From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 April 25 April >
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. MBisanz talk 00:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Beta Evers

Beta Evers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete: does not meet threshold for notability. Quis separabit? 23:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO criteria.-- Rpclod ( talk) 23:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gregory Kay. MBisanz talk 00:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Tech Lighting

Tech Lighting (  | 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. The organization is mentioned in two Chicago Tribune articles. Other citations go to press releases or, in one case, to the website of an architect. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 23:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - considering its presentation along with Lightology, this appears to be advertising.-- Rpclod ( talk) 00:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Even if they were notable, the article would have to be completely re-written to remove the advert problems. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Gregory Kay - between the three subjects (Lightology, Tech Lighting, and Gregory Kay) there does appear to be some notability, but not enough for three articles. Normally when we discount "local" sources, we are talking about small-town newspapers, not something like the Chicago Tribune. The reason is that such papers are indiscriminate - they literally cover all businesses within the town at some point. The Tribune (and other Chicago-based sources) is a different story entirely. It most certainly does not cover every business and in depth coverage by the publication of a Chicago business carries implication of notability as in depth coverage of any other subject would. Additionally, there are multiple trade publications covering some combination of Lightology/Tech Lighting/Gregory Kay in depth, and trade publications that meet the RS guidelines (e.g. have editorial control) are perfectly valid reliable, secondary sources. Thus, notability has been established by indepth coverage both locally and in trade publications. However 3 articles are overkill. The most natural place to cover all 3 subjects in one article is Gregory Kay. Thus, I am suggesting all three be merged together at that title and will volunteer to do so (and clean up promotional language) if the AfD consensus accepts the idea. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 22:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The Center for Global Health and Diplomacy

The Center for Global Health and Diplomacy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references do not show notability: Refs 2,3,&4 just mention the Center. Ref 5 doesn't even mention it. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - the references mention, but do not discuss, the subject.-- Rpclod ( talk) 00:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - sources do not prove notability. Quite poorly written as well AusLondonder ( talk) 06:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Did a google search and there are plenty of pages mentioning the Center, their forums, and publications but none go into any depth, being mostly press releases from other orgs and the Center (as stated by editors above), so don't meet WP:GNG. However, googling the subject of Global Health Diplomacy does bring up some pages that could be notable. Suggest Delete for this article with a copy going back to the article's creator sandbox and a suggestion that they work on creating an article on GHD (and of course submitting it through AFC. I will copy my ramblings to the creator's talkpage Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BaT Tunnel. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash!  (Y) 03:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Woolloongabba railway station

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

Proposed railway station that was to have been built as part of the now cancelled BaT Tunnel project. Coomera81 ( talk) 22:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - this crystal ball has cracked.-- Rpclod ( talk) 00:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Its not happening and so doesn't deserve an article. - Shiftchange ( talk) 00:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note*: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to BaT Tunnel: this is a potential search term, and readers should be directed somewhere if they enter it. Nick-D ( talk) 01:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to BaT Tunnel without prejudice. Both parties' previous proposals for a cross river rail project involved a station at Woolloongabba, and the Palaszczuk government has made it clear that they intend to build some form of cross river rail project. If, when the details of that emerge, the station is retained, this should be immediately reverted to its current status. If not, it should stay redirected. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 08:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect without prejudice per The Drover's Wife. Mjroots ( talk) 09:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to BaT Tunnel - at some point I expect a station will be built in the area, and for now it's a plausible redirect. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC). reply
  • Delete and Redirect to BaT Tunnel. Crystal ball may lean the argument towards deletion, however the station may be a plausible search term as it may eventually be built in the area in the future. Thus a delete/redirect case in my opinion. Should the station be approved (again) and eventually built, it can be recreated without the crystal ball history. Coastie43 ( talk) 03:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    • This doesn't make any sense. If it appears on the third version of this proposal, just as it did on the first and second, the current content of the article will be absolutely relevant as its history. If it doesn't, it'll stay redirected and we won't be having this discussion again. But intentionally deleting the history of something that has a realistic chance of being useful again is pointless. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 04:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
      • My argument was based on applying WP:CRYSTALBALL towards both this & the George Street station. With both proposed stations being cancelled, and the subsequent state government looking for a different proposal, there is a good chance that both stations in its current form will not be the same under the newer proposal (especially with the bus tunnel component increasingly likely to be dumped, or potential relocations of the proposed stations). The few sentences from both articles (inc references) describing the proposed components of both stations can easily be merged in the BaT Tunnel article, with the separate articles then deleted & redirected to the BaT Tunnel article. Edit: Seems that both articles are already covered in the main article under the 2013 Plan section, leaving no information to merge and thus my initial opinion of deleting both articles & redirecting to the BaT project article still currently stands. If both stations are proposed again and subsequently approved, then recreating the article from a redirect is plausible. Coastie43 ( talk) 05:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ; edited 08:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect not notable for an article atm, although may be in the future. Transasia07 ( talk) 02:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BaT Tunnel. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash!  (Y) 03:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

George Street railway station

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

Proposed railway station that was to have been built as part of the now cancelled BaT Tunnel project. Coomera81 ( talk) 22:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - this crystal ball has cracked.-- Rpclod ( talk) 00:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Its not happening and so doesn't deserve an article. - Shiftchange ( talk) 00:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to BaT Tunnel: this is a potential search term, and readers should be directed somewhere if they enter it. Nick-D ( talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per the current consensus on Woolloongabba railway station's AfD. Elassint Hi 21:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Redirect to BaT Tunnel. Crystal ball may lean the argument towards deletion, however the station may be a plausible search term as it may eventually be built in the area in the future. Thus a delete/redirect case in my opinion. Should the station be approved (again) and eventually built, it can be recreated without the crystal ball history. Coastie43 ( talk) 03:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect not notable for an article atm, although may be in the future. Transasia07 ( talk) 02:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 13:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The John R. Elliott HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers

The John R. Elliott HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely plagiarized from various other sources while containing essentially no substance: an advertisement or news release created by the organization, overall badly formatted and has questionable significance. Outside of the fact that it's almost entirely copy-pasted from other webpages, it has glaring issues. The opening has pov problems, the information says little about it, the infobox is unnecessary, the first section is insignificant, the second is a restatement of part of the opening, the third is basically a press release and contains pointless information, the fourth is extremely statistically dubious and localized and basically an advertisement, the fifth contains absolutely no information besides documenting a celebration by them, the sixth is a single sentence that describes a single fundraiser, and the last has PoV issues and is again a press release. This article started as one chunk of text with Wikipedia edit and section bracketed areas, suggesting another article under some similar name may have existed and been deleted. Overall, horrible quality, extreme plagiarism and it's and ultimately irredeemable. MillenniumMeh ( talk) 21:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Change to weak delete per Staszek Lem comment below. The spammy content has been removed, but campaigns such as this tend to get some initial short-term attention and then disappear--if deleted, there should be no prejudice against recreation if the campaign proves to have staying power and gains additional coverage in the future. -- Finngall talk 18:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete - a personal grief but nonnotable campaign. Of course, since t6his is a campaign, it is advertised and will find a couple of newspater articles. But otherwise no significant cultural impact. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the stub. Government-recognition [6] otherwise confers notability. Also note: "The John R. Elliott HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers" as an exact phrase reveals only 969 / 12 web/news results on Google, but "HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers" as an exact phrase lists 243,000 / 12,000 web/news results, so searching with the longer term will inhibit acquiring more RS. Pax 07:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Clarification: The linked event is a race, not a series, and NASCAR races frequently change official names from year to year based on sponsorship. The July NASCAR Xfinity Series race at Kentucky Speedway was only named after this campaign for last year's race. This sponsorship was apparently just a one-year deal, as this year's edition of the race is not currently being advertised under the same title, but merely as the "Kentucky 300", indicating that title sponsorship for the race has not yet been sold. -- Finngall talk 18:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Let's get this done: the nominator has changed to "keep", as has everyone else but me--he passes BAND#2, but none of the others, as far as I can tell. However, there is no reason to let this going for longer since it's headed for a keep. Drmies ( talk) 01:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Masta Wu

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

Incomprehensible biography of a musician who does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC) *It's an autobiography with no sources, only external links, about a person who fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Delete. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • I can't even believe we're having to have this discussion. Delete. We can leave a redirect to that band, but the underlying content should be deleted and burned. Drmies ( talk) 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    • UPDATE: article is now restored to the Teemeah-approved version. WikiDan61, Rpclod, and Joseph2302, please have another look. As for me, I am not changing my mind since I see no reliable sourcing, not enough for this to pass the GNG--one hit does not cut it for me. Drmies ( talk) 20:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Drmies: one hit? He has two full albums released under a major publisher in Korea. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. -yes; which source in the article is not relaibale or independent?; Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. - yes ( number 8 on Gaon Chart. His 2007 single was 43rd on national chart [7]. I cannot trace the 2003 album back because archive.org doesn't have those pages archived from MIAK (the predecessor of Gaon)); Has released two or more albums on a major record label -yes. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network - yes ( multiple live performances on nationwide channels and not just now but in previous years too). That's from WP:MUSIC. It's not like we are talking about an amateur underground wannabe star here. This is an established artist in a non-English speaking country. Not every artist is a chart-topper but to my knowledge that's not a requirement for notability. The fact he was on hiatus from 2008 to 2014 also doesn't mean he is not notable anymore (just that his previous work is only tracable in Korean language sources, as hallyu picked up when he went on hiatus). If this is not enough for notability, I've no idea who is regarded notable by enwiki... Again, I feel that if it is a non-English speaking country, people regard artists as non-notable off the bat. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 21:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 ( talk) 21:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 ( talk) 21:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER criteria.-- Rpclod ( talk) 00:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Same as Drmies, even after the change to a different version, I maintain the same recommendation. The references are as follows:
1. MTV. Empty.
2. KBS. Artist listing.
3. MWAVE. Only peripherally mentioned.
4. MWAVE. Only peripherally mentioned.
5. MTVK. Only peripherally mentioned.
6. Gaon Chart. In Korean, but may be a 404 error?
7. Gaon Chart. In Korean, but may be a 404 error?
I see nothing here that suggests WP:ENTERTAINER notability.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Rpclod: Please check the article now. I added additonal sources from Korean papers, and please also see the comment above. He released two full albums with a major label in Korea and was on national chart at least twice. More than enough for notability per WP:MUSIC Teemeah 편지 (letter) 22:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I also put archive.org links for the Gaon charts. You can now see positions and sales. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 22:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Teemeah, you are persistent if not persuasive. On the one hand, a notable performer should have more criticism, negative as well as positive, than is referenced for the subject. As I cannot read Korean, I cannot verify that the subject's album was on the primary Korean music chart, but I will take your word for it and withdraw my prior "delete" recommendation.-- Rpclod ( talk) 03:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Drmies: Since the band page ( YMGA (band)) has been speedily deleted and its other incarnation ( YMGA) is only a redirect, we have nothing left to redirect to. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 02:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Oh. Well, now that's just sad, as my daughter would say. Others might say that judicious pruning makes a CSD tag more valid. So, WikiDan61--how about you try to save Calligraphist (artist), as your good deed for the day? Drmies ( talk) 02:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Please restore the article to the state I edited: [8] I cleaned this article up and added reliable sources, after that editor Mastawu222 restored the old version of auto-translated text from Korean wikipedia: ko:마스터 우. He is pretty notable. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 18:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
and on a sidenote, I can't believe people here didn't check the history page before commenting... Teemeah 편지 (letter) 18:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Not sure what happened to the mTV link I included as a source, it is blank now. Google cache still has the version I used. [9] Teemeah 편지 (letter) 18:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This version of the article seems okay, they seem notable enough now. I apologise for not checking article history more carefully. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep As nominator, I see that the older version restored from history has some marginal notability. The Gaon Download Chart appears to be a reliable source of information about chart position for South Korea, and Woo's role as "producer" (really, "panelist" is probably a better title) on Season 3 of Show Me the Money probably counts toward WP:GNG. The sourcing in the current version of the article is really thin, though. There are probably better sources available in Korean, but I can't really perform Korean language searches to find out. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No consensus about a possible redirect to neutralizing antibody, this might merit further discussion.  Sandstein  13:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Binding antibody

Binding antibody (  | 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 was alerted to the existence of this article by its appearing, earlier, at the Binding disambiguation page, where the description for Binding antibody made no sense to this practicing scientist, and ended with the word "possibly" (suggesting appearance by vandalism).

