From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 April 26 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 no consensus. Davewild ( talk) 17:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Brattleboro Free Folk Festival

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

Renominating as hardly any participation last AfD . Fails WP:GNG. LibStar ( talk) 16:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The article is incorrect in saying that it is an annual festival, as I have been unable to confirm that it happened more than once. I see plenty of passing mentions of the 2003 event, but no significant coverage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The first AfD brought forward some discussion of the 2003 event in a book. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:19, 18 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, Nakon 23:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • If there's multiple mentions in books as well as books on it then it's not insignificant. – Davey2010 Talk 16:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory or a newspaper. There are plenty of articles that have been deleted even though there are citations. Sorry. Delete. Dharahara ( talk) 16:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Except this isn't a directory or newspaper ? .... It's a festival and by the looks of it a notable one. – Davey2010 Talk 17:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
But Wikipedia would be a directory of festivals if articles like this were allowed. Sorry, delete. Dharahara ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Also note that the article has been here for nearly 10 years and is in sorry state. Needs re-writing. Dharahara ( talk) 18:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
We have tons of festival articles on here, So should we get rid of major city articles like London, Glasgow, Belfast because technically we're then a directory of places? .... So if it's "in a sorry state" then why not fix it ?, With the greatest of respect there's millions of articles that are worse than this and most do get expanded as time goes on whether it's 2 8 or 25 years later, Looking at the history this has barely been edited since creation which is why it's in a poor state, – Davey2010 Talk 18:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep without prejudice and improve. Looks like Davey found a number of sources for the article to be improved. Now, if 3-6 months go by and the sources don't work out, maybe it's time to renominate; I'd be reconsidering my vote then. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:40, 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 no consensus. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination Davewild ( talk) 17:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Heiðrik á Heygum

Heiðrik á Heygum (  | 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:CREATIVE and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources are not reliable or merely confirm certain facts. The foreign language articles don't establish notability. Gnews only comes up with 3 hits. LibStar ( talk) 06:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:15, 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, North America 1000 08:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - an artist from a small country winning its national Film Awards is notable (even if he may not be "interesting" to the anglophone monde). JM.Beaubourg ( talk) 17:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Faroe Islands does not have full country status. LibStar ( talk) 17:06, 18 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, Nakon 23:44, 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 Ariel Pink. MBisanz talk 00:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Atheif

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

Article about non notable album, all references are simply discographies and sales sites. Searches bring up zero reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 23:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 23:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 23:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 23:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Two real problems with this nomination. Firstly, the article isn't about an album, Secondly, merging and redirecting to Ariel Pink would be obviously preferable to deletion. -- Michig ( talk) 10:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Ariel Pink. Agree that there's insufficient notability to warrant a freestanding article. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 23:18, 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. Davewild ( talk) 17:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Louisville–Virginia rivalry

Louisville–Virginia rivalry (  | 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 don't think this is actually a real rivalry, let alone a notable one (i.e., it fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG). In the ACC, each team has two designated rivals, which the team is guaranteed to play every year in football and twice a year in basketball (and I think with similar scheduling implications for other sports). The designated rivals were chosen to try to have as many as possible be traditional rivalries. For Virginia, one of their traditional rivals was Maryland, so Maryland was one of their designated rivals. However, Maryland left the ACC and Louisville joined the ACC, so starting in 2014 Louisville became a designated rival of Virginia. However, there was no pre-existing rivalry between the two teams. I don't think there is any specific coverage of this as a rivalry other than sources noting that the teams will now play each other. Perhaps now that the teams will play each other each year they will someday be real rivals, but for now this is just a scheduling note and not a real rivalry deserving of an article. Calathan ( talk) 18:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Calathan ( talk) 03:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Calathan ( talk) 03:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Calathan ( talk) 03:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Note to admin: Article alerts were down for 4 days of this AfD, so Wikipedians affiliated with WP:LOU or those who otherwise take note of their alerts may not have been aware of this AfD until last night. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete (although I can be convinced otherwise). I found several independent reliable sources for the rivalry, but they discuss the forced nature of it, along with some crystal ball-ish longing for what might eventually happen. If Wikipedia normally includes "rivalries" made up by sports organizations with no history behind them, this would be a keeper. Otherwise, no. Also, as a Louisville native and U of Louisville alum, I bristle at something like this being forced down our throats. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This series is not notable as a rivalry because it lacks significant coverage as a rivalry in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. In fact, there is precious little history between these two universities and their sports teams to date. That it is a newly designated "cross-division" rivalry within the Atlantic Coast Conference does little to sway me; Louisville is new to the ACC, and a replacement for UVa's traditional rival, Maryland. The may rise to being a notable college rivalry in the future, but as of 2015, that it is a hypothetical future. Until then, UVa's biggest rivals remain North Carolina and Virginia Tech; Louisville's biggest rival remains Kentucky. With time, this may become a real rivalry, but not yet. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - While Tech and Kentucky are bigger rivals, no one claimed this is the biggest rivalry for each school. UNC is no longer a basketball rival for UVA because they don't see each other very often. The Louisville games were much more of "rivalry" games than the UNC game for UVA fans already this past year. There are arguments made that this is not a heated rivalry yet, but the very close games in 2014-15 heated some things up already. The football game featured a 40-person brawl between the teams, and the basketball games featured narrow margins of victory between top 10 teams. Justin Anderson famously broke his finger in the Louisville game and UVA was never the same. It's a rivalry now. Omnibus ( talk) 03:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • A user-uploaded Youtube video is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Please link to significant coverage of Louisville-UVa -- as a rivalry -- in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. If there is no significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, then it's not notable as a rivalry. Good luck. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 04:17, 24 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, Nakon 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree w/Dirtlawyer: No multiple, independent, in-depth, reliable sources. Neutrality talk 16:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete--per Dirtlawyer: I was unable to find sufficient independent, reliable sources about this as a rivalry; fails WP:GNG. The newly forced/scheduled games may eventually create a notable rivalry, but have not yet--inclusion now is premature per WP:CRYSTAL. Shanata ( talk) 22:24, 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 Delete. Michig ( talk) 06:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Add Grup

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

Let's first make it clear that this article is spam; it's created by single-purpose account N.Shimanovsky; a Nikita Kuzmich-Shimanovsky is an employee of Add Grup. Now that's out of the way, let's run down through the sources.

  • This, this and this are either dead or make no discernible mention of Add Grup.
  • This and this are from addgrup.com.
  • This is a directory listing.
  • This, this, this, this, this and this are press releases.
  • This is a passing mention.
  • This is more in-depth, but happens to be written by two employees of Add Grup.
  • This appears to be a paid promotional piece.

In-depth independent coverage appears non-existent, and I see no convincing evidence of WP:CORP being met, so we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 23:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per initial notes -- IamM1rv ( talk) 12:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The nomination seems to be correct. There are a small handful of hits on Google News, but there isn't enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the hits look like press releases. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - I see no reason to believe [16] is not reliable, and it is clearly extensive. This interview shows show notability. Combined with the numerous small and or/not completely reliable sources available, I would say the company is technically notable. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Pinging @ Timtrent: who accepted this at AfC for input. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am neutral. At WP:AFC our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. I viewed that this was likely to survive (>0.6 probability). I have no detailed comment to make on the article. Fiddle Faddle 20:35, 21 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, Nakon 22:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It doesn't matter that the article was created by a WP:Single-purpose account, but it does matter that there are no WP:Reliable sources that attest to the WP:Notability of this company. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 06:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I concur almost entirely with the nominator's analysis of the article's sources as directory-type listings, trivial mentions, press releases, otherwise not third-party, or not significant coverage. However, I agree with ThaddeusB that there is no proof that the Logos Press article is a paid promotional piece. (Admittedly, I'm not au fait with the media landscape there, and my Moldovan is rudimentary.) The interview ThaddeusB found might be a useful source of information, but doesn't establish notability because it's a primary source which is mostly the president of the company talking about the company, with little or no independent analysis. Searches turned up no additional sources that would prove notability. With at best one independent, reliable, secondary source, the subject fails to meet WP:CORP. Worldbruce ( talk) 23:43, 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 18:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Peter Bronfman

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

Is having a lot of money and owning a bunch of companies enough to confer WP:Notability? Bronfman's uncle, Samuel Bronfman is notable enough but I do not think the same applies to his nephew. He does not appear to be notable in his own right. Delete. Suttungr ( talk) 12:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Suttungr ( talk) 12:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Suttungr ( talk) 13:06, 18 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 22:25, 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Telcobuy

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

Subject of the article fails WP:ORG. I can't find any evidence of Notability. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 19:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Shinkle, Peter (2000-12-01). "Telcobuy.com Cancels Its Initial Public Stock Offering - Company Blames Unfavorable Market Conditions For Decision". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved 2015-04-17 – via HighBeam Research. {{ cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) ( help)

      The article notes:

      Telcobuy.com LLC, which runs an online marketplace where businesses buy telecommunications equipment, said Thursday it has withdrawn its initial stock offering. It cited unfavorable market conditions.

      Telcobuy announced in March that it hoped to raise as much as $100 million through the stock offering. But the company put off that plan after Internet stocks slumped last spring. The decline has dragged on to the present.

      The company, of Maryland Heights, is a subsidiary of World Wide Technology Inc.

      Telcobuy Chief Executive Jim Kavanaugh said Thursday that the market formerly raised many Internet companies' stock prices beyond their rational valuation, without distinguishing good companies from bad ones. Now it is trouncing many stocks with the same lack of discretion, he said.

      ...

      At least part of the reason is that Telcobuy's sales have soared. Its gross revenue rose to $247 million last year from $49 million in 1998. This year, it expects gross revenue to exceed $600 million, Kavanaugh said.

      Even so, the company will not record a profit this year, though it expects to do so next year, he said. This year, the company has plowed resources into improving its Internet technology and enhancing its distribution systems, building or leasing warehouse facilities in Plano, Texas, and Livermore, Calif., as well as one in Maryland Heights, Kavanaugh said. Telcobuy has 325 employees, up from 125 a year ago.

