, hence you won't find it listed on the official Atlantic or the Led Zeppelin website discography. SliverOfLight ( talk) 00:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    First of all, I checked the article and I have not made a "false claim"...by inspection of the article what I have said can be verified as being stated in the article, and by basic knowledge of geography, London is not local to New Zealand.  And you know what else is interesting, the reason for the removal of the prod was, link, "RS describes it as 'notable and collectable' - claim included."  So what is disingenuous is the nomination ignoring the reason for the removal of the prod while mentioning it as if the removal was a reason for deletion, after having made no attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article.  I don't see that the article says that the band was not aware of this release, so you seem to be in possession of additional information on this topic.  What is your source of information?  Now, if this release was in violation of some international copyright law, there might be a WP:NOT issue to consider.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Please state the page number in Dave Lewis's book where the author claims this release is "notable AND collectable". Nowhere in the article is there a citation with page number to this. Simply claiming a book says such and such without verification is insufficient. It's interesting to note Dave Lewis in his last book From a Whisper to a Scream: Complete Guide to Their music (2012) makes no mention of this release at all. SliverOfLight ( talk) 10:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    The version of the book I saw did not have page numbers, however the set is one of a number of items discussed. At the beginning of the chapter "The Collectable Led Zeppelin" Lewis writes "The following is a guide to ... 100 notable and collectable Led Zeppelin memorabilia items..."
    Note that while this is sufficient to remove a prod, it does not make an Afd disingenuous.
    All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 03:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC).
    The copy of Celebration Day I have, every page is numbered. You might have a fake/pirated version there. SliverOfLight ( talk) 04:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Keep or merge. Simply because an album is "regional" it does not become less notable. In any event we should cover the releases of major bands during their lifetimes, as well as we can. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 03:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC).
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 17:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, or possibly merge. Non-notable compilation album. Clearly fails SIGCOV, one disputed source is insufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 23:11, 26 October 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 01:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Redirect to Led_Zeppelin_discography#Compilation_albums. I don't think it makes sense to have a dedicated article for every semi-official compilation, but it's probably not a terrible idea to have them listed somewhere. If there was more coverage of the item, then I'd be happier to keep it as a standalone article, but the discussion above regarding Lewis' book does not fill me with confidence. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 06:29, 8 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    James Holmes (programmer)

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

    I cannot find the necessary coverage of this person himself in reliable sources, directly and in detail to meet WP:BIO. The original article was created by User:Jholmes612, probably the subject. The single claim to notability "Oracle Magazine named him “Java Developer of the Year” in 2002" has been copied and repeated in many documents but I cannot trace the original publication to verify this. Even if substantiated, this is insufficient to meet our notability standards. Just Chilling ( talk) 22:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete—I think the better chance of notability would be via WP:AUTHOR, but while the books he's written have reasonable holdings per worldcat, they're the kind of low-level technical books that don't tend to garner in-depth reviews. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 10:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • keep Clearly meets NAUTHOR. Both Struts and Art of Java are in over 600 libraries. And, a/c worldcat, translated into Japanese and Chinese and Spanish. The combination shows the importance of the works. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 17:17, 23 October 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 01:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Much authoring of the article was done using account Jholmes612, probably the subject himself. In terms of notability, this person seems to have been doing his job (developing Struts and writing technical books). None of the articles are about him, so the article on Struts appears to suffice. LaMona ( talk) 22:55, 4 November 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 Red (Taylor Swift album). Randykitty ( talk) 14:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Sad Beautiful Tragic

    AfDs for this article:
    Sad Beautiful Tragic (  | 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:NSONGS and WP:GNG. Has no independent third party notability except minor passable mentions in "Album"reviews. Its chart performance of one week is already present in Taylor Swift discography. This article should be deleted or worse, kept as a plausible redirect to Red. — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    ETA: I forgot to check the history and it seems tha the original AFD nomination resulted in merge only and nothing concrete has changed from that. So yeah, this should be merged. — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 17:43, 23 October 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 01:03, 31 October 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 sources, no notability. Randykitty ( talk) 14:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    RTB2

