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

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 00:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The Big Defreeze

The Big Defreeze (  | 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 album by a band who does not even have a Wikipedia page. Wgolf ( talk) 23:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The album has had enough reliable reviews and other sources for inclusion of a Wikipedia page. It doesn't need an artist page. 和DITOR E tails 23:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Creating more than just a one-line stub would be appreciated. If you're doing the research, why not expand the article some? Just a small assertion of what makes the album notable would be nice. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 18:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:48, 15 February 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. postdlf ( talk) 23:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Jori Chisholm

Jori Chisholm (  | 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 feels highly promotional and is complete with "Trivia" section. Perhaps marginally notable on competitive success - first place at Oban - but there are many other pipers in the same position. Ostrichyearning ( talk) 22:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —  kikichugirl  ^speak up! 22:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —  kikichugirl  ^speak up! 22:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  kikichugirl  ^speak up! 22:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —  kikichugirl  ^speak up! 22:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —  kikichugirl  ^speak up! 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - for all the multiple reasons documented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jori Chisholm. To relaunch an AfD is a farce and the nominator clearly has an agenda against such articles. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The reason cited "there are many other pipers in the same position" is hardly a reason for deletion, but I would argue a reason for inclusion of a page for other pipers in the same position. This was mentioned in a previous discussion also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:9980:99:CDD5:AC82:45B3:5213 ( talk) 03:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Relaunch of AfD is completely unreasonable, as it betrays a personal vendetta against subject, and ignores subject's many detailed achievements of notability, all of which are given within scope of article; namely, 1) subject is a notable ensemble performer, with Simon Fraser University Pipe Band, with other notable ensemble performances with the Chieftains, and with the Bob Weir group Ratdog, which satisfies WP:MUSIC criterion #6; 2) subject has been subject of multiple non-trivial published works, appearing in the New York Times, Piping Today, and American Profile magazine, which satisfies WP:MUSIC criterion #1; 3) AfD nominator's inane suggestion that subject is "perhaps marginally notable on competitive success" indicates that nominator did not READ article. Subject won 1st place in several major music competitions, including 2 times winning 1st place at Cowal Highland Gathering (Open 'A' Piobaireachd) in 2008 and 2010; winning 1st place 4 times at US Gold Medal Piping Championships in 2004, 2008, 2009, and 2014; and winning 1st place in 'A' Marches at Argyllshire Gathering in Oban in 2001, all of which satisfy WP:MUSIC criterion #9. Subject is not "marginally notable", but is VERY notable. Please keep article on subject. ~jungstensgericht — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungstensgericht ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Agreeing with the entry above re "there are many other pipers in the same position". There should be many more pipers with pages in wiki, and this performer should be one of them. He is one of the most notable professional pipers in the USA, is highly regarded by many other notable professional pipers from around the world and has made significant contributions to the art. AfD discussion should be closed with no further action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.98.11 ( talk) 21:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7 (author requests deletion). ( non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 21:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Kyle Camac

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

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

Contested prod, non notable ceo Wgolf ( talk) 21:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I put the Prod on. At the time the subject was described as the CEO of a company with no article of its own and with not much else to confer notability. Now he is described as an academic, which might be a slightly better approach, but based on the the article contents I do not believe that he is sufficiently notable in that regard either. A very cursory search does not turn up additional notability. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment-looks like the page creator wants it speedied. Wgolf ( talk) 21:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete-yes please delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyC284 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 February 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. Missvain ( talk) 00:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Madoka Sugawara

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

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

I was originaly going to put up this but decided to put a prod instead. Anyway this looks like a unotable actress. With only one credit. Wgolf ( talk) 20:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete – Searching on her Japanese name, she seems to have been in one more porno film, but nothing since then. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 21:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails to meet the notability requirements for actors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. In the absence of any reliable sourcing (other than IMDB) or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how the basic notability criteria are satisfied. -- DAJF ( talk) 01:21, 17 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

If I Love You?