On reviewing the article, I found that it contained only the same one line it was created with, in 2006, a line article that largely repeated the nonsense on the disambiguation page: "A binding antibody is an antibody that has a reaction when combined with an antigen, possibly eliminating it." This line is the entire article.

The article has been edited 8 times since 2006, making no addition or change to this strange, unsourced sentence. (Edits include its tagging, since 2009, for its lacking any citations, a prior misplaced attempt to have it deleted, and additions only of categories / wikilinks.)

As to content, the reason I am pushing this matter is that the content is scientific nonsense/gibberish.

First, by definition, antibodies exist because they were generated to bind their antigens. In essence, all antibodies (immunoglobulins) are "binding antibodies;" if a protein has an immunoglobulin structure, it by definition contains an antigen binding site. Look to see if there is an article on the proposed complimentary material—"Non-binding antibody". You will not find it. This is simply because antibodies are, as a class of biological macromolecules, defined by their having been generated by random combinations of genes encoding unique antigen-binding sites (paratopes), followed by random mutations in the information encoding this hypervariable area, resulting in a binding site specifically suited to bind the antigen that led to the antibody's biosynthesis. Said, again, more simply, all antibodies, by definition, by their natures, bind their antigens. (Period.)

Hence, an article on the concept of "binding antibody" suggests a fictional classification which has no basis in sound teaching. If there is a specialist use that refers to, e.g., a subset of antibodies in a mixed antibody population that binds while the majority do not, this is abiologic and is simply a rare syntactic juxtaposition of words—possibly, how the original author came to propose the article—and so undeserving of an article. (The juxtaposed words "natural product" appear in one seventeenth century chemistry tome in reference to oxygen, as in "oxygen is a natural product of expiration", but this does not mean we create a Wikipedia article for this rarified connotation.) Any other attempt to force meaning on this sentence arrives at the same sort of ridiculousness.

Second, to anyone with any expertise, the action of the single statement article, "has a reaction…", is also so much nonsense. If by "reaction" the editor implied the Antigen-antibody interaction, then this further amplifies its self-referential and circular nature (the sentence, here substituting simple definitions): "A binding [immune system protein that binds antigens] is an [immune system protein that binds antigens] that has [an interaction between an [immune system protein that binds antigens] and its antigen] when combined with an antigen…." So much self-referential, meaningless rubbish.

Third and finally, there is no way, absent a source, to understand what the individual who indecisively entered "possibly eliminating it" intended it to convey. If the author is speaking of Antibody clearance ( [10]) or Therapeutic antibody elimination (a pharmacokinetic issue, [11]), these are not clear, and, in any case, no knowledgable individual uses this title term in the discussion of these specialist subjects. (The word pairing may be used in a diagnostic discussion, to distinguish between component parts of a complex EIA, but that is a specialist technical context, and not deserving of a WP article. But the ignominy of this word pairing is such that it does not even appear in the EIA article.)

In short, there is no way I can conceive, with doctoral training in such things, to make this article title or sentence understandable, or to see, given their nonsensical, self-referential meanings, how this article could evolve to cover any scientific content in a constructive way. This is the likely reason—no one coming to it, understanding its point—that it remains an undeveloped and unlinked article.

Bottom line from this expert, the article, through its title, creates a faux, nonsensical category, and the article itself is a single line of material without any scientific merit or strengths. Those of you who have the WP expertise, please, merge it with Antibody (the equivalent of deleting this nonsense), or simple find the appropriate code/reason to delete it. But do not leave it in.This article has no place in an esteemed encyclopedia.

In following, any editors making substantive changes to the text since its 2006 creation will be pinged. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 16:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Tree Biting Conspiracy: was the article's original author, and so is contacted so that he can explain the purpose of creating the article, and the source for where this line of information was taken.
@ LessHeard vanU: is an Adminstrator that tagged the article for lacking sources, and is contacted so that he can express his opinion.
@ GB fan: reverted the earlier deletion request from a non-registered editor, and is contacted so that he can express his opinion. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 16:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I have fixed the AFD and properly listed it. --  GB  fan 19:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I have no opinion on what should happen to to this article. I did decline a speedy deletion nomination with the rationale "[wrong information]". There was no discussion on the talk page about any wrong information. --  GB  fan 19:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I cannot add further reasons than the very thorough rationale given above.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to neutralizing antibody. This is a real distinction, e.g. this paper but one sentence is not an article, the one sentence that's here makes no sense, and the phrase "binding antibody" is meaningless outside the context of this distinction. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, I see from this 2002 article, that the meaning is one of the possible imaginable meanings I speculated on above; however, one old primary source barely justifies mention in the Antibody or EIA articles, it certainly cannot justify a stand-alone article. Yes? Redirect, maybe, if we can find a good sampling of secondary sources, see below. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 07:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Interesting point, @ Opabinia regalis: and @ Staszek Lem:, and I appreciate the thought behind it. But can we provide good secondary sources that indicate that this word-pairing is synonymous with neutralizing antibody? I did a stint while in pharma remediating HIV detection products for the diagnostic unit of the company that had come under FDA scrutiny, and so am well enough versed on multiple antibody/ neutralizing antibody/ blocking antibody uses in EIA test designs. I am just aware of no literature that uses this "binding antibody" language. But my opinion does not matter; what do the sources say? Leprof 7272 ( talk) 07:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Leprof 7272: Well, it's not synonymous, just related. "Binding antibodies" are the ones that bind but don't neutralize (but apparently initiate other immune processes, see PMID  22995189). See also PMID  19467718, PMID  24009164, PMID  21540646, etc. This one: PMID  22930363 is a review that discusses the point. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I grant that in some papers, it is convenient to use the title term to differentiate the roles being played by a subset of added antibodies, in a particular experimental or assay design. However, the remaining antibodies at use in those papers are still "binding," and so elevating this term to general and encyclopedic is problematic, I think. I still am in favor of deleting, given the concept's lack of editorial attention for years, and the lack of good secondary sources to support it. (I can't support redirect, because this one Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) review, PMID  22930363, does not elevate the term to standard, especially since the uses in the primary sources you give are diverse, and specific to each article.)
The term seems to be primarily used in two distinct fields, HIV and modulating immune responses to biologics (mostly interferon beta used in MS), but with identical meaning. Redirects are navigational tools; the question is whether someone might plausibly be searching for the term and what they'd expect to find. Stacks of secondary sources for a redirect are not necessary given evidence that it's a plausible search term. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I respect the redirect opinions, but (1) have not seen good secondary sourcing to make clear that this is a preponderant usage, and so a solid textbook/encyclopedic concept, versus a stray usage, or word juxtaposition case, and (2) am aware but am not persuaded that the concept rises to becoming notable and textbook/encyclopedic, based on the few primary sources, wherein nomenclature (and abbreviations) can be developed as necessary just for use in those articles (without becoming general).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Nothing to add - from the date I suggest I was pre-admin gnoming (had I had the flags, I might have deleted it immediately). LessHeard vanU ( talk) 16:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 11:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Dave Racaniello

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

Consensus is that bullpen catchers must pass WP:GNG. Biking to Spring Training, climbing a mountain, raising funds, holding a steak-eating record... it's all trivial. I found no evidence that the subject is notable. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 19:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 19:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 19:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 19:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia's biggest troll just keeps on trolling. - Bbny-wiki-editor ( talk) 20:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
In what way does it pass GNG? Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 21:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 06:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Marcia Weekes

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

Autobiography of a seemingly unnotable person. No sources, and pretty sure good sources don't exist. Joseph2302 ( talk) 19:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I wish I could !vote keep on this one, because cinema of smaller nations is sorely under-represented at Wikipedia, but I can't find any verifiable facts about Weekes to back up this article. It claims that her Hush film series is "award winning" (and that phrase is used all over the web to describe the series) but the actual awards won are never specified, and I can't find any facts to back up that claim. The claim that Weekes was nominated for the 2006 Bronze Lens Film Festival is clearly wrong, as that film festival was not founded until 2009 (see [12]), and a search of their site for the name "Marcia Weekes" comes up empty. The claims of founding various dance companies are also unverifiable. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Could have been prodded as unsourced BLP anyway, since IMDB isn't an independent RS source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Jimfbleak not notable and lacks reliable sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 15:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 06:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The Hippo Collective

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

I can find absolutely no independent references in reliable sources to establish notability - all mention I have found is in sites that are self-published or sponsored, and some CVs etc. where the subject mentions their involvement in the publication. Note that there's also an apparently completely unrelated documentary project with the same name. I Like It; maybe someone can prove me wrong. RichardOSmith ( talk) 19:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Smacks of self-promotion.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: An article on a new publication whose editor's first name is Jonathan, contributed by the WP:SPA editor User:Jono46k. The article contains no claim to attained notability and no independent references; Highbeam, Questia and Guardian searches turn up nothing, and Google just the usual social media links. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD ( talk) 07:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not notable, a case of WP:PROMOTION. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Wayne Community College 2015 shooting

Wayne Community College 2015 shooting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication for notability for a hate crime, as there has been no news coverage in the weeks and months following the attack. Plus, there is no substantial information about the attack on the page. Libertarian12111971 ( talk) 19:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - An unfortunate event that is not notable.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Clearly not notable if I'm not hearing any long-lasting news coverage on the event. CitiV ( talk) 06:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