    2. Gilbert, Virginia Baldwin (2000-02-12). "'Dot.com' Strategy Pays Off For Spinoff Here". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved 2015-04-17 – via HighBeam Research. {{ cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) ( help)

      The article notes:

      When co-founders Jim Kavanaugh and David Steward decided to spin off the telecommunications part of World Wide Technology Inc. last fall, they chose the rather unwieldy name of Telcobuy.com on purpose."It was not an accident to have "dot com" in the name," Kavanaugh said Friday. "It's very indicative of the type of business we do."

      World Wide, based in Maryland Heights, had grown its telecom business from equipment distributor into creating the first - and so far, only - business-to-business Internet portal for buying and selling telecommunications equipment.

      That "dot com" strategy in the name and in the business has attracted two Boston-based venture capital firms to put $25 million into the company.

      Summit Partners, with investments in the telecommunications industry, and Highland Capital Partners, experienced in Internet businesses, announced the investment earlier this week.

      "The market we're in is hotter than ever," Kavanaugh said. "What we have in place today is unique." He said the new spinoff needed "more focus, more attention."

      The cash will allow Telcobuy.com to hire software engineers to work in research and development here as well as sales people in Texas and on the coasts, he said.

      Telcobuy.com employs about 75 people: 60 in St. Louis and 15 in Dallas. The company expects to hire another 100 by the end of the year.

      "We enable both supplier and customer through the entire supply chain process," said Kavanaugh. "We may buy a Lucent switch that will be deployed into the Southwestern Bell Telephone network. There are hundreds of miscellaneous materials that go with that."

      Telcobuy.com brings them all together and manages "all the backend fragmented suppliers."

    3. Nicklaus, David (2000-06-14). "Homegrown Values Cultivate Success For Firm - Tech Company Ranks No. 1 Among Black-Owned Businesses". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved 2015-04-21 – via HighBeam Research. {{ cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) ( help)

      The article notes:

      World Wide has about 600 employees, 450 of whom are in St. Louis. It's hiring about 35 to 40 people a month to keep up with the growth. Turnover is relatively low, which Steward says gives the company an advantage over technology firms on the East or West coasts. "The work ethic that's here, the sense of loyalty, integrity and trust is more significant here than anywhere else in the country," he said.

      That's why this homegrown success story is going to stay put. Steward says he gets calls every day from people offering incentives to move to another city. Jim Kavanaugh, who runs a subsidiary called Telcobuy.com Inc., says that when the company was raising money last year, some venture capitalists wanted Telcobuy.com to move to Silicon Valley. He refused. The company eventually raised $27 million from major venture capital firms, and hopes to complete a $100 million initial public offering ifthe stock market gets over its recent fear of Internet companies.

      "We are in a position now that we are just waiting for the market to stabilize a bit," Kavanaugh said.

      The partial spinoff of Telcobuy.com represents a major departure for World Wide, although it will keep a majority interest in the subsidiary. Until it sought venture capital for Telcobuy.com, all of World Wide's growth had been self-funded.

      The company started in 1990 as a software developer and hardware reseller, landing early contracts with the federal government and big companies like Southwestern Bell. In 1995, when it had a contract to supply computer work stations for U.S. troops in Bosnia, it figured out how the Internet would let the military track the equipment.

    4. "Black Enterprise Magazine's Top Black Firms Gross $11.5 Billion". Jet. 2002-06-17. pp. 30–31. Retrieved 2015-04-21.

      The article notes:

      Among the other top Black firms is Telcobuy.com of Maryland Heights, MO, which is ranked No. 2 with $604 million in sales.

      ...

      Telcobuy.com of Maryland Heights, MO—electronic procurement and logistics, technical and e-business consulting services—$604 million

    5. Briere, Daniel; Gage, Beth (2000-06-05). "Look Online for Telecom Buying Service". Network World. Retrieved 2015-04-21.

      The article notes:

      Telcobuy.com, an operations middle-man is the least impressive. To even kick the tires, you must register and get your credit checked. It allegedly has 500,000 products from more than 1,000 manufacturers. Unlike the other sites, which help you find a service, Telcobuy.com handles order entry, provisioning, project management, single invoice and single point of contact.

    6. "Untitled". Black Enterprise. Vol. 32, no. 6–12. Earl G. Graves, Sr. 2002. Retrieved 2015-04-21.

      The article notes:

      The management team spun off its Telcobuy.com (No. 2 on the be industrial/service 100 list with $604 million in sales) division, which offers products over the Web to telecommunications firms, into a separate entity. (Both WWT and Telcobuy.com are both more than 51% black-owned.) With 2001 revenues of $320 million, WWT dropped to shocked the automotive business community when he sold back two Michigan franchises, including the flagship ...

    7. "Apex Oil, Telcobuy.com debut on Forbes private companies list". St. Louis Business Journal. 2001-11-15. Archived from the original on 2015-04-21. Retrieved 2015-04-21 – via HighBeam Research. {{ cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) ( help)

      The article notes:

      Apex Oil and Telcobuy.com were St. Louis' newcomers to Forbes magazine's list of the top 500 privately held companies in the magazine's Nov. 26 issue.

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

    Cunard ( talk) 23:58, 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, North America 1000 00:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Most references are not authoritative. The only one that is quasi-authoritative is dated from the dot com bust. Nothing since then.-- Rpclod ( talk) 04:20, 18 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 22:21, 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 keep. If anyone wants to start a discussion about a possible redirect and merge then they're welcome to do so in the article's talk page, but there seems to be consensus that the material itself is appropriate for inclusion. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Presumptive nominee

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

Forgive me if I do not know the lingo or exact way to do this. After I nominated this, I found that it was nominated in 2008 so I am not the first to think of it. The term "presumptive nominee" is simply a dictionary definition and should be eliminated as an article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary according to this /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary . Here in Wikipedia, there is rightly an article of car or automobile, but not blue car, white car, black car, etc. Presumptive simply is an adjective of the word "nominee". Besides, there is no news article about presumptive nominee versus actual nominee, so it is just made up, figment of your imagination article. Basically, it is a term used every 4 years in the U.S. when TV doesn't want to say "so and so is practically speaking, has it wrapped up, as nominee". Dharahara ( talk) 21:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

If there were really a need for a Wikipedia article of Presumptive Nominee, then you should be able to find news articles for the following:

dates that George W. Bush was the presumptive nominee (was it April 1, 2000-July 25, 2000)?

dates that Bill Clinton was the presumptive nominee (was it March 15, 1996-August 1, 1996)? Reference

Why is the title "Presumptive nominee and ____date" not in every U.S. presidential article? See, it is just two words, not a political office. Dharahara ( talk) 22:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC

  • Keep References seem to be good and the meaning goes beyond just the sum of the two words, as the article explains. Borock ( talk) 00:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Not true. So candidate A is the presumptive nominee only if he is the presumed nominee. No difference.
Also important is that the references are all dictionaries or dictionary like sources. There is no CNN news article discussing the presumptive nominees of history or the significance of the term. Dharahara ( talk) 16:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, well beyond dicdef at this stage - David Gerard ( talk) 12:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    • And the nominator just tried removing half the article and most of the references, and rewriting the intro so it didn't actually make sens e. Please leave for consideration in this deletion nomination before doing so - David Gerard ( talk) 21:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per Borock & David Gerard, the term is now well beyond a mere dictionary definition. It is a term commonly used by reliable media sources and in U.S. election related articles in Wikipedia, and easily passes WP:GNG.-- JayJasper ( talk) 20:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete references seem primarily definitions and no reference is about the history of presumptive nominee. It doesn't seem like the term is similar to First Lady but closer to tall president or loyal dog, none of which should be articles. Deepavali 2014 ( talk) 05:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge to a sensible target - The article not only runs into " WP:DICDEF" issues, but it's literally formatted as a dictionary entry. It has 3 sections: Definition 1, Definition 2, and References. From WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." That it's in dictionaries and thesauruses does not speak to this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:03, 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 00:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Doug Wilson (executive)

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

I'm not convinced that Doug Wilson meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The sources provided that are independent and that mention him more than in passing are all focused on a single event, the loss of a dealership due to a manufacturer decision, and these don't really give him substantial coverage. I find little more than this via my own search. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 21:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:15, 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Aye Zindagi

AfDs for this article:
Aye Zindagi (  | 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 appears to be an article about a television series, but no sources are provided, nor is the series listed in the Internet Movie Database. A prior AfD for this same title pertained to a film by the same title from 2011 which is listed in IMDb (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2136756/), and resulted in deletion. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. No evidence offered. Possibly even an hoax. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 22:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete-Also this is a possible SP (which I have put a report for). Wgolf ( talk) 14:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I don't have reason to believe that this is a hoax. There does seem to be a television series by this title. But I can't find enough information about it to fix this article, and the article doesn't even clearly indicate that this article is supposed to be about a television series. At first, I thought it was about a movie instead. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No evidence of meeting WP:GNG notability.- Mr X 10:36, 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 keep. I'm withdrawing the AfD, since it seems clear the article is not going to be deleted DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Josh Levs