If I Love You? (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Searched and this does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley ( talk) 19:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, does not appear to meet notability requirements. Nakon 04:06, 21 February 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. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Henry Ward (politician)

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

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

Withdrawing nom Failed governor candidate. That's about it. Only source is an obit. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC) - I overlooked the mention of his state legislature membership, as the opening of the article focused on his failed gubernational election. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Automatic keep He served in both houses of the KY legislature and was a major party nominee for governor in 1967; only a narrow loser. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 22:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep WP:NPOL#1. "five-term state representative and one-term state senator" per [1]. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 22:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Sources for the article's subject were readily found, two of which were in the top ten results of a Google search [2] [3]. Also Ward has received significant coverage in a book [4] as well as in various newspaper articles which I've added to the page. I don't see anything in WP:BIO that disqualifies using an obituary to substantiate significant coverage, but that notwithstanding, I believe the multiple sources I've found show this article meets WP:GNG. Altamel ( talk) 22:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. All members of state legislatures in the United States are notable. - LtNOWIS ( talk) 00:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep members of state legislatures are default notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep - Elected member of a state legislature, ergo an auto-keep per Politician Special Notability Guideline no. 1. Carrite ( talk) 12:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Obviously, as a member of a state legislature. It already said this in the article when it was nominated - nominator obviously should have read it a little more closely. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep and close the discussion - nomination has been withdrawn. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 19:49, 18 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Revolution Number Zero

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

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

Searched and this does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley ( talk) 19:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, does not appear to meet notability requirements. Nakon 04:07, 21 February 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. postdlf ( talk) 23:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

List of funerals

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

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

Cannot make heads or tails of what this list accomplishes or why it's necessary. Notability of most of these entries are questionable, remaining ones may be better served as a category. PROD removed without comment. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep The ways in which lists are superior to categories are detailed at WP:AOAL. There are entire books devoted to the topic such as Funerals of the Famous and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Use of prod in such cases seems disruptive as the page is well-developed by numerous editors and the prod process is only supposed to be used in uncontroversial cases. Andrew D. ( talk) 19:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• I didn't think the prod would be controversial, thus my usage of it. I am not basing my deletion rationale on the notability of the topic (although a funeral industry publication is probably not the best way to judge notability of a list of funerals in any regard), but rather that the list form does not lend itself to the topic nor is the article able to be limited to truly notable funerals. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 19:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• It is easy to find more coverage of funerals. For example, this source discusses notable Tudor funerals such as those of Queen Elizabeth and Sir Philip Sidney, while this one discusses major funerals of later periods. Per WP:CLN, structural objections to the list format are not policy and so should never be used as the basis for a deletion nomination. Andrew D. ( talk) 21:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• It's not really a structural objection, but an objection based on the fact that this isn't really a good way to handle the topic. An article about state funerals is appropriate. An article about an individual funeral may be appropriate. A random list with no real benefit for readers or any sort of standard in place for inclusion or even notability of the individual topics is where the objection lies. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 14:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep, notable entries are better served by a list than a category, as dates, attendances etc can be given. Siuenti ( talk) 22:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep The inclusion criteria need tightening up. The table could do with a bit more formatting, making it sortable. Martin451 23:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep: As per above !votes. In this case, a list is more appropriate for listing funerals than a category. Esquivalience ^t 02:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep – The topic meets WP:LISTN and WP:NLIST, and also qualifies per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Funerals by person. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I agree with Thargor Orlando's comments, it is difficult to see what criteria for inclusion have been, or should be applied. Worldwide and throughout history, notable funerals would be an enormous list. If limited by historical period or geographical location or 'area of notability, I could see value. As presently constituted, the list appears random. Would a list of funerals that have their OWN article be a constructive interim measure? Pincrete ( talk) 14:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The Funeral of Thatcher had an estimated 4.5 million viewing on TV, with about 1 million watching via iPlayer, I cannot see worldwide figures. The funeral of Bal_Thackeray had 1-2 million in attendance, and 15 million watching on TV. The first has its own article, the second was deleted AfD. The second is in this article, the first is not. So I personally do not think having its own article is suitable inclusion criteria. Martin451 00:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment It might be useful to move this to a slightly more descriptive name, like List of largest funerals. "Largest" is defined within the current article by "based on both the number of attendants and estimated television audience". 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 18:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Support the last suggestion (or "large"). Purge of any below 10,000 attenders. For pre-TV items N/a is unsatisfactory: is it not available or not applicable. I would suggest the column should say "no TV". This probably applies to Jinnah, as I doubt there was much TV in Pakistan at his death. Peterkingiron ( talk) 01:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A7. Peridon ( talk) 19:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Somer Engin