2015 New Orleans airport attack

2015 New Orleans airport attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication for notability, as there has been no news coverage in the weeks and months following the attack. Plus, there is no substantial information about the attack on the page. Libertarian12111971 ( talk) 18:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - An unfortunate event that is not notable.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Clearly not notable if I'm not hearing any long-lasting news coverage on the event. CitiV ( talk) 06:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Canadian Brewers Cup & Cup Tasters

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

Trivial, lacking reliable sources, promotional: this needs to be deleted based on the GNG alone. Drmies ( talk) 17:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - News and Books searches found nothing but there are recent Canadian newspapers but given that they are all recent, this competition must be new also. Not much to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 18:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The Canadian National Brewer’s Cup Championship has been held annually since at least 2011, and the Canadian National Cup Tasters Championship since at least 2012. This article content is program info for the 2013 event. The article title appears to be an informal name for the event (the 2 competitions occurred on the same weekend at the same place, organized by the same people). I can only find one substantial reference for either championship which is The Ottawa Citizen article linked to in the article but it is only about the 2013 event, and only has a minor mention of the Cup Tasters portion. As such, delete. maclean ( talk) 20:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 06:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Beramba, Madagascar

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

As far as I can make out, a non-existent place. Editor who created it is unsure about its existence, and said on their talk page "I have no idea where I got the information". This is not intended to cast doubt on the editor, and I believe they were acting in good faith. However, I don't believe that this place exists. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 ( talk) 17:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I had a look online, and found a couple of articles [13] and [14]- unfortunately they both seem to be copies of this article. Delete unless a source can be found about this place, which isn't just a copy-site of this article. Joseph2302 ( talk) 17:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: I posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Madagascar here to see if they have information about it. Joseph2302 ( talk) 17:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Other than a growing list of wiki mirrors, I find nothing either.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unverifiable, considering we don't even have a source to show this place exists. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 09:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nothing solid to save the article aside from mirrors and despite multiple searches (you'd even expect one link at Google Books) I found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 18:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Helpers high

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

Page not necessary, just a term of phrase that is not in regular usage. Mountain cirque 13:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 22:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Bari Zell Weinberger, Esq.

Bari Zell Weinberger, Esq. (  | 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 attorney. Seems somewhat promotional. Tinton5 ( talk) 16:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - The article does not demonstrate notability.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Articles are not required to demonstrate notability. Notability is not affected by Wikipedia's content. James500 ( talk) 11:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete: The entry is now substantiated with outside links to Weinberger's authority, including authored books and journal articles. A fuller description of her accomplishments has also been added and referenced. JacquelineNH talk 23:55, 27 April 2015 00:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nothing significant, News found (mostly press releases and Huffington Post) a few links and Books as well. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Jobbing lawyer doing what lawyers do. Fails WP:GNG. Any media coverage is as fallout, not as significant coverage about the person. Seems to be part of advertising either her or her law firm, which is currently up for CSD as an advert. When was the last time we heard WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT used as a term in a deletion discussion? Fiddle Faddle 08:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Steve Rosbarsky

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

Appears to have never competed at the national open championship, world championships, or Olympics so he hasn't competed at the highest level as required by WP:ATHLETE. The collegiate championship he won is not from the NCAA but from the NCTA, he was on the coaching staff not the head coach for the University Games (and even being head coach wouldn't be enough to show notability), opening up your own school is not a sign of notability, nor is an article in the local paper. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per nominator. Does not meet WP:GNG. Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only 8 college clubs have paid their NCTA dues? Does not seem notable.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • speedy delete Even google couldn't tell me who this guy is. Fails GNG CrazyAces489 ( talk) 14:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep give original editor chance to correct mistakes. Chunlinc ( talk) 16:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
It's not about correcting mistakes, it's about showing this person has the significant coverage required to show notability. Papaursa ( talk) 18:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Time is not a valid deletion argument. There are several processes in place such as usefy, draft, AFC, and WP:REFUND that could be implemented if there was a reasonable argument for notability but the article needed further improvement. Mkdw talk 18:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete At first when I saw the article and it stated he won a US Collegiate Championship, I was going to !vote speedy keep. After looking into it, it's not part of the National Collegiate Athletic Association or even the United States Collegiate Athletic Association. NCTA is very small and there are larger competitions for martial arts competition at that level. WP:CHANCE speaks to speedy deletion and the article was already ineligible for A7. In conducting WP:BEFORE it wouldn't appear there was anything that would suggest this individual currently meets our inclusion policy. Considerations must be taken into place that when an article is created in the mainspace it's "published". I would have supported userify or move to the draft space but I find it very unlikely this person would meet our inclusion criteria unless a source comes forward with new information. Mkdw talk 18:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:MANOTE or WP:ATHLETE and lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 18:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Laura D'Auguste

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

Female MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Fails WP:NMMA. Winning a lower level championship does not show notability. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete, not even a bunch of passing mentions. Like 3. The sources do not support her own article. Maybe she can't fight her way up the ranks to earn a shot at an article. As of now does not pass GNG! CrazyAces489 ( talk) 14:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article could not be speedy deleted. Anything requiring a comprehensive breakdown of citations provided and that has a claim of notability must go to AFD. That being said it doesn't appear that this person meets WP:NMMA by having at least 3 top tier MMA fights. Interviews are likely to call into WP:ROUTINE. Mkdw talk 18:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete She definitely doesn't meet WP:NMMA and I don't see the coverage necessary to show she meets WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 18:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning towards a Weak Keep but only if the original editor has a bit more time to answer what is being said and if needed then correct issues and find better references to support claims. Chunlinc ( talk) 08:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The original editor created the article on 5 January 2006‎. 7 days is already part of the AFD process and wanting more time is not a valid rationale to keep an article. Mkdw talk 18:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Benebell Wen

Benebell Wen (  | 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 almost made the proposed deletion category. The notability of this person is being questioned. Her biographical information is uncited, and will shortly be removed by me. The problems with some of the references are described on the talk page. Many of these 'reviews' of the person's book appear to be blogs with little to no editorial oversight. It appears that the user account was created solely for the publication of this article. I had the article initially tagged with 'advert' but the author of the article removed it.   Bfpage | leave a message  00:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No evidence that this author meets the criteria in WP:AUTHOR. Fisheriesmgmt ( talk) 00:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE I don't see her anywhere but the forbes article on google news. The article features very little on her. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 00:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Reading WP:BIO notability guidelines, secondary sources are cited, including Random House and Forbes. To meet standard as cyclopedic entry, secondary sources cited to cover author biography and area of specialization, e.g., Forbes, Entropy Magazine, Spiral Nature Magazine. As BLP, an effort at NPOV was made, though if that is still at issue, then worth discussion. V standards also met per Wikipedia's own published guidelines. Also, NOR guideline met. Registering account just to write entry is not prohibited by any guidelines. If it is, please advise. Disclosure: WP:AVOIDCOI Ktmyss221 ( talk) 14:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)— Ktmyss221 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment: The article is a biography of Benebell Wen. All the information about her book and the awards that it has gotten provides us no information about the person All the references are reviews of the book, and gives us no information on the notability of the person.    Bfpage | leave a message  18:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Not notable. I note that even in the Forbes piece there is a disclaimer asserting that the piece is by Kim Westerman,and is not necessarily endorsed by Forbes. All of the rest of Kim Westerman's pieces are promo pieces which look as though they are re-regurgitated press releases. Not much reliability or robustness there IMHO.   Velella   Velella Talk   15:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As per Ktmyss221 especially the Random House and Forbes sources. Most of the articles from contributors on Forbes have that general disclaimer. It is just a legal disclaimer. A contributor wrote an article and Forbes published it. Forbes is a WP:RS. Cheers! WordSeventeen ( talk) 02:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - I would be more than happy to withdraw my request for the deletion of this article if there were actually a bit more biographical information on the person in the article. The article has changed considerably since I first nominated it for deletion and is getting closer to being an actual biography rather than an article whose original intent was to promote a singular, published book. We really don't know much about this person and it is a biography after all. Referenced information concerning the following would make the article be more a bit biographical, I'm not suggesting that the author provide all of this information, but a little more information on the person rather than just what she has published and thinks gives us more information on the person: place of birth, age, family status, college education, college activities, high school attended, lectures and talks given, public appearances, other significant career accomplishments, philanthropic activities, religion, ethnicity, advanced degrees… These are all examples of what is considered biographical information and if just a few of these were provided and referenced adequately I will remove my nomination for the deletion of this article. On a personal level, I actually believe in expanding the encyclopedia and not excluding information that someone might be looking for. I am quite pleased when an article is not deleted-so you can say that I am 'cheering' you on, editor-author, to provide a little more biographical information. I really like the photograph! Best regards,    Bfpage | leave a message  13:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
   Bfpage | leave a message  13:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relist again to invite more editors to assess the article after its recent revamp.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 14:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Erik Muendel

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

Unremarkable person whose only achievement is to have created a questionably-notable company. Joseph2302 ( talk) 14:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Two quasi-promotional fluff articles do not create notability.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted CSD G3: Blatant hoax. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Bhushan Gujer

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

Now normally I would leave a article like this alone. But looking over this-other then the fact it is a unsourced autobio seems to not fit at all. Seems to be a page for a young man's political dreams then anything else. No luck finding anything for this guy either. Wgolf ( talk) 14:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong Delete Not notable, autobiography. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Joseph2302 ( talk) 14:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#G3 ( Hoax). Clearly this guy is not the incumbent Chief Minister of Maharashtra. He appears to have joined the party as a youth member, and may have high aspirations, but not yet. Also eligible as an unsourced BLP. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Obvious hoax or a test page from a newbie. -- Drm310 ( talk) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I did notice that odd part saying chief of something after I put this up but I wasn't sure what to say. Wgolf ( talk) 19:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment-I have to find the contested deletion notice pretty funny "He is a good boy". (I keep on thinking then did his mother write that part? LOL) Wgolf ( talk) 17:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I tagged the article for speedy deletion. Cavarrone 17:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Brightline Interactive

Brightline Interactive (  | 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 company, plus this page is written like an advert. Not good enough for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 ( talk) 14:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

* Keep – This article looks very notable to me. It's a successful company with VERY NOTABLE clients. People just apparently like to delete articles on notable things that THEY DON'T LIKE. ( Personal attack removed) 236benderavenue ( talk) 12:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Please desist from personal attacks on other editors whose opinion you don't agree with. AllyD ( talk) 14:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

* Keep – What the above user said. It's notable enough to have clients with deep pockets like the Department of Defense, its services must be very good, etc. I also don't agree it's written like an advert. It looks neutral to me – the article neither endorses not slams the company, it just lays out the facts. CarmineFalconeCF ( talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment/response to the above two new editors: Every business enterprise has multiple suppliers and clients; notability is not inherited from a list of other firms. What is needed here is evidence that this firm itself is notable. AllyD ( talk) 15:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Highbeam searches brings up quite a number of items of coverage for Brightline Interactive or iTV, including some awards, but it appears to be a distinct company from that which is the subject of this article. AllyD ( talk) 15:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:CORP; [15], many passing mentions and press releases, but not enough sourcing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Esquivalience t 19:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

*Keep: the company is very notable among the business community, and is successful financially. I think this earns it a Wikipedia page. Daredevil836 ( talk) 13:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Multiple searches found nothing and although News found a plethora, more than half of the links are press releases. A NYTimes article here says American Express was a client in which Brightline created a TV channel but that's not exactly significant and Books found one result. Not to improve the article's current state. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I think the NY Times piece concerns the other similarly named firm I mentioned above [16] rather than this one, and similar probably for the links from the Google search. AllyD ( talk) 20:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I checked again, and still find a lack of reliable 3rd party coverage of this firm (i.e. the one making digital advertising installations rather than the interactive TV firm). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD ( talk) 06:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Peek-A-Boo Publishing

Peek-A-Boo Publishing (  | 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 book company. There is one reliable source here, and doesn't look to be many more around. Joseph2302 ( talk) 14:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Could not access the sole, alleged authoritative reference as it requires a subscription.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to founder Don Hoffman, does not meet WP:ORG, a google search brings up nothing notable. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Multiple searches found nothing to suggest notability or improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 18:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Don Hoffman, the company's founder (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. I was unable to find significant coverage about the subject. Preserving the history will allow the redirect to be easily undone if editors in the future find more sources about the subject that could be used to source and expand the article significantly.