Josh Levs (  | 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 author. Worldcat shows his book is still in only 10 libraries,and nothing else here is notable. there have been ,any paternal leave cases at EEO, & no evidence his is anywhere near remarkable. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep, User:DGG You may well be right about the case being unremarkable, the thing is, it attracted a good deal of coverage (the Today Show, the New York Times) This could, of course, be the result of journalists keying in to a story about a journalist even though it was unimportant as a legal precedent, but there was a lot of coverage, and that is the gauge of WP:GNG. I've put some of the coverage on the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
should the article be about the case, then? DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I think not (although it should certainly be less hagiographic). He is not notable exclusively for the lawsuit. The book got some coverage, reviews; he hosted segments on a CNN, parenting show, a hosting gig that got at least this [17] general circulation mention, (hard to search journalists, because most links are by them not about them) but, bingo! here's [18] a pre-lawsuit, pre paternity-leave-fiasco profile of Josh Levs journalist, in an online publication covering new media. User:DGG It is my impression that we do lawsuit instead of bio when it's a notable legal case related to an individual who is not otherwise notable. This is a successful, career journalist who parlayed a legal case into a book contract. An article about the man, with the legal case as a section in it seems more appropriate to me. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
And this. [19] E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. I am a member of the press and it is a beautiful page. 216.130.138.2 ( talk) 18:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
To the anonymous author of that last edit, if you want to participate in a useful way, bring published profiles of Levs. We need evidence of notability, not mere opinions here. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:16, 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 merge to Tesla Factory. Consensus is for a limited merge, moving the more significant material and leaving behind less important and/or overly promotional material. Tesla Model S might be a better merge target for some parts. The details are left up to whoever takes on doing the merge. There's no reason to hide the article history, so once the merge is done, redirect this title to Tesla Factory. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Tesla Model S manufacturing process

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

Nothing at all special--it is essentially just additional publicity for the car. There is nothing at all about the manufacturing process that is in any way special. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep but rewrite to seem less of an ad. There are unique things about the manufacture so an article is warranted. The factory is a slightly different subject Deepavali 2014 ( talk) 05:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed, reading the article it seems that it's purpose is promotion of the car, through conveniently placed statements, complementary language and pictures of smiling employees posing for photos. Delete. Elassint Hi 21:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    Edit: If there are unique aspects about the production of this car, than they should be merged on Tesla Model S, or Tesla Factory if that article is notable. However, I don't see the point of a single car model having an entire article about it's production, even if it happens to use a lot of robots. Elassint Hi 16:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply


  • Keep
  • Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view: The article has a neutral point of view, it simply describes the processes that takes place. To address Elassint's comment the reason that two of the photos have people involved in the company standing next to them is that no photography is allowed inside the factory so only these (good quality) images from the manufacturer are available under an open licence.
  • To address Wikipedia:Notability guidelines in order:
  1. Significant coverage: The Model S production process is covered at length by a number of sources, many of which are used as references in the article. There are even two full length TV programmes about this manufacturing process, both of which are used as references.
  2. Reliable: The sources are reliable as per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources.
  3. Sources should be secondary sources: Out of the 17 sources only 1 is a primary source, the Tesla Motors website.
  4. Independent of the subject: As above, all sources are independent except 1.
Thanks
Mrjohncummings ( talk) 22:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
You have made a strong argument that this article uses proper secondary sourcing. However, the nominator seems to be stating that the assembly of this particular model of car isn't unique enough from other cars to merit it's own article (at least that's how I'm interpreting the opening argument). As the creator of this article, how do you respond to this? Elassint Hi 22:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Hi Elassint, I think the fact there are several unique components in the car including the battery pack (giving it the highest range for an production electric car by quite a way), battery module, and drive unit (the P85 is of the fastest accelerating production cars) make it different enough from other car's manufacturing processes to have its own article. Cheers Mrjohncummings ( talk) 23:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I have just added some extra information, the production processes uses 10 of the largest robots in the world and the press lines used to create the body panels are the largest in North America and the 6th largest in the world. Mrjohncummings ( talk) 11:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there is nothing notable about the manufacturing process. The entire article reeks of publicity and to justify its inclusion attempts to establish notability for the routine. Greglocock ( talk) 00:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Tesla Factory or Tesla Model S, with somewhat less detail. Or merge parts to both. It just doesn't seem right to have an article on the process of the manufacture of one car model when the process is part of what makes the other things special. Borock ( talk) 01:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
While we're at it there's nothing notable about the Tesla Factory. Greglocock ( talk) 01:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Tesla Factory or Tesla Model S, as suggested above. Should be substantially shortened to avoid skewing the balance of those articles with trivial details of painting processes. TheBlueCanoe 13:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I have to agree. If we're going to have a Tesla Factory article, than this article should be part of it. Merging the two articles would also fix some of the problems in the Tesla Factory article. If we're going to delete the Tesla Factory article as not notable too (note that there is a Gigafactory article, which is definitely notable, and likely deserves its own article), then having a major subsection in the Model S article would probably work, too. Either way though, I don't see a point in having both a Tesla Factory and this article. One of them should be merged into the other. — Gopher65 talk 15:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Also can be shortened considerably by removing everything not unique to the Tesla. For example, mounting the wheels? Looks like a lot of either copy/paste or transcribing from a video. Nyth 63 06:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: Nothing more needs to be said. Solntsa90 ( talk) 07:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article is very informative, maybe rewrite to seem less of an ad. and to enhance NPOV.-- Khalid hassani ( talk) 13:32, 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. Davewild ( talk) 17:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Going Dark

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

Article was recently submitted for AfD but correctly rejected as the AfD lacked a rationale. Resubmitting based on WP:NEO as the article appears to be a brief definition of a neologism. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 01:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I've added the div box & "2nd nom links" above so apologies if i messed up or missed something off, cheers, – Davey2010 Talk 03:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: If it is a neologism then it does seem to be quite widely used. I'm also finding where it's being used in a bunch of different ways. Law enforcement and the government use it in the manner that's described currently in the article, but it also seems like it's used to describe various things (cable channels, radio stations, websites) getting closed or turned off. I think that this could probably be expanded to cover all of these different uses of the term. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per WP:NEO. It's just a common idiom. Maybe it belongs in Wiktionary, but probably not here. ―  Padenton| ✉   08:07, 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, North America 1000 19:00, 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 procedural close. An admin has merged the article histories and moved the page properly. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Piergiorgio bertoldi

Piergiorgio bertoldi (  | 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 has been an error in the naming of the page (no CAP letter in the surname); the correct page is Piergiorgio Bertoldi Aleporrini ( talk) 18:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. The correct procedure would have been to move the original page to its correct title instead of a cut-and-paste page move. I've tagged the page for a histmerge. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:05, 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. Davewild ( talk) 17:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Club Ponytail of Harbor Springs

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

A dance club with insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 18:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. No independent refs and no evidence of any notability.   Velella   Velella Talk   20:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. A number of references identify this club as the home of one of Iggy Pop's earliest bands, The Iguanas. (Two examples: Paul Trynka (2011). Iggy Pop: Open Up and Bleed. Crown/Archetype. pp. 38–41. ISBN  978-0-7679-2722-2.; Jason Ankeny, "The Iguanas", AllMusic. There are others.) There are some other passing mentions of this club in magazines of the era (see the search link above). That doesn't add up to a particularly strong case for notability, though it's possible there was more in offline sources of the day. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 21:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Iggy Pop: Open Up and Bleed by Paul Trynka [20] has several pages on the Iguanas time there. Petoskey News ran a story on it last ear: [21]. Rmhermen ( talk) 05:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It was a significant Motown venue. "...of Harbor Springs" is limiting search-returns; drop it. Pax 08:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep:- Being the home of one of [Iggy Pop]]'s earliest bands does not confers WP:notability as notability is not inherited. Nonetheless, Paul Trynka (2011). Iggy Pop: Open Up and Bleed. Crown/Archetype. pp. 38–41. ISBN  978-0-7679-2722-2. and "This source" look promising. I believe there are offline sources too. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 20:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Plenty of sources exist to establish notability, I added a few to the page, which needs formatting. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:44, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Roy Lee Ferrell

Roy Lee Ferrell (  | 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: non-notable musician. Only has article because of relation to Will Ferrell. Quis separabit? 17:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete notability is not inheritied, and fails WP:BIOFAMILY Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:47, 29 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 Suzanne Bates. MBisanz talk 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Bates Communications

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

No references. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Search on Google News shows only passing mentions. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 08:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note simultaneous AFD for Suzanne Bates. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Basically having two pages, one for Suzanne Bates, and one for her consulting firm, seems overkill, an advertisement, such that the "content" on this one is essentially a nonnotable client list. Her firm, as a separate firm not tied to Bates, doesn't get much coverage, so basically it looks like it is the sole-person, Bates, which is notable (maybe there's an office staff too but she's the prime consultant). Just not much new to say about this subject other than the principal is SB, so maybe best approach is to keep the SB article, and for this one, how about a Redirect to Suzanne Bates.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:16, 23 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, North America 1000 17:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Suzanne Bates, whose article has now been kept at AFD, and who appears to be by far the most important source of whatever notability this company might have. I note in passing the potential confusion between this company's name and assorted name variants used for the famous ad agency Ted Bates (advertising firm).-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Appears to be a violation of WP:ORGVANITY. A glance at the company's own In the News section [22] seems to suggest most of the press coverage is on the person and not the company. CorporateM ( Talk) 01:49, 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 merge Elcom Credit Union into Community First Credit Union. North America 1000 23:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Community First Credit Union

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

Google search brings up sources that mostly consist of user-contributed content, or are otherwise unreliable. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 09:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
while 7 years ago a sourceless article somehow managed to pass an AfD, that does not mean that the same would happen today -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Elcom Credit Union, per Noyster. Dismas| (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • if evidence of WP:CORP or WP:GNG can be established for either CFCU or Elcom, then merge. otherwise delete both. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Elcom Credit Union. gobonobo + c 22:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge from Elcom Credit Union, and search for better independent sources. This is likely to be notable, (as it claims to be the largest in the region, and has Australia's lowest rate credit card), even though we haven't found much evidence yet. Best probably to search off line in Sydney public libraries. Here is one piece of significant coverage: [23] (Sydney Morning Herald). -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 12:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Consensus is clearly headed toward a merge, but two of the merge !votes state to merge content from Elcom Credit Union, two state to merge to it, and one just states to merge or delete. North America 1000 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I don't see why we would list a business under a name that it doesn't go by anymore. So, why not merge the info at Elcom into this article which has the current name of the credit union? Dismas| (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Dismas's clarified !vote just leaves @ Gobonobo:'s comment, that implies merging into the article with the old name. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 11:51, 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. Davewild ( talk) 17:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Sarah Redden