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

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

Rather unotable person-yeah has followers on twitter but still don't see much to say-if we include everyone who has a twitter/facebook account that be nuts. Wgolf ( talk) 18:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:14, 14 February 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 under criterion A7. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

WeRCharm

WeRCharm (  | 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 musical group lacking non-trivial support. No independent resources and a search of Google shows nothing of substance. CSD removed by ANON. reddogsix ( talk) 17:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 00:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Revolucija (TV show)

Revolucija (TV show) (  | 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 discontinued Serbian TV programme is largely sourced to promotional material from the presenter/producer himself. A small amount of notable material was already on presenter's main article ( Boris Malagurski). There is little reason to believe that independently sourced material will surface now to establish notability. I propose notable material is re-merged with main page and this article be deleted. There seems to be no equivalent article on Serbian Wikipedia. Pincrete ( talk) 17:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose deletion - Just because a show was discontinued isn't reason enough to delete its article. Neither is the fact that there is no equivalent article on Serbian Wikipedia an argument for deletion. There are reliable sources regarding the TV show, including the Association of Journalists of Serbia, NaDlanu.com, Story.rs, and I just found a few more from The City of Subotica, Nightly News ( Večernje novosti), Teleprompter.rs, NSPM.rs ( New Serbian political thought), etc. The notability of the show is evident and though it wasn't, of course, popular worldwide, in Serbia it certainly was. -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 22:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Not to mention that I, as the creator of the article in question, wasn't notified on my talk page by Pincrete that the article was nominated for deletion, which is not very nice. -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 22:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

A note was left on the Malagurski talk page, specifically in order that ALL connected editors (including yourself), would know about the AfD nomination. Pincrete ( talk) 14:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep "little reason to believe that independently sourced material will surface now"

Surface now? It's been there all along. It received plenty of coverage in main stream press and web outlets in Serbia and also to a lesser extent in Croatia. In addition to the sources listed above there's also Press [5] [6], Story, Glas zapadne Srbije, Monitor.hr, Večernje novosti [1], frontal.rs Not to mention the show ran for three seasons on a station with national broadcasting license in Serbia. Fairly straight-forward keep. Zvonko ( talk) 06:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I haven't had time to examine ALL the links provided by Zvonko and UrbanVillager, and some are dead to me. The ones I have looked at either do not say anything about 'Revolucija', or are directly promotional comments by the presenter himself,(eg New Serbian political thought simply reproduces the presenter's Facebook page,[ [7] with no independent content by NSPM. The 'Nadlanu' source used in the article, [8] simarly uses as its sole source, the presenter's Facebook page).

IF these links provide any substantive, independent RS material about the show or WHY it is notable, I hope that material will be included in the article. Links which simply mention the show existed, or what the presenter said about the show's nature and importance, establish nothing at all. I agree that the absence of articles on Balkan WPs, does not, in itself, mean there should not be an en. article, but it is a little strange. Pincrete ( talk) 13:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Further comment Having looked at most of the above 'sources', I see nothing in them but generalised announcements from the presenter or TV company about what the programme aims are + claims from the presenter of having been 'censored', these are almost all sourced to his own Facebook page. If I am wrong, would someone please put into the article the 'wide (independent) coverage' which is claimed. Pincrete ( talk) 00:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment 'generalised announcements from the presenter '