    Cunard ( talk) 20:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Yes, however that article is also up for deletion. Joseph2302 ( talk) 20:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Agree redirect and preserve history, or is that merge? Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • No, only because the article on Don Hoffman does not meet WP:AUTHOR criteria for notability. Sorry, but thanks for asking.-- Rpclod ( talk) 03:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:A7, WP:G11, and a little WP:IAR. — MusikAnimal talk 16:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Onlinelivenews24

Onlinelivenews24 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Exactly the same article has been deleted twice previously as A7. There is no real notability to this company, and no reliable sources to indicate any notability. This is a promotional article about a non-notable company, created by it's owner for free advertising. Joseph2302 ( talk) 12:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete per WP:G4 and possibly WP:A7; as the nominator says, this is a recreation of a page deleted twice under A7; see also this user page. In any case, that's promotional (Alexa rank above 750 000, hardly one of the world's most famous websites; "we have our representative" etc.; and other stuff) and there is no serious indication of notability. Tigraan ( talk) 13:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Correction: G4 does not apply to pages that were speedy deleted. Tigraan ( talk) 13:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Tigraan: Should have been clearer above, my A7 nomination was contested by another user, hence this AfD. Joseph2302 ( talk) 13:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Damn, I guess I have to withdraw my own A7 nomination then. Tigraan ( talk) 13:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Afraid so, sorry. I personally believe this is an obvious A7 candidate too, but it's been contested. Joseph2302 ( talk) 13:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I declined the speedy nomination because I think the article's claim to notability is plausible. I think it's unlikely to pass, but the claim is at least plausible and so CSD isn't an appropriate process here. But I agree that, in its current state, the topic doesn't pass GNG and so should be deleted if better sources can't be found. —Tim Pierce ( talk) 14:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete - per nominator. - Arr4 ( talk) 15:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 06:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Ashestoangels

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

Non-notable band. This band's article was deleted by AFD back in 2012, and although they appear to have released some albums since then, and gotten some press, it doesn't appear sufficient for notability. Most of the citations are to unreliable blog sites. The only references of any reliability are to some notice in Kerrang!, but even these links are minimal and don't show the depth of coverage required. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Phulpoto

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

Un-sourced for over 8 years. Full of self promotion. I tried to find a version to revert back to that had some redeeming features, but I went back at least 5 years and couldnt find any. (I have to say, it's crap!) "Phulpoto is Sindhi Samma sub-tribe" I can't see any claim of notability there 220 of Borg 11:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A tribe article would be good but the article's current state is far from good. A Books search found nothing that seems relevant or significant. A search through News found nothing so I have to think foreign sources (if they exist) are the only hope. A look through the page's history shows it has never even come close to getting better. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 22:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Abhedananda Bharathi

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

As mentioned here, I can find no mention of a Guru from Kerala of this name or similar names in Google Books. Shirt58 ( talk) 10:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I have updated the resources, please check. Do not delete. I have even added photoslides with his original voice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanadushyam ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Please refer the updated resources. His name after getting initiated into sanyas was Abhedananda Bharathi, people called him Swami Abhedananda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanadushyam ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Blogs, Facebook pages, and the subject's official website should not be used as references. You need to find authoritative secondary sources and use inline <ref> tags to identify what facts the individual references tend to prove.-- Rpclod ( talk) 11:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The article is not easy to understand (much less to people unfamiliar with the subject), but overall and with searches, I found nothing to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 13:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Nous Model Management

AfDs for this article:
Nous Model Management (  | 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 agency that can not inherit any notability from its list of clients. It must be notable in its own right. Minor notability is asserted in the article with the involvement with a TV show, but providing prizes is, of itself, a PR gesture, not anything that genuinely garners notability. The referencing fails to pass our criteria for independence, significant coverage and WP:RS all three applied simultaneously Fiddle Faddle 10:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No substantial coverage that I can find. "Prizes provided by ...," if that was the extent of their involvement in the show, is PR bought and paid for, it doesn't confer notability. In my opinion the "no consensus" conclusion to the previous deletion discussion was erroneous because there were two clearly well grounded Delete entries, and WP:NOTINHERITED renders null the only arguments given under the two Keep entries ("Having notable clients indicates that the management company is notable - in the same way as a record label who has notable bands indicates notability for the label"). —Largo Plazo ( talk) 14:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No authoritative sources or indication that WP:ORG criteria are met.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A News search found several links but nothing solid and significant while Books also found a few links but nothing significant. Overall, there's not much to add notability or improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The agency was notable enough to be on Tyra Banks Show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuiQbYMCxO8 I know just a YouTube link is not notable in itself, but this was a majour television show and it's an additional indicator that it is an important agency. werldwayd ( talk) 04:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 06:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Paul B

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

Unsourced and not obviously notable. Speedy declined due to "leaders of the UK sales-charts", but that doesn't sound like a credible claim of significance as there would be a link to the Official Charts Company or BPI if that were the case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: as the editor who nominated it for speedy. Thanks to Ritchie for bringing it here. The Dissident Aggressor 16:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO criteria.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO Snuggums ( talk / edits) 21:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete entirely - When the article was started, it was actually aimed for the record label and eventually to Paul B so the article got a little better and hasn't never actually gotten better. A few searches found nothing even close to improving. There may be a language barrier but it's very likely this obscure artist is not notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and I do believe a non-controversial early close is applicable. Pax 08:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above fails WP:MUSICBIO. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 12:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above fails WP:MUSICBIO. – Davey2010 Talk 13:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Closing this early, per WP:SNOW and the possibility that it might be a hoax. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Australian Beach

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

Possible hoax? The references are hard to check, as discussed on the article's talk page and the contributing editor's talk page. While I could have proposed this for speedy deletion as a hoax I think this one requires discussion and a full conclusion to be reached. I think this is not one where a 'no consensus' outcome would be appropriate on the basis that it either is, or is not, a hoax. Fiddle Faddle 09:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • As nominator, my own opinion is conditional on the hoax/genuine status, and should not be inferred just because I have nominated it for discussion here:
Keep if genuine because we carry articles with genuine place names, even if their notability is borderline
Delete if hoax because that is what we do
I am not competent to determine whether is it genuine or a hoax. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: My view is much the same as Timtrent's above. I can find no evidence for this name but am accustomed to WP:AGF. But unless someone can find a verifiable WP:RS, and until the creating editor can show why the asserted reference on page 100 of Channel Island Walks isn't visible, I think we will have to delete. Is there any online mapping for Jersey which has the same reliability as the British Ordnance Survey, on which the placename could be found? Pam D 10:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This may be a colloquial name for a beach of a different name. If it can be proven to be such and the article amended to reflect that, then I suggest moving the article to the formal name of the beach, with the colloquial name forming a part of that article (or merging with any pre-exsting article). I would be content with that outcome. Fiddle Faddle 10:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Sounds very reasonable. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jersey but not sure it's very active. Pam D 10:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I too tried to verify the existence of this place both in the sources provided and through general searches and came up with nothing. If not a hoax, it is at least a name that is only used locally and is not recognized by any actual authority as the name of the place. (Locals often have their own names for stretches of beach, ponds that are too small to actually have a name, paths through the woods, etc., that are not verifiable in any way meaningful to Wikipedia.) WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete I too failed the find mention of this name in the cited works, nor could I find any meaningful juxtaposition of the words in French. It was created by someone who did precious little else, and I have to think it is a hoax. Mangoe ( talk) 12:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No evidence it isn't a hoax. Even if true, it doesn't seem notable. Joseph2302 ( talk) 18:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete whether hoax, or not. Nothing here is verifiable. Precious little work was put into it, and it would take that same precious little to rebuild it if warranted. As it stands, event that "named" the beach is not even listed in the "see also" link added, on shipwrecks. The creator can put it in his sandbox in the meantime, if so desired. ScrapIronIV ( talk) 18:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No evidence of notability, whether or not it is a hoax. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:V, and its creator's behavior suggests that the page is a hoax. Mini apolis 22:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm fairly certain it's a hoax, here are all of Jersey's beaches (according to the official Jersey website)- none of them are called or nicknamed Australian Beach. Same with this. If this beach existed as the article suggests, it would be famous, and thus on at least 1 of these sources. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Neither of the "refs" provided mentions a beach named Australian so it fails WP:V. MarnetteD| Talk 23:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as probable hoax. Even if it exists, there appears to be no legal recognition or coverage, thereby failing WP:GEOLAND. Esquivalience t 23:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Question Can we call it now as WP:SNOW, and close this as a simple deletion (not a speedy deletion, just a snowball close to delete)?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The analysis of the sources claiming to provide notability is compelling. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Romie Tager