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

Subject had her WP:15 minutes of fame without any sustained notability and fails WP:MUSICBIO. Much WP:TOOSOON for an article on this musician. Additionally, COI on author (likely relative of subject). ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:52, 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, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:34, 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, North America 1000 17:23, 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) 14:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Travis Strong

Travis Strong (  | 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 fictional character that is written completely in universe style. Wgolf ( talk) 20:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Notability not established. I don't see any analysis or coverage of the character that is not otherwise a summary of the show. maclean ( talk) 20:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I put all of these characters that had pages up for a AFD or a prod I believe. Wgolf ( talk) 20:07, 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, North America 1000 17:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This article has no independent sources. In fact, it doesn't even have any non-independent sources. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No sources and in-universe writing, clearly better off at a Radio Free Roscoe wiki @ wikia. Elassint Hi 21:40, 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. There is no consensus here on whether this article meets the notability guidelines or not. Davewild ( talk) 17:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Lowercase (band)

Lowercase (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)

Unsourced article about a band. I was only able to find this source. Apparently fails WP:BAND. - Mr X 02:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment-neutral on this now, I do think it does need sources though! Wgolf ( talk) 19:36, 12 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! 21:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
This comprehensively fails WP:GNG now Imaad Wasif has played solo and in Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Alaska!, The New Folk Implosion, EFG, and Grim Tower bands amongst others and is not associated with the Lowercase band alone he also founded Alaska! hence did not support redirect and the fact that the band had 2 albums on Amphetamine Reptile Records but got disbanded after that .These facts are mentioned in the Imaad Wasif article. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
It clearly doesn't fail WP:GNG. The rest of your argument I didn't understand at all. -- Michig ( talk) 20:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your note.I have clarified it below. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:07, 1 May 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, North America 1000 17:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Confused - why is how long the band survived/when it existed remotely relevant? It's never mentioned in wp:musicbio, which is our only standard for bands. (also, pharaoh, would you mind starting your comments with two colons? (::) or two bllet points? otherwise, the discussion gets difficult to scan. Earflaps ( talk) 19:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Still not making much sense. Allmusic bios and reviews are reliable sources and have been accepted as such for a long time. These are in some cases brief but certainly not trivial mentions - they are album reviews, not 'reviews on songs'. There was nobody in the band named Imran. -- Michig ( talk) 06:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
I refered to Imaad Wasif wrongly mentioned him as Imran and meant Album.Thanks for pointing it out.But clearly there is no consensus in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that Allmusic is a WP:RS source.That is right from 2008 Discussion

2009 discussion in which you commented to the recent April 2015 discussion and most of these discussions over the years there is no consensus and opinions are divided. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 07:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

There have been a lot of discussions regarding Allmusic, but it is a professional site with staff writers several of whom are well known music writers outside of Allmusic. A few discussions based on the misguided idea that finding an error (or simply something that one editor doesn't agree with) in a source means that it doesn't satisfy WP:RS with little input from other editors does not make it an unreliable source. It has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources as a reliable source for years. None of those arguing for deletion have yet addressed the possibility of merging to Imaad Wasif or apparently considered the likelihood that a band that disbanded over 15 years ago is likely to have more coverage in print sources than on the web. -- Michig ( talk) 13:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Even more problematic, no-one is addressing their thoughts on the two albums, which fulfil No. 5 and should make Allmusic moot entirely. I'm personally against merging until the page has a chance to grow a bit more, though if after a time it proves hard to find online sources to expand much, merging (w/out info loss) seems like a fine option according to wp:split. Merging always makes things more complicated for readers and messes with page structure, IMO, so I always like to look at a merge as a last resort. (btw, Michig, thank you for clarifying earlier the difference between "brief" and "trivial." I concur). Earflaps ( talk) 19:25, 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Predictive programming

Predictive programming (  | 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 hasn't been outside notice of this concept that conspiracy theorists talk about on youtube or in their David Icke or Alex Jones cults. If the academics who study conspiracy theorists begin to interrogate these claims seriously, we will then have the independent sources that are necessary to establish a fringe theory like this as notable. Until such independent sources are found, this article cannot be written properly at Wikipedia which requires a neutral article without original research. jps ( talk) 16:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I suspect that the subject is probably notable, but the cited sources are fringe and massively fail WP:RS. A Google yielded a ton of hits but the first ten pages were pretty much all fringe and the few that weren't would still not have met our standards. As it stands it is little more than a PROFRINGE essay. The article currently fails WP:V, WP:PROFRINGE, and WP:UNDUE. Even if RS sources are found, my advice would be to blank the article and start from scratch. Yes, it really is that bad. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - simply non-notable, even as fringe theories go, as the lack of reliable sources demonstrates. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; If a low-notability WP:FRINGE topic has little coverage by independent sources, then it's impossible for us to maintain a neutral article. Deletion is the best solution. bobrayner ( talk) 19:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it stands - so far this article has no non-fringe sources. Has the concept been raised in a single RS, even one just documenting fringe ideas? If we can add two or three non-fringe RSes noting this as a noteworthy topic, this might be saveable - David Gerard ( talk) 16:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence that this concept has been discussed in any depth beyond fringe sources. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:ONEWAY WP:NFRINGE. - Location ( talk) 21:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete While it could be argued there should be more coverage of 'notable' conspiracy theories on Wikipedia (in their own articles, where they can be shown with the facts that prove they're preposterous), as none of the sites are ever going to be anywhere near WP:RS, but as policy stands now, it cannot meet WP:GNG, and I see no reason to start with this one. This article would need a complete rewrite in order to be presented in an encyclopedic and factual way. ―  Padenton| ✉   23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I'd be content with anything resembling an RS or two ... - David Gerard ( talk) 15:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Regretful delete In years gone by I had to stay up late listening to shortwave radio to find stuff like this, or seek it out in other ways. Predictive Programming is very widely discussed in the loonosphere but unfortunately I have not been able to find any WP-compliant reliable sources. (The closest thing I can find is this, which alas is a wiki.) It's regrettable that we can't have an article on such a well-known topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Even the RW article is made of fringe sources. (And I just polished it up using the sources in this article.) RW has very different sourcing standards to WP - David Gerard ( talk) 10:46, 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Harry Leslie Brown

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

Fails WP:BIO. Diplomats are not inherently notable, being from a "major country" does not add to notability.

For same reason I am also nominating:

LibStar ( talk) 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not Notable-- C E ( talk) 16:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He was profiled in the Ottawa Journal in 1963 [32]; his papers are deemed important enough to be stored in the national archive [33]; he's included in an (independently published) Who's Who; he was awarded a Canadian Centennial Medal. Note: when searching for him, it appears he went by "Leslie Brown" or "H. Leslie Brown." Pburka ( talk) 18:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't think a medal given to 30,000 gives inherent notability. LibStar ( talk) 14:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Agreed, and if that were the only evidence of notability I wouldn't say keep. But the significant coverage in reliable sources is evidence of notability. I suspect that more coverage exists, but indexing of newspapers from the 1950s and 1960s is spotty at best. Pburka ( talk) 21:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete One profile in a small newspaper does not make a person notable. Mistakin ( talk) 12:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The Ottawa Journal is not a "small" newspaper — it was one of the two dominant dailies in the city until its closure, and fully satisfies our standards for reliable sourcing. Bearcat ( talk) 14:39, 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 18:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Multi-Edit

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

Coverage is mostly from blogs and download websites, with user-contributed content. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 10:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep – As historically significant. In the MS-DOS era it was one of the two most popular programmer's editors for DOS, along with Brief. And it survived as one of four or five up to around Windows 95 era. I've added a History section to the article with some magazine cites from that time, including a 1995 review of programmers' editors from PC Mag, which gives an overview of what was popular then. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep-Per above. Wgolf ( talk) 19:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:48, 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  15:33, 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 Keep. There is no coherent reason given for deletion. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 17:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Rocket Internet

Rocket Internet (  | 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, while a notable company will require a rewrite to remove the advertising tone. CSD multiple times already should have been again but here we are. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 15:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve - notable per WP:CORP with substantial coverage online from WP:RS. Mildly promotional tone can be fixed easily - I'll fix it myself now. If promotional content is re-added, revert, block persistent spammers, and semi-protect if necessary. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 18:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – This article does not have a promotional tone at this time, after editing performed by another user ( diff). At this time, it presents information about the company in a straightforward manner, and does not advocate for the company's services. North America 1000 19:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - as noted above, the promotional tone has been written out of the article. Grobertson ( talk) 15:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable company in several countries. As suggested remove the promotional and advertising contents from the article.  sami  talk 15:39, 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Snehil Sharma

Snehil Sharma (  | 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 doesn't satisfy WP:GNG - all the sources - except one undated and unidentified newspaper clipping [44] - seem to be either from high school newsletters or social media. (If this discussion is inconclusive, note that an account claiming to be the subject requested deletion on the article talk page.) Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 15:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - appears to be blatant self-promotion.-- Rpclod ( talk) 15:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this is not self-promotion: the different single-purpose accounts that have edited this article only came here because they are HUGE fans of Sharma. Really! They said so themselves! Clear GNG fail. Article has already a tortured history, let's put it out of its misery... -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Strongly C E ( talk) 17:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT for "digital or Internet marketing expert" who clearly fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage online from WP:RS. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:46, 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. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 22:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading

The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading (  | 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 by barely notable group. Most of the article is unsourced or poorly sourced CrazyAces489 ( talk) 14:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Are you serious? The album charted nationally and had a charting single. Those always pass for notability and it's poorly referenced because you keep removing reliable references. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Actually, scratch that, it is referenced considerably along with it being notable. Perhaps after this, the user can go back to improving their articles? TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

http://www.amazon.com/Is-Spreading-Peanut-Butter-Conspiracy/dp/B000040JF6

http://www.last.fm/music/The+Peanut+Butter+Conspiracy/The+Peanut+Butter+Conspiracy+is+Spreading -- C E ( talk) 17:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