    RTB2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Plain advertising The Banner  talk 18:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Delete Advertising. (I've also never seen such high rate of wikilinking). Amortias ( T)( C) 21:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
      • I can imagine. I had cleaned out the article already a few times, it was protected due to disruptive editing but it only becomes worse, so the clear objective is advertising. The Banner  talk 08:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Will clean up to remove advertising 202.160.16.131 ( talk) 08:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Partial done (let's just close it already) 202.160.16.131 ( talk) 09:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply
        • No way. The Banner  talk 09:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply
          • At Wikipedia, discussions does not end like that. Just do it already. I've cleaned it UP, you see?! 202.160.16.131 ( talk) 10:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC) [just let a bot end this!] reply
            • And if you don't, I'll remove this AfD. 202.160.16.131 ( talk) 10:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply
              • 100% keep This article may be useful for researches. WHAT ABOUT RTB1? 202.160.16.131 ( talk) 10:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply
                • Let a bot handle the vandalism. I will handle the rest. 202.160.16.131 ( talk) 10:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply
                  • I do not see vandalism, just disruptive editing by an probably involved editor. Both articles RTB1 and RTB2 are completely unsourced, so you better get some independent, prior published reliable sources conform Wikipedia:reliable Sources. And please behave a bit. The Banner  talk 12:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Revert to this version - but with a smaller logo and some references - Wikipedia is not a directory - Arjayay ( talk) 12:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. This article, along with a few dozen other Asian media related articles, has been the object of ongoing disruption for many years. I have been watching these articles and taking care of the most egregious disruption but I've been trying to be careful to avoid interfering with those content issues that are not associated with the disruption. Discussion has taken place previously on this subject, if need be, ping me and I will find them. Tide rolls 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Check page history of RTB2. 202.160.16.131 ( talk) 03:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:46, 23 October 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 01:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Comment - So the article looked like an ad, and the nom and other delete !voter thought that it should be deleted for that reason. It turned out that there was a non-promotional version (to my eyes) in the history, and the article was reverted to that version. No one has given a delete rationale other than that the article is advertising, and no one argues that the current version is promotional. The nom has had 7 days since the revert was made to say whether the revert addresses their concerns or not. Close this as keep as the nominator's deletion rationale no longer applies. 137.43.188.181 ( talk) 13:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Although it is now a short article of plain facts, there are no third-party sources that I can find that would bring notability. There are plenty of sites that give access to the streaming, but not *about* the service. And note that there are no references in the article. Proponents of the article may have access to sources that I did not turn up, and that could make a difference. As of now, however, that does not seem to be the case. LaMona ( talk) 23:01, 4 November 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 and redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Content deleted due to copyvio concerns and being basically unsourced otherwise. Randykitty ( talk) 14:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Peter Stone (Degrassi character)

    Peter Stone (Degrassi character) (  | 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 TV character. Horrible sourcing, trivial information, and nothing but plot details. Gloss 21:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Excellent point. I retract that argument but I'm still a proponent of deleting the article. Beyond the content itself not being notable, the article is written in-universe, isn't cited, and parts of it (see season 6) are copied and pasted directly from the fan wiki. EBY ( talk) 02:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Merge to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. There aren't enough references available to confer notability to the character alone. Tchaliburton ( talk) 12:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:56, 31 October 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Vagif Ibrahimov