Romie Tager (  | 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 every Queen's Counsel merits an article. The coverage of him as a lawyer is very thin - a couple of passing mentions in sources looking at cases in which he has appeared, not looking at him. His charitable / political donations do not make him notable. The main section of the article is about his role in the administration of his father's estate, which is not brilliantly sourced and smacks of BLP1E in any event. Overall, fails WP:BIO because we have trivial mentions added together to try and pad out a BLP1E. If he is primarily known as a lawyer and is notable by WP standards for that, then the article should concentrate on that - if there is insufficient coverage of him for that, then the other fluff and trivia does not an article make. Bencherlite Talk 09:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Easily meets WP:BASIC "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". BLP1E is intended to apply only to people who have received coverage for a single event, who are likely to remain low-profile, and the individual's role in that event was either not substantial or not well documented. There is coverage of Tager in RSs going back to 2008/09, I don't think he could be called low profile, and I don't think his activities in various contexts could be called unsubstantial or poorly documented. Philafrenzy ( talk) 09:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Significant coverage? He specialises in commercial and property law. He has represented former member of parliament David Mellor in connection with a dispute over the purchase of an antiques company, and in 2014, he successfully acted for film director Gary Love against the restauranteur Gordon Ramsey.[6] Tager is currently representing Vincent Tchenguiz in his £2.2 billion claim against the accountants Tchenguiz says deliberated orchestrated a Serious Fraud Office investigation into his affairs.[7] His specialism is currently unsourced. His representation of David Mellor is currently unsourced. The Love—Ramsey dispute is sourced to an article which mentions two questions that he asked. The Tchenguiz dispute is sourced to an article mentioning him as one of four barristers involved, but not in fact saying who he represents. That doesn't pass WP:BASIC. Thereafter:
      • Directorships - Tager is a director of a large number of companies, including some that formerly belonged to his late father is sourced to a database, which doesn't support the claim that some of the companies used to belong to his father. That he is a director of a "large number" of companies is a pure opinion - who says that it's a large number?
      • Ravenswood Foundation Tager is vice president of the Ravenswood Foundation[10] that provides a residential community in Berkshire run by the charity Norwood that provides a home for adults with learning difficulties - all that the source says about Tager is "While the music played, Lord Sacks, Rabbi Plancey, a member of Norwood’s advisory council, Ronnie Harris, Norwood’s vice president, Romie Tager, whose parents were a founding family of Ravenswood, Rabbi Salasnik and Rabbi Coton moved the scrolls from an old synagogue to a new one." The next sentence about his father is WP:NOTINHERITED territory. There's then a more substantial source about a donation he and his wife made, but the next two sentences are based on primary sources.
      • Tager has been a donor to the British Conservative Party is based on "Gove declares the largest number of office backers with 14 donors. These include the carpet millionaire Lord Harris, who also backed Osborne and the former shadow home secretary, David Davis; Manrows Ltd, a credit check company based in Knightsbridge, west London; Manro Haydan Trading Ltd, a City derivatives trading company also based in Knightsbridge; Alan Bekhor, a former London metals trader, estimated to be worth £80m; and Romie Tager, a wealthy commercial lawyer."
      • That then leaves the section about his father's estate which gets undue emphasis and gives the distinct impression that this is the real reason we have an article about him. Bencherlite Talk 10:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • By listing all the times he has been mentioned you sort of prove my point that he meets BASIC don't you? But I will address your detailed comments by revising the article. I have just added a couple of additional notable cases. Philafrenzy ( talk) 10:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • P.S. He's a director of 29 companies by my count. Seems a lot to me. Philafrenzy ( talk) 10:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Trivial mention + trivial mention + trivial mention + primary sources + notinherited + undue negative weight on one issue does not equal substantial coverage passing WP:BIO. OK, so you've added something from his chambers website (not a great source), referred to the "UK High Court" (hint, there's no such thing - perhaps you mean the High Court of England and Wales) and a Court of Appeal case that wasn't important enough to get into the law reports, just into a digest, where (guess what?) he's mentioned in passing as having appeared. Still not seeing the notability. And if you think that you're entitled to add editorial commentary into an article about him having large, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Bencherlite Talk 10:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Just added another case. I have corrected the name of the court. If I have made other errors in the exact legal referencing please point them out. You appear to be descending into personal attacks now. Please try to restrain yourself. Philafrenzy ( talk) 10:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Um, there are no personal attacks in the above. Perhaps if you could find more than trivial mentions of his career we'd make more progress, rather than just trawling through BAILII for cases in which he has appeared - a list of appearances in cases does not evidence notability. Bencherlite Talk 11:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • "if you think that you're entitled to add editorial commentary into an article about him having large, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you." Which may be paraphrased as "If you are not prepared to see things my way, just **** off". Philafrenzy ( talk) 11:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Well, if you want to play the game of completely rewriting something I said to turn it into a personal attack and then tell me off for making a personal attack, that's entirely your choice, but not exactly accurate, fair or productive. Perhaps just read it as a strongly worded reminder to an experienced editor (who should know better) not to add your personal opinions into articles (and I'm glad to see that you've since removed that opinion from the article). Bencherlite Talk 12:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Can we stick to the facts please. I am now logging off until later today. Philafrenzy ( talk) 12:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. When it comes to sources, quantity is no substitute for quality, and despite the scratched-up coverage that's been found for the present article so far as I can determine there is insufficient secondary coverage of this person to merit an article. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, trivia, non-notable, and WP:BLP1E. The first version of this bio came to my attention when its creator linked it to Helen Tager-Flusberg, the bio of an autism researcher that I created. That version was pretty clearly a BLP1E issue, engaging in original research and using very marginal (for a BLP) sources like DailyMail to implicate the son in the issue of the deceased father's will. After my queries about the BLP1E aspect, the nominator added additional sources (whose dubious quality and use is covered above), that still include marginal sources and original research and trivia. Many lawyers will get passing mention in a newspaper article when they defend even a marginally important case; using sources like:

to claim notability for this bio is indicative of the problems throughout this bio. After searching high and low for any non-trivial mention of the issue of the father's will, finding none, I removed text as a WP:BLP issue, which was then reinstated by the original nominator. In my search, I found nothing to indicate notability is met for this individual, and all I can find points to a coatrack, BLP1E attack bio.

Of concern is similar poorly sourced text at Osias Tager. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Further, I am unable to find mention of Tager and his wife at Simcha, used as a source:
so, what the heck? I have removed what looked like an unncessary involvement of the wife, based on sources that don't seem to mention her. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I reinstated the tax case. A highly unusual set of events with a £1 million fine. This is a Barrister we are talking about. The judge went out of his way to comment on how exceptional the case was. The material is a short section in neutral language at the end of the article that is supported by five refs. It certainly could be seen as negative, but I don't see how it can reasonably be seen as "trivia". Philafrenzy ( talk) 18:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
This article has advanced somewhat (still uses primary sources and original research) [17] from the poorly sourced (tabloids, primary sources, and OR) version I first encountered, and it's too bad it took a lengthy AFD (sapping community resources) to make that happen. This is a living person. I hope Philafrenzy's future work will not use tabloids and primary sources and Words to avoid when writing about living people. Well, I would hope he wouldn't do that in writing about dead people, either, but Wikipedia has little teeth in dealing with that. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Nice try Sandy. This one was notable and well referenced from the start and is only listed here because you have an aversion (which I don't blame you for) to the Daily Mail. You could have worked with me on the article instead of supporting the AFD couldn't you? Philafrenzy ( talk) 18:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Avoid personalization, thank you. Here is how the attempt to work with you ended, and the Daily Mail issue can be taken up at the Reliable sources noticeboard-- it is not my issue. Since you are writing BLPs, you should become familiar with these resources available to you on Wikipedia, as well as WP:BLP. All said and done, I would not be proud to have put up a BLP on 15 April, ignored the concerns expressed by multiple experienced editors, and then finally have someone else provide sources three weeks later. Nor would I be proud to have an article riddled with primary sources, but YMMV. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
You and Bencherlite were both warned in advance that this would meet BASIC as shown in the link you provide. It's not me that has wasted anyone's time here Sandy. Philafrenzy ( talk) 18:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nothing notable for an attorney. Appears to be trying to claim inherited notability.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
In what way is it "inherited"? Philafrenzy ( talk) 22:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
He is not an attorney. Attorneys were abolished and replaced by "solicitors" by the Judicature Act 1873. He is a barrister, which is something still different (and more likely to be notable because they are fewer in number and have greater rights of audience). James500 ( talk) 12:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
And a Queen's Counsel too, the most senior form of Barrister in the U.K. Appointed for "excellence in advocacy in the higher courts" [1] Philafrenzy ( talk) 12:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://www.qcappointments.org/
  • Keep The subject passes WP:BASIC by dint of the breadth of coverage, rather than its depth, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". As the subject is notable for a variety of reasons including their status as a Queen's Counsel; high profile cases and clients; philanthropy; political donations and connections; tax affairs; &c. then WP:BLP1E does not apply. The article seems reasonably comparable with that about the sister - another distinguished professional - and compares well with the page about another QC which I sampled and which has been scrutinised and challenged but which is still here. This indicates that, as with footballers and sportmen, we don't set the bar very high here. Andrew D. ( talk) 09:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Andrew Davidson, I searched high and low, and did find evidence of these high profile cases and clients. Can you produce some? The Daily Mail Online and a one-sentence mention of the attorney in a tabloid-style report aren't good examples of high profile cases ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Andrew Davidson, do you have a reliable secondary source on that case, or just a primary source database entry? Again, I found no secondary coverage (apologies for the repetitive verbosity, but the message might not have been clear). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • There appears to be a concerted attempt to downgrade this article so that future people voting on it will see it as poor quality. This is an abuse of process. Philafrenzy ( talk) 12:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Please see the article talk page (and do a Google search) for a discussion about material that contributes to the notability of this person. Philafrenzy ( talk) 13:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Philafrenzy and Andrew Davidson. Also per inclusion in Debrett's People of Today and A & C Black's Who's Who [18] which, apart from satisfying GNG, have a reputation for not including non-notable individuals. BLP1E will not be relevant, because you don't get into those publications for getting a large fine. You are included for "pre-eminence", "influence" and "success". And even if you felt that mention of the fine was an "attack", you could remove that mention without deleting the whole thing. My thoughts on the notability of lawyers generally: All barristers are likely to be notable up to at least 1885, which is when the second edition of the biographical dictionary called "Men at the Bar" was published. In the case of the serjeants and QCs, that likelihood is a 100% absolute certainty. I am unsure of the notability of individuals who died at a young age. I am not sure how long that situation continues, but in 1901, the total number of barristers, at 1,147, (Report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services) was still significantly less than the number of QCs today, which exceeds fifteen hundred. Contemporary QCs are likely to be notable. Since their numbers are increasing in absolute terms (though they seem to have been on the order of 1% of the profession for some time), the longer ago they were appointed, the more likely they are to be notable. This one, according to Chambers and Partners, was appointed in 1995, when there were 891 QCs ( HC Deb 13 November 2000 vol 356 c 545W). That isn't an obviously unacceptable number. If the number of QCs keeps increasing it may cease to be a useful indicator of notability. James500 ( talk) 16:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Added the Who's Who entry to the article which reveals that he won the Hurst prize at UCL. Philafrenzy ( talk) 17:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The following section (with five RS references) has been removed from the article again on the basis that it is a "trivial factoid":
"Romie Tager's father Osias Tager, died on 26 March 2005. He left no will. In 2015, the failure of Romie Tager as personal representative of his father's estate to deliver full details of his father's assets to the U.K. tax authorities, together with other failings relating to his personal tax returns, resulted in the imposition of a penalty of over £1.2 million on him. Romie Tager said that his father was secretive about money and that it had not been possible to accurately calculate the value of his estate due to his many shareholdings."
I contend that this is an important part of Tager's story (he resigned just before the facts came out), contributes to notability, is not undue because of Tager's position as a very senior lawyer and the size of the fine, and the matter has been dealt with neutrally and briefly. The arguments for and against are all on the talk page. I should welcome further comments here. Philafrenzy ( talk) 20:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Rakesh Jain (businessman)