Not sure what your level of comprehending Serbian is, but it seems it could use a little work if this is your takeaway. Six of the 7 links I posted discuss various specifics of the issues raised either in different episodes of the show as show topics or as controversy raised from the station's programming decisions regarding the show. Those issues being: murder of Brice Taton, HR decision at the state-owned rehab facility in Ivanjica, a previously announced episode of the show being banned, and Croatian journalist Domagoj Margetić's allegations against Serbian finance minister Mlađan Dinkić. Furthermore, each piece specifically references the show when discussing these things. The remaining piece is a fairly in-depth interview with Malagurski about the show. None of the above remotely fits the description of "nothing in them but generalised announcements from the presenter or TV company". Zvonko ( talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I understood these reference, however in almost all cases, the claims as to content are pre-showing and are sourced to comments/claims by the presenter or ocassionally the TV company (in several cases using the presenter's Facebook page as source). We have almost NO content from independent RS. The Taton material, adds nothing to what is already said on that film's article and belongs there anyway. Again if I am wrong, please insert this notable material in this article. Pincrete ( talk) 11:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Final comment Pincrete, I think it's about time you stopped minimizing everything that has to do with Malagurski and his work. There are articles by the Anticorruption League of the Balkans, the Association of Journalists of Serbia and several mainstream Serbian media outlets attesting to the notability of the TV show. As a matter of fact, it was you who added the "Kostic controversy" regarding this very TV show to the Malagurski article, and even later, it was you who added this text to the Revolucija (TV show) article, which you decided to nominate for deletion one day later. Please stop abusing Wikipedia. Strong Keep, per Zvonko and his sources as well. -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 10:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Questioning an other editor's motives, does nothing to establish what independent RS material is in these sources. Yes, I did add the 'Kostic' material (from the Association of Journalists of Serbia), as far as I can see, this is the only substantive content which does not trace back to the programme presenter himself. Pincrete ( talk) 12:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep, nice analysis by Zvonko, above. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 16:37, 18 February 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. Missvain ( talk) 00:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006

Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Was prodded in 2010 but prod was removed. This bill got scant attention in technology circles, but does not appear to have even made it to a committee vote, let alone get to the floor of any chamber of the United States government. As the bill was proposed over 8 years ago, it is no longer pending or relevant, and there is no obvious place to merge the minimal relevant information in the article (an article that reads more like a term paper on intellectual property and law than an encyclopedia article on the topic). For those reasons, deletion seems to be the most prudent option. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Looks like a pile of OR. Most of the citations appear to be describing the specific things the article claims are linked to its subject, rather than actually making that link. In fact as far as I can tell only one of the references is actually about the article topic, and that's a link to the bill itself, hardly a reliable source for asserting notability. — Nizolan ^(talk) 10:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete = proposed bills that do not leave committee are rarely notable, and run of the mill. Bearian ( talk) 03:00, 18 February 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 Feel free to purpose the merge on article page. . Missvain ( talk) 00:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Forever Delayed (DVD)

Forever Delayed (DVD) (  | 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 suggest merge/redirect into Forever Delayed. Lachlan Foley ( talk) 16:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment AfD is not the place to suggest merges or redirects. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 01:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 23:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Eva Bay

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

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

An editor tagged this article for speedy deletion as vandalism. I declined the tag as it obviously wasn't vandalism. However, the editor intended to tag it as a hoax. Given that the article itself states that it is an obscure bay, that makes it harder to determine whether it exists and there's litle about it or whether it doesn't exist at all. Doing Google searches all I've found are clones of the article. If it is a hoax, it should obviously be deleted. However, even if not, if it has no notability, it should also be deleted, although I recognize that many editors at Wikipedia don't like to delete any place articles. I'll leave it up to the community to decide. Bbb23 ( talk) 15:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, hoax, not listed at Geoscience Australia place name search.-- Grahame ( talk) 23:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not sure if it's entirely or just partially a hoax. I certainly can't find any sources to suggest keeping it. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 01:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Not notable. I can't find any reliable sources that even say that this place even exists. Esquivalience ^t 02:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete: the geo coordinates point to a place called Chance Bay, for what it's worth. As a total side note: NOAA provides free nautical charts... why can't Austrailia? — Noah 04:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