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

    Content fork of the unsourced Vagif Ibrahimov Rza oglu, created after the nomination. Looks like selfpromo. Effectively unsourced, as the given sources are links to works, not the required independent sources. Google, with its severe limitations towards other scripts than Western, only gives 5 hits, all Wikipedia related. So within the limitations, the subject fails WP:GNG. The Banner  talk 22:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Given that the original article was tagged for BLPPROD (by me) and that there appears to be one reference (however useless it might be) there now, it doesn't qualify under that process; therefore, it might be worth keeping this AfD open to determine the fate of both of these articles. I'm not !voting yet, but I felt it best to give my suggestion on what process might work best here. -- Kinu  t/ c 22:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Instead the other article has been redirected to this one, so it's all a moot point now. We may as well have an actual discussion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Delete does not meet WP:PROF, no national/international awards and h-index of 6. [12] Jinkinson talk to me 18:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete There's a lack of significant independent coverage and none of his publications seem to have very many citations. 131.118.229.17 ( talk) 19:47, 4 November 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. Consensus is to keep the article, while refining the inclusion criterion. Randykitty ( talk) 10:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    List of rugby union players by country

    List of rugby union players by country (  | 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 have a number of problems with this list. A major one is that there is not a clear inclusion criteria. From what I can see it may include anyone who is notable that has played rugby union, regardless of whether they are notable for playing it, but I'm not sure. As per WP:LSC: "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" -- we don't have that here. If this was the inclusion criteria (having played rugby), I don't know any reliable sources (as per WP:LISTN -- "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources") that discuss this list as a group. We do have categories and lists that would seem to make this redundant, such as Category:Rugby union players, Category:Lists of international rugby union players and country-by-country lists such as List of Australia national rugby union players. Lastly this article is ten years old and has only a small handful of incoming links. An alternative to deletion may be changing to a redirect to Category:Rugby union players. Shudde talk 07:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shudde talk 07:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Please read WP:NOTDUP. postdlf ( talk) 21:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Strong delete: A complete list of people who have played rugby union is a folly. Without a clear inclusion criteria this list is pointless. Even a list of everyone who has ever played in a test match would likely be too large for one article. Mattlore ( talk) 22:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep but rework. Have this as a "list of lists article" IE - have every heading in the style of Argentina or Australia. Also see WP:CLN. Just because a category exists, doesn't mean a list should not, or vice-versa. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per WP:LISTPURP as an index of articles and per WP:NOTDUP as complementary to the category structure. The nom, in addition to being unfamiliar with that guideline, seems to think it's harder to determine whether an article should be listed as a union rugby player than to determine whether it should be categorized as a union rugby player, when it's the same assertion of fact either way. So their argument about inclusion criteria can be dismissed as without basis and contradicted by their own nomination. The "strong delete" !voter doesn't seem to be commenting on this list, so it's hard to understand where they're coming from. Perhaps they do not know that lists can be limited to only notable entries, or they have not noticed that much of this list's content is organizing links to the separate lists for individual countries rather than repeating their content. postdlf ( talk) 16:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Both Argentina and Australia don't link to lists of rugby union players from those countries. Instead they link to lists of players who have represented those countries in test matches. If the article was kept on this basis then the article would need renaming to something like List of rugby union players who have played for their country. Either way, we are agreed that if this article is kept then some inclusion criteria need to be set. It can not be a list of every person who has ever played the sport of rugby union. Most of those people would not be notable enough for Wikipedia articles (ie me, when I was at primary school). Mattlore ( talk) 21:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply
      • No one is trying to make it a "list of every person who has ever played the sport...", so that's a strawman, not a valid argument. There are relatively few redlinks in this list, so even assuming all should be removed it doesn't appear that limiting inclusion to notable players has even been difficult in practice. Not that it matters here... postdlf ( talk) 23:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply
        • Even if the list is limited to notable players, as you seem to be suggesting, that would mean that under the New Zealand heading for example there would be 1,125 player names? Even if you included the link to the list of national representatives, you would still need to list the >612 players that are in the category but have not played for the All Blacks. I don't understand what notability criteria you are suggesting to make the list worthwhile to keep. As per the nom, it is not worth keeping this article unless criteria can be established, hence the delete "vote". Mattlore ( talk) 23:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply
          • Lists can always be broken into sublists, whether subdivided by name or time period or other method.