KEEP:There appears to be nothing wrong with the article. It is well-written and well-sourced. Therefore, it should definitively not be deleted. We should view reliable articles covering specialty musical acts from the distant past as something to protect, not to destroy. I oppose any attempted deletion of this article. This "deletionist" frenzy needs to stop. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 01:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The band themselves were definitely notable in the late 1960s as I recall - in the UK initially because one of their songs was included on the first Rock Machine sampler. It is a perennial problem for Wikipedia that topics that were newsworthy in the decades prior to the internet have far more ephemeral sourcing than is expected for contemporary topics. User:TheGracefulSlick has done well to find reliable sources that document this album and I have no doubt they establish its notability per WP:NALBUM #2 as it charted on the Billboard-200. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per RexxS. Also this AfD another example of WP's problem with recentism. Montanabw (talk) 23:48, 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 speedy delete. CSD as an obvious and blatant hoax. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Battle of Yindurupilly

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

Per my comment on the talk page, I cannot establish that this battle existed. There are no sources that I can see other than mirrors, and even if there were, I cannot establish that this event was notable. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 ( talk) 13:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • delete Looks like some local myth/gossip right now.-- C E ( talk) 17:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a HOAX (or potential one). If this happened, I cannot beleive that it would not have been mentioned in Australian newspapers. The placename occurs in this article. As I understand it "squatter" means a free settler, who had occupied land without first obtianing legal title: it is not a derogatory term. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
It may well be a hoax, but you should be aware that in Australia, many murders of Aboriginal people were covered up. I'll see if I can find anything. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 22:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Websearches do not trump the two printed sources, and I think it is a long bow to draw that a few internet searches show this as a hoax. From my research incidents like this are not covered in sources on the internet, I've read multiple sources on multiple such incidents where there is zero trace on the internet. Library visits are required. This incident or battle looks to be in line with the Australian_frontier_wars#Queensland, the earlier Battle of One Tree Hill. The area and people's spelling is not consistent over time so some care and scholarship is called for - Peripitus (Talk) 02:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is an obvious hoax. Chris Coulthard-Clark's book The Encyclopaedia of Australia's Battles features a very comprehensive listing of the larger and most significant battles of the Frontier Wars, of which this claimed engagement would have been among the largest and, by taking place in modern-day Brisbane, among the most important. Coulthard-Clark doesn't mention it. There is zero percent chance that a large battle could have taken place near Brisbane at this stage of the colonisation of Queensland and not be easy to confirm through reliable sources. The State Library of Queensland does not have records for a book called "A Colonial Life" by anyone by the last name of Whitehead or "Colonial History Archive" by anyone going by the last name of Winters (and I note that these kind of vague references to obscure hard copy sources are pretty common for hoax articles). Nick-D ( talk) 06:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. Hoax, any event resulting in the deaths of 77 settlers would not have gone unnoticed. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete - the two cited sources don't check out (can't verify their existence). Renata ( talk) 19:44, 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Think Quick

Think Quick (  | 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 basic google search test and WP:BAND, promotional material, possibly self-written BlusterBlaster kablooie! 13:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom. No independent references. Non-notable band. Fails WP:Band. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 15:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The references consist of dead links, chat pages, peripheral inclusions in lists, and a child's game that has no relevance to the subject.-- Rpclod ( talk) 15:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Looks self promotional-- C E ( talk) 17:26, 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. Davewild ( talk) 17:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Allosexual

Allosexual (  | 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 don't see that this appears in reliable sources, as opposed to user-generated forums and Tumblr blogs. Normally I'd suggest a redirect to an asexuality topic, if there's a subsection where the relationships of asexual and non-asexual communities are discussed, but due to the confusion with the French term, a delete would be better.

PROD tag removed with the user indicating that we shouldn't expect reliable sources because "the term is used by a particular group of people who do not communicate in reliable sources" - unfortunately, this just means that Wikipedia is not the best place to discuss this group's jargon. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 12:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep – the term appears 21 times on Google Scholar, not just on forums and blogs. But the article needs a lot of improvement. – Zumoarirodoka ( talk) 14:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Only one use of the term in those 21 hits is of the concept described in the article, where it's framed as a weird neologism. The other hits are for the Quebec French usage analogous (possibly) to English "queer" or as a contrast to "autosexual", not "asexual." – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I Googled the first of the sources you listed from Wikitionary; so it turns out that source is not fake, as seen here. I Googled the second source as well. And this one. So those sources are not faked. The question becomes if the sources pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Where on Wikitionary did you get those sources? Flyer22 ( talk) 14:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Ah ok, thanks for that! I've already removed them from the article though, sorry about that.
And I got the sources from the "Noun" definition. – Zumoarirodoka ( talk) 14:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not that notable, but in future?????

http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/why-asexuals-dont-want-to-be-invisible-anymore/?_r=0 http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/q-and-a/a30581/sex-talk-realness-asexuality/ http://volanteonline.com/2015/04/asexuality-deserves-awareness-acceptance-among-preferences/-- C E ( talk) 17:25, 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 18:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

MacKeeper

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

Delete - This article contains some content that is written totally like an advertisement. Even though when people searches about MacKeeper they find a Wikipedia page about product, which create an good impact and anybody can be influenced to download the software/app. But no body should actually download it, as discussed and stated by biggest platforms, such as - iMore [1], etc. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge ( talk) 09:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  1. ^ "iMore - What 'MacKeeper' is and why you should avoid it".
  • Speedy Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Theroadislong ( talk) 10:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep This is an absolutely frivolous request. The subject is notable and is cited.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 10:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

" Keep. Not only because I use it myself, but also because it is a Notable product as witnessed by all the Web articles about it. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 14:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: Notable for a standalone article as per WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT, many reviews - see article. Also, see WP:ATD - editing is almost always preferable to deletion or stubification. Esquivalience t 15:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep how can you nominate it? C E ( talk) 17:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep - as above, extensively referenced, clearly notable software. Misguided nomination. Dialectric ( talk) 02:41, 29 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The University of Bologna Law Review

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

Article created and de-PRODDed by editor who claims (on article talk page) to be the editor-in-chief. Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 09:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom. Seems like it was also created to promote this non notable journal. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The only thing found in a quick Google search is social media. No reliable third-party sources. The journal does not appear to exist. Speedy delete. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 13:53, 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash!  (Y) 00:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Yuriy Abramochkin

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

Biography of a living person that does not show notability asnac ( talk) 08:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

To add more information: The references are almost all to websites showing his photos. There is no article in the Russian Wikipedia. asnac ( talk) 09:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - No significant & notable information is available on internet or print media. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge ( talk) 09:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Question. What kind of survey of print media did you carry out, User:Preeti Sharma's Knowledge? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Don't know yet, but if he really is in (some edition of) Contemporary Photographers (as the article claims), that's a big plus. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Response. This work is not referenced in the article but looking for clues on a Russian website it's probably this, from 1995, i.e. before Wikipedia killed off books like that! asnac ( talk) 16:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Uh, Asnac, I read: Yuri Abramochkin is one of 15 Russian photojournalists included in the encyclopedia “Contemporary Photographers”. I'm not sure what you mean by "referenced", but a book of this title (perhaps one of the three editions of this particular book) is mentioned in the article. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • To clarify, I meant that there's no footnote reference to the edition, page number etc., hence it's hard to verify. asnac ( talk) 08:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The book is not available online, being published in 1995. I've ordered my copy, which should arrive by 7th of June and I will be able to provide the page number at the reference. In addition, the articles provided as references are the secondary sources with information about the photographer, contrary to claim above that they contain only photographs. Please, note the article is about someone who was mostly active from 60s till 90s, so it's not easy to find many online sources. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 10:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • That may be helpful. Be careful of going to trouble or expense if the article would be deleted anyway - see the guidance in WP:ARTIST. asnac ( talk) 11:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Well, I am still interested in the book, since it allows to find a lot of information of those, working in non digital age. Still, I think other reference provide enough basis for his inclusion. He is one of the most revered photojournalist of Soviet era. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 12:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • If so then maybe there are additional Russian-language websites that acknowledge his contribution. If you can find some links that (for example) say that he's accepted by fellow professionals as being influential in his field, and/or give independent reviews of his work, that would help towards establishing notability. asnac ( talk) 13:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - Easily meets WP:ARTIST #1. Featured in length in Contemporary Photographers which refers to him as "one of the leading Soviet Agency photographers". Winner of the Golden Eye award [45] among others. If that isn't enough, the foreward of his book, Russia As I See Her is written by Mikhail Gorbachev himself. [46] - NQ (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep I orginally nominated this page for deletion but the article is now well referenced and there is no question in my view of notability. Thanks to NQ and Hoary for their research and the improvements to the article. asnac ( talk) 17:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep So, with the outcome of this discussion, I will remove proposal for deletion tag Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 11:33, 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 speedy keep. Obvious troll is obvious. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 14:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Muara Bungo

AfDs for this article:
Muara Bungo (  | 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 this exist? Can I make an article about my kitchen? Bobbertybob ( talk) 07:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:19, 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 keep - Procedural close - I'm getting the feeling the nominator is trolling but either way "Not notable" isn't in itself a valid reason for deletion. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 14:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Ezra A. Bowen