OK, found that Navonics has a free online chart. Turtle Bay is labled on that one... nothing else nearby. Not definitive, but one more bit of data. — Noah 05:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, if it's not even listed by Geoscience Australia, that's a massive red flag. And come on, named after someone married there in 2009? Seems like a bit of romantic fluff to me, not a serious article. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:34, 16 February 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. Missvain ( talk) 00:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Atholl Highlanders (USA) Pipes & Drums of Stone Mountain

Atholl Highlanders (USA) Pipes & Drums of Stone Mountain (  | 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 pipe band. Ostrichyearning ( talk) 15:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Maproom ( talk) 20:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:BAND; sees notability by association, ignoring WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:05, 14 February 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. per SK1 & all that. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 19:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Daniel Bullocks

Daniel Bullocks (  | 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 per WP:NGRIDIRON, never played pro Deunanknute ( talk) 14:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

withdraw and comment - the article really makes it look like he never played. Deunanknute ( talk) 16:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep. Played 31 games in the NFL. See here. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (withdrawn by nominator). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

List of chess historians

List of chess historians (  | 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 list of people with unclear inclusion criteria. While a handful seem notable for their writings on chess, it's unclear where writing about chess stops and being a "chess historian" begins. The articles of several of those who are notable enough to have articles say little to nothing about being a "chess historian". I'm not finding sufficient sources to say this is a notable subject for a stand-alone list either. Originally PRODded, but removed without explanation or improvement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep We have a category for this too and, per WP:CLN, this tends to confirm that there's a valid need for navigational aids here. There was a newsletter for a while - The Chess Historian — and there are various people celebrated as major historians of the game such as Edward Winter (chess historian). There's perhaps some scope with merger with the similar concept of the chess writer but that's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. ( talk) 14:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Actually, you're right on this one. I don't know how I could've messed up a search yesterday to account for the poor results I found, but another look shows that whatever it was, clearly I didn't do a good enough job. Withdrawn. It still needs serious cleanup, though. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 14 February 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. I am speedy closing this myself as nominator. The article was evidently misnamed and has now been replaces with a redirect to a substantive article with the correct name. JodyB _talk 13:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Belize City Hospital

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

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

PROD was removed. The single footnote does not support the statement made in the article. There is no Verification of Notability and no WP:Reliable Sources. JodyB _talk 13:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose There are now two footnotes, and this is an important, central and the main hospital in the country. Or it should be consolidated and redirected to Karl Heusner Memorial Hospital. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:33, 14 February 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. Deleted as hoax (currently tagged as such). I'm also concerned we might be linking to a site that engages in wholesale copyright violations § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 19:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

GBC Channel Germany

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

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

The article appears to be an elaborate hoax. Logo looks like it was slapped together in MS Paint, and the official website appears to have been created to deceive people into thinking it's a real channel, complete with far-fetched programming choices. Also, could not find anything about the channel on Google beyond the (supposedly fake) website and this Wikipedia article, and a banner ad for a German business web hosting service displayed prominently on it (the site). Electric Burst^{( Electron firings)}_{( Zaps)} 11:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Agree that this is a hoax; cannot find any sources in English or German discussing the topic other than the extremely unprofessional website that almost certainly does not belong to a major media organization. Would speedy delete, but the topic is difficult enough to research due to the generic name that I may be missing something. — Verrai 02:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Anything that needs in depth research should not be speedied. Having said that, I agree that the website is tacky, and is hosted at a free web site host to boot. Never mind Paint, you could probably set the logo up in Word. I've done a search, repeated with more and more removals (such as the Goldenrod Baptist Church's channel, which took thousands off the hits total), and not found anything of interest. If they can't find anything themselves, or can't be bothered, it should go. Peridon ( talk) 13:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 00:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Once (Morris Gleitzman novel)