            If by "notability criteria", you mean LISTN, it's obvious even from the portion quoted above by the nom that it's not required that all lists satisfy it; it's just one way to evaluate lists, and not really relevant here because we're dealing with an index of articles. Try reading WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN instead. postdlf ( talk) 00:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply

            • That's fine, I understand they can be broken into sublists etc. So are you proposing that this list stays and then 48 new articles of List of XcountryX rugby union players are created? I'm just trying to understand what you are proposing, as you said above you aren't proposing this to be a "list of every person who has ever played the sport...", which is how the title and intro currently read. Mattlore ( talk) 03:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply
              • I'm proposing that editing decisions should be made by editors through normal, non-deletion processes. postdlf ( talk) 16:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC) reply
        • 'No one is trying to make it a "list of every person who has ever played the sport..."' -- great, so what is your definition of notable? You haven't actually suggested one. Che Guevara and George W. Bush played rugby, but surely they're not going to be included. So notable for playing, but what is that? Can't be professional, because many notable players were amateur. First-class rugby? Well the definition of that changes from region to region (even finding a definition of first-class is hard). Playing internationally? In which case lets rename the article to say that for a start. -- Shudde talk 22:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply
          • As I already asked above (and to which you have not responded), why do you think it's any more difficult to determine who belongs in this list of rugby union players than in Category:Rugby union players or its subcats? The inclusion criteria should be exactly the same. Why would you think otherwise?

            Would you categorize Bush as a rugby player? If not, then he shouldn't be in a list of them either. Do you think that this kind of threshold issue is somehow unique to this topic, or that we've never dealt with it in Wikipedia before? Many fields have hobbyists or dabblers as well as dedicated practitioners. Bush has also made paintings. Do you think that means we are therefore somehow unable to list or categorize artists? Do you think that just because there is a question regarding the inclusion of particular articles, that we must delete the list rather than use the list's talk page to resolve it? Are you unfamiliar with WP:ATD? postdlf ( talk) 16:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC) reply