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

The gentleman must be notable for himself. He can not inherit notability from his employer. There is no notability asserted nor verified. Indeed, the article is also an advert for him. Fiddle Faddle 09:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment References of a sort have been added. Here is an analysis of the references as they stand in this version:
  1. http://www.vccircle.com/news/others/2011/10/21/reliance-general-insurance-appoints-rakesh-jain-ceo Press release or PR piece. Primary source. Fail
  2. http://www.business-standard.com/article/pf/general-insurance-rakesh-jain-114020200793_1.html Interview with the gentleman. Primary source. Fail
  3. https://www.reliancegeneral.co.in/insurance/About-Us/Reliance-General-Insurance.aspx About his employer. No mention of the man. Fail
  4. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/banking/reliance-general-insurance-diversifying-into-new-areas-segments/article4941502.ece Interview with the gentleman. Primary source. Fail
  5. http://www.business-standard.com/article/pf/general-insurance-rakesh-jain-115020800783_1.html Trivia Q&A by the gentleman. Fail
  6. http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=32697591&privcapId=9899013&previousCapId=9899013&previousTitle=ICICI%2520Lombard%2520General%2520Insurance%2520Company%2520Limited While one might consider Bloomberg to be authoritative, this is simply a factual conformation that he holds this position. Borderline, but acceptable within a pool of suitable other references
  7. http://www.business-standard.com/article/press-releases/rakesh-jain-wins-icai-award-2009-for-best-cfo-in-financial-services-sector-110020300088_1.html/ Press release or PR piece. Primary source. Fail
  8. http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/we-are-offering-service-guarantee-to-restore-customer-faith-reliance-general-insurance/1174226/ Press release or PR piece. Primary source. Fail
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. These do not comply. The addition is a small example of WP:BOMBARD Fiddle Faddle 14:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Reliance General Insurance as the article stands now or keep if improved. As the CEO of a fairly major company, there is a good chance Jain is notable. However, the current sourcing doesn't prove it and I didn't immediately find better sources. There may well be some - it is a good deal of working sorting through the literally hundreds of sources that quote in on some fact about RGI to find ones actually about the man - so if they can be found, the article can be kept. Regardless, the few sources pieces of info would be appropriate as part of the RGI article, so a merge seems to be the best option at current. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with the above reasoning, although I did not check the sources myself. The world is full of non-Notable CEOs. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 07:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Linked-In. Not seeing any point in a redirect either, as the current title isn't something users are likely to enter into the search field. Pax 08:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    The point would be that there is useful information that is relevant to the company article and worth merging. Specifically, Jain's history at the company. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 15:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
So move over the information already. Your three response posts in this AfD are nearly as long as the text body of the whole short article. Pax 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
If I move the content, the AfD can't be closed as delete as per our licensing terms since attribution for the content is required. As such, I prefer not to make the merge until the AfD ends. Otherwise, I am "forcing" my suggested outcome. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above. Neutrality talk 20:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    AfD is not a vote. If you don't have anything to add to the conversation, there is no reason to comment. See WP:MAJORITY -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 14:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    Wow. What an unnecessary and snarky comment - and one that, funnily enough, adds nothing of value. As an editor who has spent a very long time on this project, I can assure you that I am well aware of policy. In any case, I do not find it useful to recapitulate arguments that have already been amply made above. To be clear, I agree completely with Timtrent that the references do not support notability. A redirect would also be futile, because it is an implausible search term, as User:Раціональне анархіст pointed out. In any case, essays (including the one you cite) are not policy. Neutrality talk 20:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    Don't add pure votes if you are offended by people pointing out they add nothing to the conversation. As an experienced admin, you surely realize that a comment that is just a vote will be discounted, so why add it? ... And amazingly, while you now repeated what others said, you still didn't bother to contribute to the discussion on only point that anyone has debated - whether anything is worth merging or not. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    I'm done engaging with you on this point. It's clearly not a "pure vote"; it's an "I agree with the above-stated rationale." In any case, I have expressed my opinion, and I will leave it at that. Neutrality talk 00:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 22:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

A.Jayones

A.Jayones (  | 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 yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Sole claim to notability is having produced one track on an upcoming album for Lil Wayne; the rest is mixtapes with no indication of notability. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Speedied A7 two days ago as AJayones. WP:TOOSOON at best. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 08:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 08:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The sources I were right there. Didn't you people see the proof? The Hitmakers ( Talk) 11:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The problem with the sources is that they're all from fan sites, blogs and social media, and not WP:Reliable sources. The claim that he produced the single for Lil Wayne also turns out to come from a fan site too: I'd thought lilwaynehq.com was Lil Wayne's official website, but it's just a fan site. Billboard says that Lox produced it [19], and since it hasn't even been released yet, there are no official production credits for us to check to WP:VERIFY the claim. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 07:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
There are more sources that say it was produced by A.Jayones than the Lox. The Lox aren't even record producers. They're just rappers. The Hitmakers ( Talk) 01:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Even if we can verify that he produced that one potentially notable single, there's a wider issue of the lack of in-depth coverage from WP:RS, as discussed in WP:MUSICBIO. . All I can find are passing mentions. Can you find any interviews with him, or profiles on his career, maybe from an online or print magazine? Thanks, Dai Pritchard ( talk) 06:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Another obscure rapper with no significant or in-depth coverage, multiple searches found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Are you saying that page is not A.Jayones or what? The Hitmakers ( Talk) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm saying he is not notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
What do you mean NOT notable? The Hitmakers ( Talk) 02:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The minimum standards of notability for music biographies are listed at WP:MUSICBIO. He doesn't meet any of the criteria there yet. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 19:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, you could save a copy of the article as a draft, and when his career takes off and he starts to get some solid press coverage, you can put the updated article back up. Let me know if you want a hand with that. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 05:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not rise to the level of notice required for notability of music producers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Robert Irwin (real estate)

Robert Irwin (real estate) (  | 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. Source has only one review for one of his books. Nothing else is verified. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 07:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The "America's #1 Real Estate Expert" is questionable as I haven't found a significant, non-primary and reliable source. Multiple searches haven't found anything good. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Pablo Contrisciani

Pablo Contrisciani (  | 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. There's a lack of coverage about him in independent reliable sources. A look at sourcing at time of nomination:

1 Dead
2 The article makes no mention of Contrisciani.
3 Gallery listing
4 Articles title is just "Artistas argentinos en ArteAméricas". It does not have Pablo Contrisciani in the title. The article makes no mention of Contrisciani.
5 Dead
6 art agenda is not a reliable source. They are a PR service [20]
7 5 repeated
8 The title is not "Pablo Contrisciani en la X edición de ArteAméricas. El arte argentino en la principal vitrina latinoamericana". It's just "El arte argentino en la principal vitrina latinoamericana" It does not have Pablo Contrisciani in the title. The article only makes a passing mention of Contrisciani. "El Consulado Argentino en Miami presentó 22 artistas argentinos que viven y trabajan hace unos años en esa ciudad: Sebastián Spreng, Malavi Mendoza, Nicolás Leiva, Pancho Luna, Daniel Bottero, Marta Estrems, Marina Font, Laura Rozen, Daniel Fiorda, Juan Pablo Cheret, Pablo Soria, Cecilia Lueza, Mariano Costa Peuser, Cari Cohen, Lorenzo Cassina, Ramiro Teran, Yanina Monti, Liliana Gerardi, Leda Almar, Kike San Martin, Diana Maguire y Pablo Contrisciani."
9 Not an independent reliable source. [21]
10 Show listing

The dead links are local coverage that may or may not exist. The creator of this page, in this case using his Misty2011 account, has a history of faking verification, faking article titles, faking his identity, just straight out faking.
Existing coverage is not good enough. A search found nothing better. He is mentioned in Blanco, Victoria (23 June 2004), "Negocios / Arte - Miami pinta bien", AméricaEconomía (in Spanish) but that's just a passing mention, no depth of coverage.
The sourcing shows he is a working artist but that's not enough to meet WP:ARTIST.
Note the text matches [22] so this could be a copyvio (Note also the photo there is from the same photo shoot as the one here).
Even if he is notable, it would be best to blow this away. Deceptively sourced promotional bios on living people do not belong on Wikipedia. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete Showings, yes; real external notice, no. Mangoe ( talk) 17:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

KMC MAG Group

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

Not Notable. Organization is mentioned in several articles, but only to quote it about other things, and this organization is not the subject of any sources focusing upon it alone. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 07:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There are a lot of links but not that much significant and the article's current state sounds too promotional with no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Donald Braswell II

Donald Braswell II (  | 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. A massive lovefest for a former America's Got Talent contestant. Lacks any independent notability. Mostly sourced to primary sources (many dead). With once possible exception of local piece, none of the sources are independent reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about him. Poorly sourced overly promotional BLPs should not be on Wikipedia. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The article is neatly organized and has information but he is not notable aside from being best known for America's Got Talent. A search at News found a few links (mostly for performances) and Books (passing mentions). SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 13:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

As a consequence of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 6, this discussion results in no consensus.  Sandstein  08:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Louisiana State University rugby