AfDs for this article:
Ezra A. Bowen (  | 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 Bobbertybob ( talk) 06:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per WP:POLITICIAN - sub-national office. -- haminoon ( talk) 06:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN. Pretty simple. -- NeilN talk to me 06:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep As I mentioned on Bobbertybob's page, it falls under WP:NPOL. Interference 541 ( talk) 06:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Members of state and provincial legislatures can be presumed to be notable as they receive coverage in reliable sources during their service , and with sufficient research in local libraries, an informative article can pretty much always be written. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep POINTy nomination by disruptive editor. Subject is notable per WP:POLITICIAN as previously noted here. Jbh ( talk) 07:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
That's quite an accusation. Please could you take up this discussion with me, on my talk page. Thanks. Bobbertybob ( talk) 07:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE
WP:POLITICIAN is a guideline, not a policy. I think that is a very important distinction.
I am not doubting that this person existed (but so did 100 billion others [48]), but I am wondering if there is enough (ref'd) information to actually maintain an article about them.
What can we say about the person, beyond that they existed? There is - as far as I can ascertain - no reliable sources out there to provide anything beyond that.
"Ezra A. Bowen was a Democratic member of the Wisconsin State Senate from 1854 to 1855.[1][2] He was a native of Mayville, Wisconsin"
We could write the same 'details' about anyone who was ever born, from telephone directories. But WP:NDIR, right?
Thus, I refer back to the core principles of WP:N.
Way back in 2006, the (co)founder of Wikpedia wrote, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" [49]
For this reason - and based on policy rather than guidelines - I do not think that, at this time, there is enough information in reliable sources to support an article about this individual.
IFF Wikipedia could have an article about every person on this planet, that'd be great. But only if we can provide an appropriate enclcopaedic article about that person - using appropriate referenced details.
For this person, we cannot.
I trust that any admin closing this discussion will consider policy. Bobbertybob ( talk) 07:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I trust any admin will spot the numerous red herrings in your argument. -- NeilN talk to me 07:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Instead of just saying that, can you tell me what they are, here? This is a discussion. Thanks. Bobbertybob ( talk) 07:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reply There is no "misleading or false" information about this person in the article. It Is, according to the sources, an accurate if brief stub article. There is nothing wrong with stub articles. He differs from billions of others because he was elected to a state legislature, which is of interest to an encyclopedia, and sets him off from all those others. Spend a few hours in the right Madison, Wisconsin libraries, expand the article, and we will then know much more about him. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Obviously notable per WP:NPOL. Obviously a real individual/politician based on the Wisconsin State Legislature's own records. That the article is (very) thin is not an issue. Rwessel ( talk) 07:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Can you provide evidence of WP:GNG through WP:VRS? Bobbertybob ( talk) 07:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
We have special notability guidelines which are just as valid as the general notability guideline. As for the VRS thing, it is an essay, and a useful one, but it does not apply in all situations. Including this one. Read the handwriting on the wall. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The specific policy WP:NPOL establishes notability (summary: all state and higher politicians are notable), and the Wisconsin State Legislature, while not a reliable source in all things, would certainly be considered so as to its membership. Rwessel ( talk) 07:44, 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. None of the notable series listed are original to this station. postdlf ( talk) 23:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

List of programs broadcast by Peachtree TV

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

General WP:TVS/ WP:TV policy is not to have 'list of programs aired by' articles for individual American television stations (here identifying shows airing on WPCH-TV in Atlanta); not withstanding WPCH's previous heritage as the 'original formula' TBS with Atlanta-specific programs mixed in, this article basically could describe the shows on any American independent television station (this station has no coverage outside of Atlanta and through distribution quirks, Canada), and has no sources to be found outside of expirable TV listings. Nate • ( chatter) 02:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:49, 18 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) 04:50, 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) 17:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Abdul Malek (activist)

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

Notability is not for small period only. The guy got some coverage after his death only. Included sources are not reliable. They are not independent source. The subject was an activist of Sibir and most of the sources are from their own/affliated website. Rahat ( Message) 19:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat ( Message) 19:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 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, North America 1000 00:18, 18 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) 04:49, 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. Due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild ( talk) 17:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

National Doctors Forum

National Doctors Forum (  | 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 with very poor coverage in sources. Rahat ( Message) 19:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
— Note to closing admin: Husain007 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:18, 18 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) 04:49, 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). North America 1000 03:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Devyani Rana

AfDs for this article:
Devyani Rana (  | 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 feels ultimately like a case of WP:BLP1E. The only notability she has is because she is the alleged reason for a royal massacre. Ricky81682 ( talk) 17:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 08:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 08:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Though most famous for the massacre, she has received other coverage too. She became a political campaigner in Nepal and India, is involved in social causes and her wedding also received wide coverage [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]-- Redtigerxyz Talk 09:44, 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, North America 1000 00:18, 18 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) 04:48, 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 redirect to Polish minority in Russia. If anyone wants to merge anything they can do so. Davewild ( talk) 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Polyaki

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

Has been proposed for merger with Polish minority in Russia since February 2012, but there is nothing of value to merge. Propose redirect.  Liam987 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:36, 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, North America 1000 00:17, 18 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) 04:48, 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) 17:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Sorakaya Swami

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

No references. The provided references not working. Vin09 ( talk) 13:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:17, 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, North America 1000 00:16, 18 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) 04:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, having difficulty understanding what this is about... Renata ( talk) 13:41, 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). North America 1000 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Good Girls Club

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

Non-notable television series that fails WP:GNG. The subject of the article is not the same as Girls Club (TV series), which multiple reliable sources may probably exist. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 14:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:21, 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, North America 1000 00:11, 18 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) 04:46, 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) 17:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

High Commission of Dominica, London

High Commission of Dominica, London (  | 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:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable and all this article does it confirms it exists LibStar ( talk) 15:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:05, 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, North America 1000 00:13, 18 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) 04:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Directory listing. Renata ( talk) 13:47, 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. Michig ( talk) 06:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Bloodborne characters

List of Bloodborne characters (  | 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 list of characters is not notable enough to have its own page. Very limited information is provided. AdrianGamer ( talk) 04:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per what was already said here. — DangerousJXD ( talk) 06:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as I said in merge discussion, not worth redirecting and a list of only 2 characters with no significant commentary. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 10:15, 25 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) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Character lists tend to fall under WP:GAMECRUFT if not notable enough, and this is no exception. BlookerG talk 12:02, 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. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash!  (Y) 00:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Gunther Holtorf