            • If it's so easy to determine the criteria for inclusion in the list, why not add it to the article! That would clear all this up. If you can't do that, then why insist it's easy? I don't know whether Bush would be categorised as a rugby player or not, arguments could be made either way, but as we're not discussing whether or how to categorise an article, but rather what's the inclusion criteria for a list, so why don't we do the later? Your argument seems to be that because Category:Rugby union players exists this list should not be deleted, but we still don't know what this list actually is (other than a list of articles in Category:Rugby union players -- which is a very circular criteria). If people want to create List of Test rugby union players by country, or List of professional rugby union players, or List of international rugby union players then great. I'm not opposed to that, all would meet WP:LISTN and have selection criteria as per WP:LSC. But the nominee here isn't any of those three lists, to be so it would have to be renamed, completely rewritten, and actually referenced. How is doing all that any different to deleting this list and creating a different one? -- and who is going to do it, those here that vote keep? Hands up anyone. I still don't know what this list is, other than maybe "it's whatever you want it to be!" -- Shudde talk 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply
              • Given that your nomination was originally based in part on the list duplicating the category (not a valid argument per WP:NOTDUP), your rationale seems to have shifted significantly if you now think the category also shouldn't exist, so I'm not sure what arguments you've abandoned and which you now stand behind. A "list of articles in Category:Rugby union players" is quite proper per WP:CLN, as has been explained throughout this discussion. Beyond that, you seem to have fallen on a WP:TNT argument, which I don't think applies here because there are valid entries in the list at present, and in any event a TNT-based deletion would be without prejudice to recreation of the same list topic and so wouldn't accomplish what you apparently want to accomplish. postdlf ( talk) 17:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment -- I struck some of the reasons for deletion, but my main reasons remain. At the moment I'm still not sure what this is a list of? So what it is people are actually voting to keep? Neither of the keep votes have actually clarified what the inclusion criteria is for this list. User:Lugnuts does suggest making it a list of lists, but of what lists? International rugby union players? In which case the page needs to be renamed, reorganised (for example George Gregan and Corné Krige are listed under Zambia, but played for Australia and South Africa respectively), and referenced (at the moment not a single entry is referenced). -- Shudde talk 22:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply
      • That's for editors to decide through normal processes. Either a list (or list of lists) of players by country of origin or a list of players by team would be proper and verifiable. It's also conceivable that one list could organize links to both. postdlf ( talk) 16:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC) reply
        • I don't think it is very constructive to be saying "this list must stay" but at the same time to be saying "I have no idea what this list should look like". Obviously if it stays and becomes a list of lists of players who have played test matches, as Lugnuts seems to have suggested above, then that is very different than if it stays and tries to list all notable rugby players, like in Category:Rugby union players. It seems like all you want is a list here, without any idea about what kind of list, or for what purpose. Mattlore ( talk) 20:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC) reply
          • Because neither a list of notable players of international matches nor a list (or list of lists) of all notable rugby players should be deleted. I'd probably expect "players by country" to mean "players by country of origin", but that's not something this AFD should be deciding, and even if it were decided that renaming was in order, that's obviously different from deletion. I feel like a broken record for linking to WP:ATD again and again, but I'm not seeing that policy observed in your or the nominator's comments. Please read it. postdlf ( talk) 22:15, 18 October 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 22:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep I'm not seeing any problem requiring deletion here. Andrew ( talk) 13:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep, although the scope of the list should explicitly be reduced to individuals who are notable for playing the game, not just a laundry list of anyone remotely famous who has picked up the ball at some point. I think that undeniably that is what the current scope of the list is anyway, but best to make it clear. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 06:15, 8 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Pipeline marketing

    Pipeline marketing (  | 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 concept appears non-notable and possibly is itself a marketing/advert vehicle. It's poorly referenced, lots of WP:OR — Gaff ταλκ 00:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Delete - per WP:OR and lack of notability. I have not found any notable source that can support the existence of this alleged kind of marketing. It seems to me just a new buzzword invented by someone. As far as I know, this is not an expression used in the marketing field, online or offline. What the article (very very confusingly) describes is something identical or extremely similar to Account-based marketing, for which Wikipedia already has an article. LowLevel73 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 31 October 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Chaha Hai Tujhko

    Chaha Hai Tujhko (  | 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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 11:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - can't see this article being expanded. Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:28, 31 October 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Faria Sabnam Tripti

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

    Lacks reliable sources. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 12:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Comment - Speedy delete under A3 has already been declined. Jethwarp ( talk) 03:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Delete - Doesn't meet notability - Bikkhato has an entry for her as "Sabnam Faria is a rising star of Bangladeshi showbiz world...Recently Faria Sabnam is busy for some music videos." Otherwise, there's nothing. This fails WP:NACTOR cleanly. EBY ( talk) 05:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - per WP:GNG, sources:- [13], [14], [15]. -- Zayeem (talk) 11:36, 5 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Chhotto Ekta Jibon Niye

    Chhotto Ekta Jibon Niye (  | 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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 11:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:29, 26 October 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 00:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Fails WP:NSONG. Totally unreferenced and I can't find anything that can be called reliable. Jim Carter 20:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Strong delete per Jim Cartar, most sources are mirrors of Wikipedia AFAICT. Jinkinson talk to me 23:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Strong delete: as non-notable in every respect. Quis separabit? 04:05, 4 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Vera de Spinadel

    Vera de Spinadel (  | 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 academic. The "wide international recognition" that her work on the metallic means (a rather fringey area) referred to in the article seems to have no source or evidence on Google Scholar. She seems to have been the author of one rather middling paper "From the golden mean to chaos" that was cited a few times, but not enough to make a pass of WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:34, 26 October 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 00:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 ( talk) 19:37, 4 November 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) Dwaipayan ( talk) 01:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Prothom Kadam Phool