Once (Morris Gleitzman novel) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. (My redirect to Once (Morris Gleitzman novel) was reverted, with the edit summary " rv deletion by stealth – take it to AfD". The redirect should be restored.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. A cursory examination of Trove and AustLit entries for this novel indicate that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". -- 110.20.234.69 ( talk) 11:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep – It's a work by an eminently notable Australian writer of children's books. Without even trying, I find that it has been translated into German, made into a German radio play, featured in at least 2 awards there, and been reviewed in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. It's been recommended by the Children's Book Council of Australia. It's on the reading list of Education Services Australia. The Guardian sells it in its shop. The book is the opener to Gleitzman's Holocaust series and Wikipedia ought to have articles on all of them. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 12:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Materialscientist ( talk) 10:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hamatro (revived series)

Hamatro (revived 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)

Article does not cite any sources, and has absolutely no info in the actual article. All it is is an infobox. Page could be WP:CRYSTAL at best, but I believe it's a blatant hoax. Also, "Hamtaro" is misspelled in the article title. Electric Burst^{( Electron firings)}_{( Zaps)} 08:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete G3 Very unlikely a Japanese anime production went to a German company for a reboot. Claimed website is not available to view. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 10:09, 14 February 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. Nakon 04:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Pia Wurtzbach

Pia Wurtzbach (  | 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)

Non-notable person. One source has been added, so it can't be speedied as a non-referenced BLP. Should be an uncontroversial delete, given that this person has not even held a national title (being runner-up isn't good enough), but given the fact that there are ongoing issues with beauty pageant related articles, especially Phillippines related ones, I felt the AFD should be dignified with at least a discussion. Mabalu ( talk) 14:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I do not think that Winmelgarcia is necessarily linked to the whole epic Mrdhimas sockpuppet/meatpuppet situation, but unfortunately anyone who actively edits in the same topic areas (particularly move-warring on one of Mrdhimas's favourite pages), is bound to be viewed with suspicion. Mabalu ( talk) 14:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I looked for other sources and couldn't find anything except articles about her being a runner-up last year and planning to compete this year. Not enough to show notability. BenedictineMalediction ( talk) 15:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I tried to clean up and source the article. The subject primarily gets attention as a perennial contestant in a beauty pageant. However, a HighBeam search shows coverage from The Manila Bulletin as a former ABS CBN teen actress (stage name Pia Romero). So far, she comes up short on both WP:ENT and WP:GNG. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination until such time that sufficient sourcing is available to substantiate a biography. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 20:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep subject appears to meet the GNG as she has quite a bit of press coverage in the Phillipeans (not all in English, but that is not an issue): [20] -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, but what is this coverage exactly? Is it related solely to her participating in the pageant and failing to place? That is not normally considered sufficient for notability. If all she is notable for is failing to win beauty pageants, how does that make her notable? (Of course if the coverage is also related to her acting career, then that would help.) Mabalu ( talk) 00:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

There is no policy based reason for excluding coverage of failed pageant entries. That is your personal opinion only. Our notability guidelines say coverage=notability, not accomplishments=notability. And she was first runner-up, so its not like she was just some random contestant. That said, she also writes regularly for the Inquirer, e.g. [21].