Gunther Holtorf (  | 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 epitome of a WP:BLP1E, subject has received coverage for...driving a car a lot. Whee... Tarc ( talk) 04:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Strong ehhhhhhhhh... leaning toward weak delete. I'm open to the possibility that someone (else) could find continued coverage to demonstrate that he really did drive a whole hell of a lot enough that it might be worthwhile to go on and cover him. As it is (and has been), one might as well just read that BBC article. Ian.thomson ( talk) 04:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Well dang, that actually happened. Strong ehhh leaning toward Weak keep. 26 years in 179 countries isn't quite one event. Ian.thomson ( talk) 18:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Non-notable per BLP1E. BMK ( talk) 04:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- as above, there's only 2-3 sources about them. Joseph2302 ( talk) 11:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Now that is just simply untrue!!! There are two footnotes showing (including the BBC). Now add to that THIS from DeutschWelde (an ultra-big source) and THIS from the Daily Mail, which isn't "reliable" but does go to demonstrate public interest in the topic, and THIS from The Local (German news in English) and THIS from Buisness Inquirer and THIS from The Express and THIS from The Jakarta Post (2001) and probably scores more English articles, not to mention the first German-language source and this is miles over the GNG bar. We are left with (a) those who misinterpret 1E, calling a 20+ year journey "one event" and (b) those who cloak IDONTLIKEIT in other terms. Carrite ( talk) 15:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • If the article is deleted I also suggest SALTing the article title to prevent recreation, because MMAR isn't going to give up, even if he gets indefinitely blocked. Thomas.W talk 14:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
One might argue that the only reason this is being attacked is because the exploits of the individual are being made a part of a marketing campaign after the fact. Carrite ( talk) 15:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep after the total rewrite of the article. But it's only a weak keep since all of the sources seem to be based on either Holtorf's and his team's own "official" web site or an interview with Holtorf in Spiegel Online, meaning that there's really only two sources, none of which is independent of the subject. Thomas.W talk 10:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Snow Delete- Classic example of BLP1E. – Davey2010 Talk 14:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per fixes made, I'm not happy with half of the article being removed and then nominated but meh shit happens - It's saturday and so can't be arsed to argue . – Davey2010 Talk 19:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Put away your snow shovels, there is sufficient sourcing out there to support a GNG pass and calling a 26-year journey "one event" stretches credulity. "One event" is winning the lottery or finding a giant diamond. Carrite ( talk) 15:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite ( talk) 15:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Carrite: It would have been a bigger thing if it had been a single 26-year journey, but it wasn't, it was split into several parts with years between each part of the trip. So the 26 years is the time from the start of the first of several legs until the end of the final leg of the trip. Thomas.W talk 15:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
So you are saying it is a series of multiple events then??? Can't have it both ways... We are not here to judge the merits of this or that subject, only whether or not that subject meets our notability requirements. This one clearly does, whether it is framed as a biography or (see below) as an article on the journey... Carrite ( talk) 16:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Alternatively, if the individual is held non-notable according to BLP1E, then an article on the journey certainly, easily, massively passes GNG based on the existence of multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability dedicated substantially to the event. That would be simply a matter of retitling and rewriting. Carrite ( talk) 16:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:1E. Originally, I would have !voted for keep because of the coverage meeting WP:GNG, but the deletes above naming 1E brought me back to reality. It does seem the event is notable, more-so than the 1E individual the article is about. An article on the event and the book is the likely alternate solution. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
This why i hate this policy in what world is 26 years and 179 countries "one event", a slippery slope indeed. GuzzyG ( talk) 12:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't think re-naming the article to be about the trip is a viable solution, especially when there were so many of them, and there would be no decent way to title it. I don't currently have an opinion strong enough to !vote on this AfD (although if I did, given the coverage, I'd probably !vote keep), but Moonriddengirl seems to be making a good case of it now, with reliable sourcing and encyclopedic writing. If we can stay focussed on the significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and keep out the clueless edits/editors, I think a decent article of sufficient notability could be had here. Softlavender ( talk) 16:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I did some work on this because sometimes the only way I can tell if something meet WP:GNG is if I can find sources myself. I did, and a bit more than I used. There's a difference between "1E" and a voyage of decades that has received reliable coverage demonstrably over at least 2 years. There was some misinformation in the article as I found out - the guy wasn't famous in the 1980s and indeed says he deliberately avoided publicity, for instance, and he certainly didn't travel nonstop with only occasional restbreaks (according to the BBC) - but reliable sources have talked about what he's done, in depth, and who he is. Two different sources, one English and one German, indicate that he is going to be covered by Guinness, but even if he's not there's deep coverage on this man that spans several years. I don't think there's a better name than his own (especially since this is the name under which his maps have been published), but have no objections to a move and repurposing of the article if somebody wants to focus instead on the feat. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Moonriddengirl's excellent re-factoring, improvement, and citing of the article. Definitely meets WP:GNG. Softlavender ( talk) 17:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep new short version. Johnbod ( talk) 19:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is a flood warning forecast, due to rapidly melting snow. Just a shameful reception given by our welcoming party to a new, good-faith editor, who simply needed some helpful guidance. Wbm1058 ( talk) 19:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: The "shamefully received" "new good faith editor who simply needed some helpful guidance" is currently blocked for a month, with talk page use revoked, for repeated personal attacks and general battle-ground behaviour. With massive support for a long block on WP:ANI after a complaint that backfired and resulted in a boomerang for him. This isn't about that editor though, but about the article. Thomas.W talk 19:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I confess Wbm does have a point, though. MMAR was a good-faith editor, and lacked instruction on how to handle his frustration that his time-consuming efforts were being massively cut, with edit summaries that seemed rude to him (and probably would have to any brand-new editor). The article version he wrote was not a bad one, quite the contrary (I just now took the time to read it), and he had placed his citations at the bottom of the article. (It was however long and wordy, and, for someone unfamiliar with the story, unduly so.) Unfortunately, his social skills were almost non-existent, and he resorted to edit-warring, rage, sarcasm, and insult instead of polite inquiry or whatever would have advanced his purpose. And then he couldn't seem to get out of that mode, but rather escalated it, and that of course made everyone extremely impatient with him. Let's just say it was unfortunate all around. Whether he could have been a productive editor if immediately instructed in WP article-talk-page protocol is unknown -- it's hard to defend your case when you're new and the cards are stacked against you, and it's hard for someone with the fuse of a teenage boy to react calmly and civilly when provoked. Softlavender ( talk) 20:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Carrite and Moonriddengirl. We should not allow the terrible behavior of the guy who pushed the article to influence us to delete an article on a notable topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Per the rationale's of Carrite and Moonriddengirl. A WP:BASIC pass, and a series of separate events over the course of time is not a single event. North America 1000 19:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Barbara Toy was doing this sort of journey 50 years ago so this chap is not that remarkable but, even so, it's quite clearly not a BLP1E case as there isn't an event and there's no separate article for this non-existent event. Andrew D. ( talk) 19:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Based on its current referencing, this article passes the General Notability Guideline. It is not a WP:BLP1E; Gunther Holtorf also is claimed (in the BBC News article) to have made the first maps of the Jakarta metropolitan area. Note that a list books by one "Gunther W. Holtorf", who probably is the subject of this article, can be seen here. These are a street map of Jakarta in various versions, including one that is 9th edition and 176 pages, and a book about Hong Kong, in German, with translations into English and what may be Japanese. Cardamon ( talk) 21:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per User:Carrite. 79.97.226.247 ( talk) 01:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and restore the longer version in the history (merging in more recent improvements) with a bit of cleanup. This is a great article and it's evident that more sourcing is available. And a 26 year roadtrip is a 1-event? Please tell me you're kidding. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 05:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Subject looks notable to me, considering the new sources that have been added. If really necessary, the article can be moved to a different title to avoid the BLP1E issue. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 07:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - article has been improved by others and now meets WP:GNG via citations to Der Spiegel, BBC News and The Jakarta Post among others (though I would really, really, appreciate it people didn't cite the Daily Mail before I've had breakfast). I appreciate there's been some rough and tumble over this but ultimately it has the potential to be improved further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - as written, meets WP:GNG JoeSperrazza ( talk) 19:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Close The excellent editorial improvements to the article cancels whatever doubts may have previously existed about the subject's notability. Although a couple of days remain on the discussion, I think it would not be a problem to close this AfD at this point. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 18:09, 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) —  Yash!  (Y) 00:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Chaozhou Vocational Technical School

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

Unnotable school. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! ( talk) 02:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:54, 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. Michig ( talk) 06:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

South Perth railway station

South Perth 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)

Railway station proposed in 2009, but never any firm plans to build, can find no references post 2013. Total25 ( talk) 02:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Support Probably an old paper lying in the drawer of someone's office by now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! ( talk) 02:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. The lack of a station at South Perth has been a political issue ever since they built the line, and as a proposal it's definitely something that has coverage in reliable sources, and probably meets WP:GNG if anyone could be bothered digging through newspaper archives. However, I'm dubious on whether the topic is encyclopedic, and someone seeing it with its own article might assume it had progressed further than it had. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 08:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral verging on Support of delete - if sufficient evidence of the paper trail - newspaper refs could show the proposal and the deferment in a number of good substantial references - it verges on passable (in the evidence of the issues or people involved in proposal, and the evidence of deferment) - in its current state, and if it was to stay that way - then I can agree with the Delete proposal satusuro 10:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete whilst there has been some coverage, the fact there is still no commitment to build makes me lean to delete. LibStar ( talk) 13:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete article about something that atm is unlikely to eventuate. Transasia07 ( talk) 02:47, 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. Davewild ( talk) 17:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Robotech Wars

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

No indication of any real word Notability, this isn't wikia or a fansite. Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Much like many of the Robotech articles, this is just long over detailed plot summary with no real world context or notability. Sources are all either from the work itself or the official website. This is not an encyclopaedic article and is not suitable for wikipedia. SephyTheThird ( talk) 20:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While I agree that this is unreferenced and excessive plot summary, it's more important to see what it is: a consolidation of several dozen other smaller, equally unreferenced pages. Take a look at what links here for the article--there are several redirects that point here. Robotech is certainly not near the thriving topic of interest that it was 20 years ago, but we should have SOME content rather than a bunch of redlinks and broken redirects. I don't have the time to clean it up, but in this case, I argue that keeping it in its current broken state is a less bad alternative than deleting it--how many other deletion discussions closed as merge, resulting in those other former articles now pointing to this one? Deleting this undoes all that. Jclemens ( talk) 07:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
So you agree with the reasons for nomination but want to keep it because it's in your words "some content"? Red links are easily removed, so that should never be a factor in keeping an article. the page being the result of merges and deletions is not really an issue, the lack of progress on the article has shown there was a good reason the previous pages would have been acted on in the first place. The series not being a "thriving topic of interest" actually makes it more suitable for this sort of analysis of it's content and there not being any interest is a very good reason to cut back on excessive content which is what articles for both series suffer from. Instead of focusing on long plot summaries across several character, terminology and history articles, the focus should be on the core encyclopaedic content; details about the show and it's premise, it's production and reception. There is no shortage of useful information for these areas without the need to pad them out with this type of content. Articles should provide an overall summary for all types of reader, not detail only a fan would want to read. Wikia exists for that purpose. SephyTheThird ( talk) 08:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
You should take a look at other huge franchises such as Sailor Moon, notice we don't have List of battles in Sailor Moon or the wars involving the Sailor Senshi and Chaos. A wise editor once told me to keep the summaries short and let the reader enjoy the series for themselves, we don't need un-sourced loads of WP:OR BS that tells detailed information down to what Rick Hunter had for breakfast in episode such and such. As for the redirects, I can bet some are very in universe that only fans of the show would understand. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- way too long, nothing but plot summary written primarily in an in-universe style, and has no sourcing to speak of. Cruft is cruft and should be deleted, no matter how often it's been shovelled from one place to another. Reyk YO! 08:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This source here appears to give this in fictional universe wars significant coverage. Also received some coverage in this [57], and [58] Valoem talk contrib 09:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    • That book is by a publisher that repackages Wikipedia content, not a reliable source. Reyk YO! 13:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Way too much in-universe data. Article reads too much as if it is applicable to the real world when it fact only notable to the series itself. If at all possible, a single paragraph under a "Setting" sub-heading could be salvaged somewhere from this....whatever this is. But given the shape of the other articles in this franchise, I don't even know where we'd put that. —Kirt Message 21:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Seeing the wars involve the characters, I placed the info in the lead section over at List of Robotech characters. No in depth detail, just enough to give the reader what the wars are about to fit them into a better understanding of the series. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This reminds me of TTN's old nominations. Per WP:PLOT, Wikipedia is not a catalog of indiscriminate plot points or synopses. Wikipedia mirrors and trivial mentions are not enough to save this article. It needs significant, real-world coverage from independent reliable sources. This sort of plot-only article belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:44, 23 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 01:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I love the article and wish I could vote otherwise. However, except for one reference to a Robotech movie in which Mark Hamill (and which does not expressly discuss the subject of this article), all references are to the Robotech website. Accordingly, there are not authoritative or reliable sources and nothing that demonstrates notability.-- Rpclod ( talk) 10:43, 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) 06:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Khwaja Shamsuddin Azeemi

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

All sources including in this article appear to be primaries. A quick look on google has revealed nothing other than self-published sources and forum posts. I posit the article fails WP:GNG on this basis. Dolescum ( talk) 08:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:18, 19 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 01:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - no reliable sources.-- Rpclod ( talk) 01:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - I agree this article seems to have no reliable sources. If some are found, then the article must be completely rewritten, as it reads like a public relations piece. Bill Pollard ( talk) 03:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, agree... looks like a life-long case of self-promotion. Renata ( talk) 13:52, 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. Michig ( talk) 06:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