    Prothom Kadam Phool (  | 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 and has no reliable sources. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 12:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Keep - decent content at present, and can be expanded if tagged appropriately. Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Alt year:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Alt spelling:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Bengali:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    and per WP:INDAFD: Prothom Kadam Phool & alt: Pratham Kadam Phool
    • Keep this brand new decent stub that is sourced and further sourcable. Seems a bit problematic to send an improvable topic to AFD within hours of its creation. We are self-admittedly imperfect and a work in progress after all. Let its author continue in good faith and revisit later. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:21, 31 October 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Mark Simmons (author)

    Mark Simmons (author) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    • Notability, COI. This is a businessman who has co-authored 2 books and co-authored an app. COI (Autobiography?): The picture is taken directly from the subject's personal website. The primary editor has the same name as the subject. Notability: there are only 2 (that I found) reliable, 3rd party mentions of the subject - one from when he was running a (seems defunct) business and one a blurb about one of the books and basically mentions his name branding legend". I could find no reliable 3rd party articles or books that confirm any of the personal details of the subject or the subject's impact on the world. The rest of the supporting citations were dead links or primary sources. EBY ( talk) 20:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:36, 26 October 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 00:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete It is hard to find any notability here. The articles in Ad Week are more about the company and its advertising products than about the person, although his name is mentioned. All of that is normal, but not notable. There would be a stronger argument if the "punk advertising" movement itself had gained notability, but from searches that does not seem to be the case. LaMona ( talk) 23:16, 4 November 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-- Ymblanter ( talk) 13:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Jennifer Lyons

    Jennifer Lyons (  | 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. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Weak delete - I'm not sold on this one. Seems to have had some minor roles in various shows/films. Very little sources seem to be available in the first place, outside of an IMDB page that looks like her manager wrote out for her. Gloss 21:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 17:18, 23 October 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 00:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, no non-primary or secondary reliable sources appear to provide significant coverage of the subject, as the primary topic of the source, therefore the subject fails WP:GNG. While the subject has had multiple minor roles in movies and television, the subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria set forth in WP:NACTOR.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 13:35, 4 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Aaj Mon Cheyeche

    Aaj Mon Cheyeche (  | 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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 12:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:16, 31 October 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 Nakhon Si Thammarat. Randykitty ( talk) 14:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Banhuayklang School

    Banhuayklang 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)

    Primary school with no clear indication of notability. I was unable to find reliable sources in English. Kinu  t/ c 15:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:11, 31 October 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Alor Michil

    Alor Michil (  | 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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 11:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Year:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Bengali:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    and WP:INDAFD: Alor Michil
    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 00:14, 31 October 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. Although there have been only three comments, the consensus is perfectly clear. For the record, I will also say that without an AfD discussion I would have speedily deleted the article as spam. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Super Definition plasma cutting machine

    Super Definition plasma cutting machine (  | 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 believe I was mistaken in accepting this draft. Looking in more detail I see insufficient referencing. I am not concerned about the WP:CIRCULAR reference from Wikipedia, that can be removed at any time, but I am concerned that the remainder are insufficient. My concern was raised sufficiently to make a SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jason Crew since I perceive some sort of attempt to use WIkipedia to legitimise something I cannot quite define. Under these circumstances it is best to present the item to the community formally for discussion. Fiddle Faddle 08:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Delete - this is a machine that was released in June by a company that doesn't have an article, or else I would maybe recommend a bullet entry in that. This product does not have a single article mention or review - nothing. All I could find was a press release and some company chatter on a few machinist forums. EBY ( talk) 01:56, 26 October 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 00:14, 31 October 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Gordon Wagner (economist)