The discussions about American beauty pageant contestants are mostly headed toward keep. Wurtzbach has more coverage than almost all of them. It sure feels like systematic bias is at play here. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Whoa. Not sure what you implied with that closing statement, but I'm sure it wasn't nice. As far as I can tell we've never considered runner-ups notable unless they have other reasons to be notable - any contestant will get "coverage" simply by being mentioned in coverage of these shows, but it's hardly significant coverage. By this reasoning I think you're suggesting that anybody who gets regularly mentioned in a national newspaper's society column as being seen at parties or social events would be considered Wikipedia-article-worthy? Blimey, by that reasoning, /I/ would deserve a Wikipedia article of my own, because I've had ongoing multiple mentions in newspapers/magazines/other media since the 1980s, but I'm pretty sure that the fact no straight man would want to see me in a bikini makes me non-notable. ;) Mabalu ( talk) 23:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Um, nothing was implied other than exactly what the term means, see WP:Systematic bias. We've never ever considered anyone not notable based on insufficient accomplishments. That isn't how notability works on Wikipedia; it is not a synonym for "important". The definition of notability is "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". There is nothing in the guideline about judging the reason for said coverage. Finally, you are confusing "mentioned" with "has significant coverage". When someone is mentioned in an article about another subject, that doesn't count for notability. When the article is about them, they do. Here, if Wurtzbach was merely mentioned in articles about the pageant then you'd be current that they confer no notability. However, what we actually have is many article about her that mention the pageant. That does convey notability. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, subject has received passing mention in reliable sources (such as this one) but none which I would considered providing in-depth or significant coverage of the subject of this AfD. Subject has not won any notable pageants therefore fails WP:ANYBIO & does not have a document cult following or meet other criteria set forth in WP:ENTERTAINER. Therefore, it maybe too soon for the subject to be considered notable. That being said I would not be opposed to this article being incubated in case the subject receives more reliable sources coverage.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per ThaddeusB, "meet the GNG as she has quite a bit of press coverage in the Phillipeans" WordSeventeen ( talk) 06:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep: Received quite some coverage, but not too in-depth coverage. Most of the coverage only expend a couple sentences on the pageant. Esquivalience ^t 02:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep More than just a beauty pageant contestant, a working actress (since age 11 -- supporting her family) and model, gets substantive write-ups in Philippine media such as here and here and here and here and here and here. Meets the WP:GNG. Plus article upgraded (cruft removed) as per WP:HEYMANN.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Most of the linked sources are about the pageants which the subject has been involved in and not in-depth coverage of the subject as the primary subject of the sources provided.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 06:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Wurtzbach is the subject of several articles, with her name mentioned in the headline, the article discussing her (of course in the context of the pageant), with her photo prominent, which meets the WP:GNG.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 10:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Title mention does not equal in-depth or significant coverage. A paragraph does not in-depth or significant coverage make.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 00:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Embassy of Sweden, Rome

Embassy of Sweden, Rome (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable. There is also no bilateral article to redirect this to. Also nominating:

• Embassy of India, Rome
• Embassy of Colombia, Holy See LibStar ( talk) 12:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete both - I'm sorry. What happened there again? :P Jackninja5 ( talk) 14:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I've actually nominated 3 articles. LibStar ( talk) 15:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

D'oh! I should've put my glasses on. So make that three. Jackninja5 ( talk) 15:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep The swedish embassy in Rome is notable because the italo-swedush relations are important for both country. As exemple thousand of Italians live in Sweden, Italy and Sweden are not two small country with less than 1 milion citizen. User:Lucifero4

that may be true but that's facts for a Italy Sweden bilateral article. you haven't demonstrated how WP:ORG is met, an embassy must meet notability criteria not be "important" for people. LibStar ( talk) 04:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep all If embassies aren't notable, that needs to change immidiately or else Wikipedia experiences a major lack in the coverage of bilateral relations and international politics. J 1982 ( talk) 09:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

you've presented no evidence or argument as to how notability is met. LibStar ( talk) 11:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Closing admin should disregard the two votes immediately above, which make no policy-based argument whatsoever. Neutrality ^talk 01:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are lots of facts that are not at the moment to be found in the article itself but can easily be retrieved from other sources and which show that there is more relevance than "meets the eye" at the moment. First of all: as can be seen in the corresponding article on svwp the list of ambassadors could be drawn back at least to the mid-18th century. Secondly: the 1960s building mentioned in the present article and in this link is only a part of the embassy (used by the administration). There is also the main residence of the ambassador, which is a building from 1896, bought by the Swedish state in 1922; see this link (which also points out that there has been diplomatic relations between Sweden and Italy since the 15th century, making this embassy (as an institution) Sweden's oldest). / FredrikT ( talk) 09:13, 18 February 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. Nakon 04:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Corey Schou