MA.RA

MA.RA (  | 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 simply couldn't find enough reliable coverage regarding this person. It doesn't help that his name appears to be rather common, so Google is not of much help. If someone can find sources that I may have missed, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 08:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, even if the subject would be notable, WP:TNT applies as the current "article" is basically unintelligible and serves no purposes. Cavarrone 09:37, 24 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 01:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - this may be useful on another language page, but is of no use here. Further no indication of notability is evident.-- Rpclod ( talk) 01:55, 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 delete. Davewild ( talk) 17:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Ice (TV series)

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

No indication of notability. The three references lead straight to the network so are not independent of the subject. None of those work anyway. The "official website" doesn't work either. None of the people mentioned as presenting it are notable. And a search for "Ice" and "RTE" produces many mentions of this (which doesn't appear to be related.) Greykit ( talk) 19:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 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) 00:44, 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, North America 1000 01:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - no references to other than the subject network.-- Rpclod ( talk) 01:56, 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 keep -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

AMT Coffee

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

This article has been around for some years without a single good reference. All the references that do exist are internal railway publications and the web-site of British Bakers. Neither robust nor verifiable notability.   Velella   Velella Talk   20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the only real in depth coverage is the non-independent 'Million-pound expansion' press release. Stuartyeates ( talk) 01:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ "Growing coffee chain full of beans". Yorkshire Post.
  2. ^ "AMT Coffee poised for expansion". Oxford Mail.
  3. ^ "Brewing up a healthy fortune". Financial Times.
  4. ^ City of York Council approve AMT Coffee's application to transform York railway station's waiting room into a mobile coffee kiosk. The Press.
  5. ^ "AMT Coffee reports 5.3% rise in LFL". British Baker magazine.
  6. ^ "AMT Coffee installs contactless payment nationwide". Computerworld UK.
  7. ^ New coffee shop opens in arrivals area in Terminal 1. Irish Independent. (short article)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:46, 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, North America 1000 01:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • AFD withdrawn following improvement of article with valid references.   Velella   Velella Talk   14:01, 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 redirect to Jonah Jenkins. Davewild ( talk) 17:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Blind Surgeon

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

A band that had only 2 demos and not much else. Either a delete or possibly a redirect to Jonah Jenkins since he is the only one with a page. Wgolf ( talk) 21:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:56, 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, North America 1000 01:46, 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, North America 1000 01:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Jonah Jenkins.-- Rpclod ( talk) 02:00, 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 redirect to JustPark. MBisanz talk 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Alex Stephany

Alex Stephany (  | 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 find little independent, substantial coverage of him on my own, falling short of the notability criteria. The large majority of the sources cited in the article (a) are broken links, (b) don't mention his name, (c) identify him only as someone being quoted, (d) have a photo of him standing with Eskinazi, (e) are perfunctory interviews, or (f) are bios that are likely self-submitted to sources with which he has an affiliation. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 18:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

NOTE: The broken link issue has now been addressed and all links are working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougalbee ( talk • contribs) 09:19, 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, North America 1000 01:47, 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, North America 1000 01:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - this is a vanity piece. The accessible references talk about companies not the subject.-- Rpclod ( talk) 02:06, 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 redirect to Rubik's Cube#Variations. Clear consensus that this should not be kept, but a valid redirect target was found. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Rubik's V Cube

Rubik's V Cube (  | 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:FORK of articles on the various V Cube models, rightly tagged for WP:POV problems (it's essentially an attack). Even if all models were rolled into one article, it wouldn't be this misnamed thing. Mangoe ( talk) 02:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete WP:POV duplicate of V-Cube 6 and V-Cube 7, with rather significant chunks of text copied across. The most prominent part not copied is claiming Verdes was called "cruel" and accused use of "patent loopholes", which without reliable sources is akin to straight-up attack. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 03:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 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, North America 1000 02:36, 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, North America 1000 00:48, 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) 17:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

NetillaOS NetConnect by Northbridge Secure Systems (Secure Remote Access SSL VPN)

NetillaOS NetConnect by Northbridge Secure Systems (Secure Remote Access SSL VPN) (  | 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 particularly notable. Searches on Google and DuckDuckGo yielded no reviews or mentions from reliable sources (except from a Times of India directory page which is basically a copy of Category:Remote desktop). Generally seems like an advertisement. Jc86035 ( talk • contribs) Use {{ re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:14, 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, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:04, 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, North America 1000 00:46, 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) 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Lateral spin valve

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

a) page provides no information not provided on the wikipedia Spin valve article which is already more detailed and complete. The only source in the "lateral spin valve" article can't be retrieved.

b) lateral spin valves are a type of spin valve and do not merit a separate article. At most they merit a subsection in the spin valve article. There is very little difference between a lateral spin valve and a "regular" spin valve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.40.130 ( talk) 02:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh 666 04:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:16, 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, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:04, 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, North America 1000 00:46, 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 00:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Luigino Longo

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

A poorly-referenced biography which has fallen through the cracks since 2002. I've added one news source, but there seems to be nothing on the web about his later career. Therefore I think the subject fails WP:BLP1E. John of Reading ( talk) 07:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:20, 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, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without prejudice to recreating this with more sources. There may be a language barrier issue in finding sources, but there needs to be more verification for this BLP, especially since the subject seems controversial. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:28, 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 Keep. Michig ( talk) 06:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Center for Khmer Studies

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

Despite the fancy name, I don't see anything that indicates notability, as expressed through independent sources. This doesn't mention the center, and is the only functioning link. Google largely turns up announcements made by the institution itself. - Biruitorul Talk 21:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Update, George de Menil article kept, at least for now. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per User:David Eppstein, and this [59] (believe it or not, the NYTimes fact-checks the wedding announcements aggressively to make sure claims of affiliation are both notable and verifiable. Few news columns are as aggressively fact-ckecked as the weddings page, as I understand it, groomsmen are prone to sending in hoax affiliations, and mothers-of-the bride exaggerate - plus it's intensely read. Therefore the Times puts staff hours into it). E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Well, sure, the Center exists, but quoting that would be like using a wedding announcement to document the existence of, say, the Heritage Foundation or the Brookings Institute. In other words, it's not an especially quotable source. And what is truly indicative (at least for me) about this institution's lack of notability is its seemingly total absence from academic sources (other than the announcements I mentioned). You'd think an entity funded by Americans and registered in the US, that deals with a field (Cambodia Studies) not entirely neglected there would have some impact on the American academic landscape, but no. - Biruitorul Talk 14:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
      • That sounds reasonable, but reasonable does not always apply in area studies, fields where internecine bickering can make even the darkest corners of WP editing look collegial. I don't even know that the name of the organization has been constant, or there isn't some variation to how the name is cited that would make work done there easy to find for someone actually in Cambodian studies (a highly politicized field). In fact the problem with this AFD is that there is very little RS on this outfit, but the sources that do exist (cited by User Eppstein) are highly reliable. (I don't mean the wedding thing in the Tiems, I didn't propose adding that to page, I only brought it here because there is so little, and yet, what there is looks sound.) At the very least, we know that this organization exists and has a location in Siem Reap, a town that is a mecca both for serious scholarship and for the very, very rich - not only because it has some of the world's highest-end hotels, but because it is a pet historic rescue project of choice for the world's very,very rich. Who may, at times, work better with the notoriously corrrupt authorities of Cambodia by keeping projects under the radar. I just don't know. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
In fact, there are lots of the type of mentions/thanks for use of the Center in the course of research that one would expect to find in the forwards of books on Cambodia. Confirms that this is a locus of scholarly work on the region in all fields. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
In fact, a simple search on books google produces a plethora of confirmation. Citations to papers published by the Center, conferences held. It will remove all doubts re:notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:53, 20 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, North America 1000 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Additional refs: 1/"Center for Khmer Studies Junior Fellowship Program in Cambodia" University of Chicago] [60] which says "The Center for Khmer Studies (CKS) and Henry Luce Foundation seek to introduce undergraduate students to Cambodia and Khmer civilization. " the Luce foundation, is a highly respectable organization referred to in a number of WP articles--we need an article on them. . 2/ "Center For Khmer Studies Summer Junior Fellowship Application 2014" Sciences Po. [61] (the most impt French university in social sciences. It already has : "Center for Khymer Studies - Supporting research in Cambodia" Official Blog of WilliamE. Todd,US Ambassador to Cambodia [62]
In addition, WorldCat shows it has published a number of books & held a number of seminars [63] . DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply

United States Allied Freedom Fighters

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

BLP material without sources DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Hardly readable,not notable, very biased, zero sourcing of any kind.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect to a red link? Are you serious? Kraxler ( talk) 02:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
And why not? The event which this organization has received passing coverage has received significant coverage in its own right, sufficient to pass WP:PERSISTENT. Therefore, the event, which does not have an article yet created, is notable. And unless this organization is notable for anything else other than than plot, than it falls under WP:BLP1E or something similar.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
RE "And why not?" - Because of G8, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page and Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting #7. Kraxler ( talk) 15:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The sources primary subject is the bomb plot, and it clearly meets WP:EVENT. The subject of this AfD has received multiple mentions in relations to the notable event, and thus is a related term. Whether the organization meets WP:ORG IMHO is not the question, but it is the fact that it is only notable for a single notable event, and thus should be redirected to that event (an article that should be created).-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 02:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
So, create the article first, and then advocate something to be redirected to it. Please do not put the cart before the horse. Kraxler ( talk) 13:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Per WP:CANVASS#appropriate notification, I will inform WP:PINOY. As there maybe some local editors, they can shed light on the situation.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:42, 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. Davewild ( talk) 18:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Funky Taurus

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

Search for WP:RS came up empty; notability warning produced no response. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 00:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Not notable, was also deleted in German Wikipedia. Delete -- NiTen ( talk) 21:24, 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_April_25&oldid=1142626908"