Louisiana State University rugby (  | 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. College Rugby club playing in a regional conference. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The article meets the WikiProject rugby union notability guidelines, which are based on and explicitly reference Wikipedia's generally applicable notability guidelines. And it has references (although it could use more). I've added a few more references. The team (and the SCRC conference in which it plays) are routinely covered in several media, such as Rugby Today and This Is American Rugby. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 20:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article meets the WikiProject rugby union notability guidelines. Besides meeting rugby notability guidlines this team is part of the national association governing rugby. The governing body divides the entire sport regionally so all teams are technically regional in nature Under that body. spatms ( talk) 22:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article has 12 references including USA Rugby and additional national rugby sources. Annieann1 ( talk) 17:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Okay, it's time someone throws some cold water on this AfD discussion. So far, we have heard from one of the principal article authors (User:Spatms), and a couple of others who have a shaky understanding of the applicable general and specific notability guidelines. First off, WikiProject Rugby Union does not get to adopt its own random notability guidelines in WikiProject space (see WikiProject rugby union notability guidelines); the notability of sports teams is not governed by the specific notability guidelines of WP:NSPORTS or individual WikiProjects. Instead, the notability of sports teams is governed by WP:NORG and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, which are effectively the same standard. To establish the notability of a team, club, business or other organization, NORG and GNG require that the organization have received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources -- and each of those terms is a Wikipedia term of art which is defined and described in greater depth at GNG.
  1. For starters, the sources must be independent of the subject per GNG, which means that such sources as the LSU student newspaper (The Daily Reveille), the LSU recreation department website (" http://lsuuniversityrec.com"), the team website (lsurugby.com), the conference website ("varsityrugby.com/scrc"), and the national governing body website ("usarugby.org"), are not independent of the subject and do not count for purposes of determining notability.
  2. Second, the sources must be reliable, which generally means that reader-contributed material and blogs cannot be used to establish notability. Non-professional sports blogs such ThisIsAmericanRugby.com, RugbyToday.com and GoffRugbyReport.com should be heavily discounted or disregarded entirely in determining notability.
  3. Third, the coverage must be significant, and it may be excluded if it is routine coverage of the type one would reasonably expect a team to receive the day after a game. For a better understanding of this point, please WP:ROUTINE.
  4. Finally, in order to establish notability there must be significant coverage in multiple sources that otherwise satisfy the GNG criteria, which, for our purposes, means that ten hypothetical articles in The Advocate (Baton Rouge's newspaper) still counts as only one single source.
When we properly apply the criteria of WP:NORG and WP:GNG, we can see that virtually all of the sources presently linked in the existing article are insufficient to establish the notability of the team because they are not independent reliable sources per GNG. Moreover, for editors who are unfamiliar with college rugby clubs in the United States, it is important to understand that this is not a varsity team sponsored by the university and governed by its intercollegiate sports department, and it does not officially represent the university in intercollegiate sports; it is a club team on par with the college's ultimate frisbee club, the water-skiing club, and the sailing club. No one should be misled by the aggressive and self-promotional character of some of the rugby blogs, which would lead someone unfamiliar with American college sports to believe that these rugby clubs are university varsity teams -- because they are not.
In the absence of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish this rugby club's notability, I must register my vote as "delete" for failure to establish the notability of this club. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: There is a lot in this lengthy post that is pretty far off base. The attempt to dismiss the rugby media as "blogs" doesn't fit – for example, RugbyToday has been around for years and has a staff of full-time reporters and editors. The reference to WP:ROUTINE – which says sports scores aren't a sufficient basis for an article – is a red herring. Furthermore, the WikiProject rugby union notability guidelines are consistent with (and explicitly reference) Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 02:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Barry, I doubt you want to trade knowledge on the meaning of WP:ROUTINE. Hint: it covers a lot more than "sport scores". Here are some of the relevant provisions covering the meaning of "routine coverage":
1. WP:NSPORTS/ WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, it provides that "a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)" may be suitable for a stand-alone article.
2. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."
3. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
Bottom line: typical post-game coverage of sports matches is routine coverage. Other editors have argued the position you have taken in other AfDs, vehemently, and those articles were deleted. In one provision of the guidelines, "sports scores" is given as an example, not as a limitation on the meaning of "routine." So, no, it's not a red herring at all. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 04:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Response: All three excerpts above apply to sports events, not sports teams. Guidance on whether an individual match is sufficiently notable to merit its own article tells us nothing about whether a sports team is notable. Also, the most recent AfD I am aware of involving a college rugby team, the University of Buffalo AfD, resulted in a consensus to keep the article. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 01:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Barry, for purposes of discussing what constitutes "routine" coverage, they're all illuminating. Routine coverage is routine coverage. Getting two paragraphs of routine post-game coverage in Rugby Today -- or having a bullet-point team profile -- is not significant coverage of the team. You have also completely ducked my other major point regarding independent sources: you cannot claim that coverage by the LSU student newspaper, LSU rugby club website, LSU Recreation Dept website, SCRC conference website, and USA Rugby website are independent sources for purposes of determining notability. Then we eliminate the Goff Rugby Report as a blog, there is not a whole lot of significant coverage in independent sources about the LSU rugby club. By direct analogy, in determining the notability of LSU's intercollegiate varsity teams, we don't determine the notability of LSU's NCAA cross country teams based on articles on the LSU student newspaper website, the LSU athletic department website, the Southeastern Conference website, or the NCAA website because those sources are not independent of the subject, and we would severely discount coverage in sports blogs like Scout.com, etc. Unsurprisingly, there are many, many Division I sports programs that do not have stand-alone articles for every individual team in some "minor" sports; that's not an accident, because even some Division I varsity teams are better covered as part of list/university sports program articles. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC
Response: Taking the notability guidelines written for individual matches and applying them to sports teams would yield absurd results. For example, the Memphis Redbirds play over 100 games each year. Most if not all of the 100+ games are not notable and each game doesn't merit its own article, but that doesn't mean that the article covering the team should be deleted.
On your point regarding independent sources, rather than be drawn into an argument on that issue too, I thought it better to work on addressing the issue by improving the article, which I have done. When the AfD began, the article had 6 cites, 3 of which were from LSU rugby or LSU recreation; now the article has 15 cites, none of which are from LSU rugby or LSU recreation. I'll continue to work over the next few days on continuing to find more cites and on replacing existing cites with better cites. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 00:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Barry, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article; that's partly how the AfD process is supposed to work. Please keep in mind, however, that the school newspaper {The Reveille), the rugby conference (SCRC), and the rugby national governing body (USA Rugby) are also not independent of the subject, either. That does not mean these sources need to be deleted and/or replaced, but only that they are not considered in determining the notability of the subject. This is completely consistent with how we treat student newspapers and media, as well as publications of the university, Southeastern Conference, NCAA, and other national sports governing bodies like USA Track, etc., in determining the notability of intercollegiate varsity teams, athletes and coaches. So far, the only truly independent, professional publications included in the article are the two articles from The Times-Picayune website (NOLA.com). I suggest you use the various news search services (e.g., Google News Search, Newspapers.com, Newsarchive.com, Sports Illustrated Vault, TSN.com, NOLA.com, etc.), and the Google Books search service. The LSU rugby club has been around since the 1960s; if truly notable, it should have generated some significant coverage in mainstream news or sports publications, and perhaps some coverage in a book or two about rugby in the United States. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the positive suggestions on how to improve the article. I've added a few more cites, and will continue to add more over the coming days. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 00:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Barry, if you're mining a productive vein of new sources, I would be happy to slap another "relisting" template on the bottom of this AfD to buy you another week -- would that help? If you're being productive in your research, you should have the time to finish. Let me know. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikiproject notability guidelines cannot override the GNG or the global-consensus agreed SNGs like NSPORTS. There is no GNG coverage that I can find (info about the club from the school itself is not independent) and NSPORTS has a strong distinction between a recognized inter-collegiate sports team and a sporting club. This doesn't mean a club can never be notable, but the notability is not an assumption that can be made from any of the conditions in NSPORT. -- MASEM ( t) 03:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Question: Which part of WP:NSPORTS supports your assertion about the "strong distinction" regarding the notability of sports teams? Also, perhaps you noticed the part that says: "This guideline does not cover sports teams." Barryjjoyce ( talk) 02:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 11:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I've continued to improve the article since this discussion began 4 weeks ago. It is up to 26 cites now from a variety of sources. Unlike in previous posts, where the article was improving as the discussion progressed, I think the article improvement project is reaching a point of diminishing returns. Hopefully the article is good enough as-is. I don't plan to work on it much further at this point. I hope we can reach consensus, close this discussion, and keep the article. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 00:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for all your work, Barry. It's obviously a lot closer than it was before you started working on it. I re-listed the debate for another week yesterday, so we should have some breathing space. I'll take a look at your new references in a day or so, and let you know what I think.
Because rugby has an aggressive national organization backing its non-varsity university-level clubs, many American university clubs are not the typical college club team, which is more or less on par with college intramurals. Some of these rugby club teams are going to pass GNG and WP:ORG, but not all of them are. It's going to be a case-by-case analysis, with the individual outcomes depending on the quality of the coverage in independent sources. That's why I've spent more time on this AfD than I otherwise would.
That said, know that I am not the enemy of rugby articles on-wiki. I actually played for the UVa rugby club C team for a semester as a 150-pound freshman hooker. Managed to escape with only one black eye, no broken fingers, and my nose intact. That said, I'm also a believer in applying our notability standards as fairly and consistently as possible, and I note that there have been several other recent AfDs for college rugby club team articles where the analysis of the independent sources was not nearly as tight as here. Hopefully, WikiProject Rugby will take this AfD as a road map and use it as a how-to guide to build future articles for those college rugby club teams that are truly notable based on solid independent sources. For those club teams that come close, but don't quite make it over the GNG/NORG line, you should consider creating list articles for each rugby conference like the SCRC. In a list article, you identify the club, university, coach, cumulative overall, conference and playoff win-loss records, and a little bit of history, and since the conferences are more likely to be notable than the individual teams, it's unlikely anyone will nominate the list for AfD. It also means fewer articles to maintain for you rugby editors. Think about it. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 01:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fadl Shaker. MBisanz talk 23:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Saharni El Shok

Saharni El Shok (  | 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 removed (which is by someone who keeps on removing afds and changing redirects to articles, ect) anyway non notable album with no refs. Wgolf ( talk) 15:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fadl Shaker. MBisanz talk 23:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

El Hob El Adeem

El Hob El Adeem (  | 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 removal by someone other then the creator-anyway non notable album with no reliable refs. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saharni El Shok and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allah Aalam Wgolf ( talk) 15:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You know that you can bulk these under one nomination. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 06:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to Fadl Shaker - My searches found nothing so I'm not sure about those chartings but aside from that no obvious significance or notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Fadl Shaker. North America 1000 07:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fadl Shaker. MBisanz talk 23:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Baya' El Oolob

Baya' El Oolob (  | 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 album See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saharni El Shok and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allah Aalam Wgolf ( talk) 15:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

as well as: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baada Aal Bal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Hob El Adeem. Wgolf ( talk) 15:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment' If found non-notable, it should redirect to artist. Boleyn ( talk) 20:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America 1000 07:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Pandha

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

Very short, hard to verify notability. Jamesmcmahon0 ( talk) 15:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Multiple searches failed to find a single thing to confirm this tribe's existence and it's possible there's a language barrier (no Internet existence). SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 07:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2008)

List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2008) (  | 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 (along with those for every other season) seems like fancruft to me. There is already a That Guy with the Glasses article, a Channel Awesome article, a Nostalgia Critic article, and a List of Nostalgia Critic episodes article. Do we really need (poorly referenced) articles containing summaries of every episode of every "season"? I'd say the show itself teeters on the brink of notability... And this isn't a show like Breaking Bad where every episode or season is notable on its own because it has been reviewed by the AV Club, IGN, etc.; none of these seasons or episodes is notable on its own. Bueller 007 ( talk) 19:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: reply

List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2009) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2010) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2011) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2012) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2013) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2014) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2015) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America 1000 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

No Experience Required

AfDs for this article:
No Experience Required (  | 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 from last decade. No indication of notability. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit ( talk) 19:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Multiple searches failed to find something to suggest this article is worthy keeping. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America 1000 07:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

It's My Party (TV programme)

AfDs for this article:
It's My Party (TV programme) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marked as unreferenced for six years. Once-off show from last decade. Completely unsourced. No indication of notability. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit ( talk) 19:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 06:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Multiple searches found nothing to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Captain_Underpants#Novels-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Captain Underpants and the Sensational Saga of Sir Stinks-A-Lot

Captain Underpants and the Sensational Saga of Sir Stinks-A-Lot (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NBOOK. Proposed publish date is August 2015, so a case of WP:TOOSOON Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Captain_Underpants#Novels. It's entirely possible that the book will gain coverage once it releases, but right now there just isn't enough out there to show that it would pass notability guidelines. Redirecting until this coverage comes about would be best since if/when the coverage does surface, we can always restore the article and source it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Oops, agree with Tokyogirl79, redirect to Captain_Underpants#Novels. Of course there will be plenty of notable reviews when published:) Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 07:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Bernardo Neumann

AfDs for this article:
Bernardo Neumann (  | 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. There's a lack of coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Of the purely local sourcing found in the article, none that can be reached have any depth of coverage about him. A look at sourcing at time of nomination:

1 dead link
2 dead link
3 not an independent reliable source
4 appears to be by him so not an independent source
5 short listing of a university exhibition on a blog.