    Gordon Wagner (economist) (  | 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 person is not notable by WP:ACADEMIC or WP:PERSON. The article is largely unsourced. bender235 ( talk) 05:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Keep The article has sources that get to the heart of the matter. He made significant contributions to the international scene. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Delete As written, I would have recommended a speedy especially after doing a search and unable to find ANY 3rd party sources that establish the subject's notability at all. The article sources are the subject's own Master's thesis, Doctoral thesis, and some newsletters. EBY ( talk) 02:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Question for !Keeps - can you please give some reliable sources that this is a notable economist? I found no international contributions, no other references of any kind, no promise (the subject is dead) of future references. It fails all pertinent notability criteria: WP:NACADEMICS, WP:GNG - WP:BASIC. EBY ( talk) 16:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep The article is referenced and promising. It needs significant expansion with better references, but should not be deleted. Zigzig20s ( talk) 06:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG because none of sources are "independent of the subject", almost all of them are from his employers, one is about his doctoral thesis. Just one of a myriad of university professors worldwide. Also see: WP:NOTMEMORIAL Point 4. The LDS may highly esteem the late professor, but that doesn't establish notability. Kraxler ( talk) 14:01, 27 October 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 00:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Delete None of the sources shows evidence of notability. Some have only mentions of him (#1, #5), others are general and not about him at all (#3). Unfortunately, many of the cited sources are no longer available so it is not possible to review them. LaMona ( talk) 23:23, 4 November 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. postdlf ( talk) 17:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    List of contestants from the UK national selection for the Eurovision Song Contest

    List of contestants from the UK national selection for the Eurovision Song Contest (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Clearly a duplicated overkill of information already covered at a variety of areas. All the winners can be found at United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest. The individual national selection shows can be found in annual articles at Category:United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest. Plus there is also Eurovision: Your Country Needs You which covers basically the same information but in more coherent detail.    Wes Mouse |  chat  03:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:39, 23 October 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 00:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Duplication of information in both lists and categories is not a reason to delete - see WP:NOTDUP. Andrew ( talk) 13:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • This is the English Wikipedia and so there will naturally be a particular interest in the UK entries here. If this information is scattered across dozens of articles, then this page seems quite helpful as a summary and to assist navigation. This is quite valid per WP:LISTPURP. Andrew ( talk) 16:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • All the summary information from this article is already in summary format at Eurovision: Your Country Needs You and has been for quite sometime. This article has few citations, an unsourced trivia section. Perhaps merging and redirect this article into Eurovision: Your Country Needs You, is more viable. Wes Mouse |  T@lk 16:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • How is it a misleading title? That was the most recent name for the show that took charge of selecting the UK's entry. And AFD is not just to discuss deletion nominees, but to also discuss other factors that may be better than deletion - such as if people feel merging, redirecting etc would be more appropriate. That is the whole point of a debate, a discussion process to find a consensus outcome. And I stand by my argument that this article is pure overkill of information that is already housed at United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest. Even the article talk page states that it is most likely a redundant/duplicated article. It is clear that all these articles are covering the same subject matter, which breaks the spirit of content forking, which states that "a content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided." And point 5 of the WP:DEL-REASON states that content forking is a valid reason for deletion, unless a merger or redirect is more appropriate. The only way we'd know if the other options are appropriate is through discussion via AfD. Wes Mouse |  T@lk 19:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Well, that's more than enough discussion and I still don't agree with your proposal and so my !vote stands. Andrew ( talk) 19:51, 1 November 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. Randykitty ( talk) 15:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Ilija Fonlamov Francisković

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

    Recent article about a Serbian art student. The article was filled with unsourced personal info and (what appear to be) grand claims that aren't born out by the sources. For example the article claimed "In Austria he was recognised as reincarnation of German painter from 16. century Matthias Grünewald" while the local news article says a local Austrian teacher compared him to Grünewald while he was on a student exchange visit! This chap has been offered a place at the Sorbonne so is clearly a talented painter, but with the only coverage coming from a local news website and a Belgrade tabloid magazine, it looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON to me. Sionk ( talk) 13:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Not right at all First of all, he is not a art student, I think you can find that in same sources.He is recognised as prodigy because of that fact. Secondly, isn't it the same, I mean - "In Austria he was recognised as reincarnation of German painter from 16. century Matthias Grünewald" and "...Austrian teacher compared him to Grünewald while he was on a student exchange visit"? Also, I have to add that your serbian-english translation is not right at all, there is no teacher but teacherS... I added a video recorded about him also on one of biggest serbian TV, TV PRVA, but I am not sure you will be able to understand! -- Volimsebese1965 ( talk) 22:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Well, by art student I mean he is a school student who excells at art. Sionk ( talk) 22:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Okay, that's right! However, I hope you will have more sources about him soon.-- Volimsebese1965 ( talk) 22:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 17:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:10, 31 October 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. I am assuming that DGG's !vote is "Keep", given the comments that follow it. As stated in another, similar AfD, absence of an edu domain does not say much (if anything) outside of the USA. Randykitty ( talk) 15:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica

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

    I'm aware that universities are normally considered notable. However, I'm having trouble persuading myself that this one exists at all. It doesn't have an .edu domain; it doesn't have a street address; it doesn't get any hits on Gnews or its archive. Yes it was authorised to grant degrees in 1997, but that was seventeen years ago. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universidad San Juan de la Cruz. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment just a few notes:
    1. The Costa Rican Ministry of Education seems to think it exists, having accredited three courses there (B.Acc., BBA and MBA) [16], though none of its degrees are accredited by the higher standard SINAES [17]. This dissertation also classifies it as inactive due to a lack of recent graduates [18] (p.47).
    2. Not all universities use the .edu domain (take European or Japanese universities, for example).
    3. The closest thing I could find for a street address was a postal one: P. O. Box 62-2050 in San Jose, Costa Rica.
    4. It's mentioned in Der Spegiel for allegedly selling Doctorial and Professor titles [19] (in German).
    I'm not sure you could classify this private university in the traditional brick and mortar sense, but it did crop up quite a lot while I was googling - mainly for degree accreditation at other educational institutions. Maybe the best angle for notability would be the accreditation mill allegation. Fuebaey ( talk) 06:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment If some effort was put into improving it, this would likely be a Keeper. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 03:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    • Comment- The degree programs for Universidad Empresarial and all private universities that are not under SINAES, are accredited by the higher standards of UNIRE [20]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.168.215 ( talk) 19:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Deep It's been considered an "infamous diploma mill" a/c the Costa Rica star-ledger. Between that and the Der Spiegel reference it would take rewriting and watching. But we do include articles on notable diploma mills. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 7 November 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. I think thefre's enoguh to justify a keep, which seems to be the consensus. I must point out that argument based on ghits, whether used as arguments for keeping or deletion, are irrelevant. WP is not an index to Google. DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

    Greg Wilson (DJ)

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

    Unsourced BLP. But much to my surprise, his 337k Google hits (on "Greg Wilson" and DJ) boil down to a mere 191 unique hits, in my opinion not enough to pass WP:GNG The Banner  talk 17:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. References currently being added. Existing references from reputable UK and international dance music press assert the cultural significance of Greg Wilson as a DJ, including his pioneering role in mixing as a style of presenting music in nightclubs, and embracing electro-funk in the face of widespread criticism in the black music scene before the eventual dominance of its sound and hybrid forms. - Soundofdusk ( talk) 06:19, 29 October 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 00:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Looking around the references and television appearances, he can be considered a notable DJ. Noteswork ( talk) 07:04, 1 November 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 00:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Haynes Educational Center

    Haynes Educational 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)

    Just your average local place. Not notable. 由雅なおは ( talk) 19:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:03, 31 October 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.
    Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_October_31&oldid=1142627414"