The dead links are local coverage that may or may not exist. The creator of this page, in this case using his Misty2011 account, has a history of faking verification, faking article titles, faking his identity, just straight out faking.
Existing coverage is not good enough. A search found nothing better.
The sourcing shows he is a working artist but that's not enough to meet WP:ARTIST. Solo exhibitions by themselves do not make him notable. Where were they, small towns, small places, Hochschuhl Christian community? Galeria Ikkon? None major exhibitions. None verified. None with any coverage. Yes he's been abroad and done show and done talks. But where? Here? "Capacity: 30 persons". Not the stuff of notability. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A reference need not be online to be reliable. Print-only references are perfectly acceptable. In any event, the dead links were once online. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Eastmain. Where they once online? Sure about that? Do they exist as print versions? Can you verify that? What do the articles say? Do they have any depth of coverage about Neumann? What are the actual article titles? Normally I'd assume they exist but this article comes from Misty2011 who has a history of fakery. User:Hoary uncovers some here. A still live example is pointed out here. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 24. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 06:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - non-notable regional artist. The two dead sources are province news sites (the first has a total of 7 employees, the second is a tabloid). If the topic really would be notable, then other more prominent sources would be available via a simple Google search and the article itself would mention additional notable details about the artist. Considering that a lot of other articles by the same editor failed notability too, it would be unwise to AGF on that aspect. GermanJoe ( talk) 21:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Not notable and lacks Reliable sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mojang. Two "Keep" opinions were provided. One was a generic WP:PERABOVE which I've set aside as it's not clear to what it is referring. The other offers more detail, but there's no clear rationale for keeping that's based on a policy. Redirecting rather than deleting as a plausible search term. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Dinnerbone

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

Aside from working as a programmer for a company that has received a decent amount of attention, the subject of this page does not convey that this individual is any more notable than the forty-six other Mojang employees. Unless there are sources that indicate that this figure has achieved something notable themselves, this page should be deleted. DARTHBOTTO  talk• cont 05:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 13:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There are news links from over the years but nothing significant or notable and Books found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Looking over various factors, he has 428,000 followers on Twitter and 42,000 subscribers on YouTube which is better than most developers. And using this search it seems he's a public facing developer, being quoted plenty of times about news, changes and releases relating to Minecraft. I can at least say there's no mention of his rework of the Minecraft Ender Dragon and other points that would be worth mentioning in the article --- :D Derry Adama ( talk) 13:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Based on User:DerryAdama's comments, it seems reasonable to keep the article. Dinnerbone is probably the most widely recognizable employee of Mojang, after Bergensten and Persson, even ranking higher than Mojang's co-founders. Whether this is due to prevalence online in social (or other) media or otherwise is debatable, but ultimately the perks of being a 'public facing' developer makes this article worth keeping. After all, one wouldn't propose a the page for a writer's magnum opus for deletion only because their other books aren't notable enough for articles of their own. Plot Citizen ( talk) 17:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Most of the article is fluff and can be summarized in one sentence the company article under a section called "key people" or something. Additionally this article is basically an orphan, except for being included on the Mojang template. —Мандичка YO 😜 04:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 13:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Saving Grace (band)

Saving Grace (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. I would have nominated for speedy or PRODed, but the editor who created it would likely object. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I could find some more for a bio, if you give me some more time. Metalworker14 ( Yo) 10:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
In light of Metalworker14's request, if decision is to not keep, then we should usrify the article. The editor already has another article that is being fixed in the user space though ( User:Metalworker14/Twelve Gauge Valentine) and at least one other article that's up for AfD. I have my doubts as to whether we should be bending-over to support this behaviour. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). Of note is that the discussion is leaning toward a merge, but a merge target was not decided upon in the discussion. North America 1000 22:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Georgia Napolitano

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

Not notable. Lacks any notability independent of her band, of which she is just one of the latest of mulitple singers (currently over 10). Lacks coverage about her seperate from the band in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - normally being the lead singer of of a band as successful as Trans-Siberian Orchestra would make someone notable. The problem is, TSo uses an highly unusual setup where they have several different lead singers at a time (presumably to allow or many more live concerts during the Christmas season which is the only time most people want to see them). Napolitano might meet a very stringent reading of the GNG, but the best solution would be a Members of Trans-Siberian Orchestra article that could host information on the many barely notable part-time members. Unfortunately that article doesn't exist at this time. As such, I am undecided on how to handle this. Pinging @ Darylgolden: who accepted this at AfC for input. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to one of the articles suggested. Bearian ( talk) 21:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Prisoner Reentry Network

Prisoner Reentry Network (  | 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. declined prod with no reason by a single edit editor. LibStar ( talk) 04:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A familiar subject but not notable organization, multiple searches failed to find anything significant about this organization. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Covert Redirect

Covert Redirect (  | 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 entirely sure what to do with this mess, so sending it to AfD, since it was an article at one time, rather than RfD. I declined speedy deletion as db-author is not applicable. I think deleting this mess would be the best option. Safiel ( talk) 03:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Page was previously blanked and I decided to leave it that way for the time being. Safiel ( talk) 04:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have gone through the article history and did a Google search on the subject. What I found was an initially overblown reaction to something that was quickly determined not to be a serious threat. A burst of mostly industry coverage, then very little after that. Given this, I think it fails WP:GNG and guidelines relating to computer malware. Therefore, I would definitely go with delete for this. Safiel ( talk) 06:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if redirection is not a reasonable option. I turned this page into a redirect with this rationale: "redirect, this is one person's name for a known security flaw; too many other problems here (copyvio, COI, non-encyclopaedic content and tone)", principally to deal with the copyright problem. It still seems to me that OAuth#Security is a reasonable target for redirection, but User:192.249.47.209 apparently disagrees. This isn't my field, I have no strong opinion one way or the other. As Safiel says, the concept does not appear to have the notability to justify an article at this title. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 08:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would note that if redirect is the ultimate result of this AfD, it should be proceeded by deletion of the current incarnation to kill the edit history and then redirected. That being said, I still prefer just plain delete, with no redirect. Safiel ( talk) 04:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: in case it's not clear from what I wrote above, I'd have no objection to that. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 07:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 13:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Marco Foschi

Marco Foschi (  | 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:GNG no coverage in outside sources, Web search comes up blank. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 02:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete notability missing search came up short for significant coverage. per WP:OUTLET I took the liberty of creating an article on [WikiPeeps.Wikia.Com/ WikiPeeps]. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 03:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Article has been expanded in a way that now demonstrates its notability. ( non-admin closure) EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 14:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Çanakkale 1915

Çanakkale 1915 (  | 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 movie under WP:GNG EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 02:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Specific:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Writer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Music:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep – Clearly satisfies WP:FN regarding coverage. Furthermore, it is part of a larger story (Gallipoli, ANZAC], and its omission would diminish Wikipedia's coverage of that story. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 10:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, broad coverage in a number of source, clearly passes WP:GNG. -- Soman ( talk) 22:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The Accidentals

The Accidentals (  | 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, no refs, no activity since 2010 Fuddle ( talk) 01:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The only thing News found is another group with that name but Books found more links. Nothing significant aside from a Billboard 2005 article though. Unfortunately the article never improved over the years. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Davor Zupičić

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

Hello,

as you can see from the edit history of the "Davor Zupičić" page, it is constantly being rewritten, vandalized and false information is stated.

Being the person from the article (Davor Zupičić here), I'd much rather see this page shut down than having to check on it every once in a while and hope there's nothing offensive.

Besides, this page was created as a joke four years ago and just kept on existing.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdavoz ( talk • contribs) 18:21, January 17, 2015

  • Procedural Note This is a failed AfD nomination that has been sitting in limbo for months. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in a daily AfD Log. Monty 845 01:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:BIODELETE. Monty 845 01:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per request and WP:BIODELETE. Has only a few passing mentions via Google and could be easily re-created later, when notability increases. GermanJoe ( talk) 02:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, if anyone wants to, they can continue the name discussion at the article talk page. Monty 845 20:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Justina Morales

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

Minor crime in one city. No national or international coverage. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep per Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. Crime was unusual because the victim was never found. -- GouramiWatcher (?) 03:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. no body found. sourced article also per WP:GNG.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 16:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Response to comment about merge.In titling an article, we can't go beyond reality. It was a killing but no court ever found it to be murder. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 20:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Withdraw proposal. I agree now that we should keep the article and I would like this page to be deleted. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 20:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Christopher Myers (Special Advisor)

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

This article is two short sentences. It was tagged as a stub a year ago with no improvements. Even Mr. Myers would say he is not notable enough for a separate article based on unproven and unprovable gossip. It seems to have been created simply to maliciously dig at the Conservative Party. Purplethree ( talk) 15:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Procedural Note This is a failed AfD nomination that has been sitting in limbo for months. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in a daily AfD Log. Monty 845 00:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable junior bureaucrat. Pax 08:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Backroom strategists don't get an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because they exist, and there's nowhere near enough content or reliable sourcing here to even attempt a claim to passing WP:GNG in lieu. I'm willing to revisit this if somebody can substantively improve the article to make and reference a much stronger claim to notability than this. Bearcat ( talk) 23:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

2002–03 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

2002–03 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a random example from Category:United States Saturday morning network television schedules. It cites no references; it was practically created with the {{ unreferenced}} tag already added by the author. Even if there were sources, Wikipedia simply is not a TV guide, and such a schedule is not encyclopedic. If this page gets deleted, I'll mass-nominate all other unreferenced articles in that category next. Huon ( talk) 00:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • delete as per NOTTVGUIDE. what next, Friday morning schedules? LibStar ( talk) 04:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this and all TV directories like it per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Also, I'm pretty sure there was/is regional variation with times and line ups, which would mean the (already out of scope) data here would not necessarily be accurate in every U.S. market. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 09:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. -- Inother ( talk) 19:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_April_24&oldid=1142626918"