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

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

While the subject of this article has made contributions to his academic field, I do not believe that he has passed the threshold of notability required by WP:ACADEMIC. Furthermore, the article appears to be mostly self-authored, a violation of WP:SELFPROMOTION. — Remember the dot ^{( talk)} 18:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep. His University Professor title gives him a pass of WP:PROF#C5 despite the relatively weak citation record. But it's only a weak keep because apart from that the evidence is less clear to me and also because of the autobio issue. The article could stand to be stubbed back to something more encyclopedic; I have made a start (removing the listings of his courses and grants) but more could be done. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  WP:PROF#C5 requires that the professor's university be "a major institution of higher education and research" (emphasis mine), and defines "major institutions" as "those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity". I would not say that Idaho State University has a reputation for excellence or selectivity in either education or research, much less both. — Remember the dot ^{( talk)} 04:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Sources indicate that he has been a fellow and a board member for (ISC)², as well as editor-in-chief of the organization's journal. I have no knowledge regarding the significance of the organization or its journal, but I'm just putting this out there. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 08:26, 25 January 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. Missvain ( talk) 00:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

AB Elise

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

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

Title is a company, article is only about a "product" design, no indication of notability per WP:CORP Deunanknute ( talk) 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

How about moving this to Eco-city 2020 and removing the spam? QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 13:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

commentI don't think "Eco-city 2020" should get an article at all. It's a conceptual design. I haven't found any reference to it being "officially" considered for construction. Deunanknute ( talk) 14:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Many conceptual designs have an article, including those who are less notable (by google results) than this design. For example, Scandinavian Tower and Miglin-Beitler Skyneedle. -- Virtualerian ( talk) 16:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

comment from a quick search; both [22] of those [23] appear to have been approved, then cancelled. Deunanknute ( talk) 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, From what I can gather it's just proposals at the moment, I'm assuming this is being built in 2020 which if that's the case than this should be recreated in 2017/2018 when things should've hopefully moved ahead. – Davey2010 ^Talk 02:20, 19 February 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. The provided reliable sources appear to meet the notability requirements for this article. Nakon 04:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change

Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NBOOK. Tgeairn ( talk) 02:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:NBOOK PianoDan ( talk) 00:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - As an older book the reviews available online may be a little lacking, but there seems to be little doubt that it had an impact judging by the number of citations. A look on Google Scholar shows 241 citations. Studies/analyses have been conducted based on this book, for example, The Conway and Siegelman claims against religious cults: An assessment of their data published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. In Deprogramming, brainwashing and the medicalization of deviant religious groups, the authors talk about the book being "their widely read Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change...". Talked about directly (more than a brief mention, more than just a citation) in a whole lot of papers and books like Religion in America since 1945: A History (Columbia University Press via Questia), Social Theory and Social Policy: Essays in Honor of James S. Coleman (Praeger via Questia), many times in Teaching New Religious Movements (Oxford University Press via Questia), Bill Bright & Campus Crusade for Christ: The Renewal of Evangelicalism in Postwar America (University of North Carolina Press via Questia), Brief Treatments for the Traumatized: A Project of the Green Cross Foundation (Greenwood Press via Questia), New Religions as Global Cultures: Making the Human Sacred (Westview Press via Questia), The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives (University of British Columbia Press via Questia), New Religious Movements in the United States and Canada: A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography (Greenwood Press via Questia), The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements (Oxford University Press via Questia)..... I still have about a dozen tabs open but will stop there as I know it's annoying to have a pile of paywalled links (published provided for each to crossreference elsewhere -- and to show that these are good sources). Seems like it easily passes notability standards. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I caution reliance on the Google Scholar citation count. For example, the list above includes The Conway and Siegelman claims against religious cults: An assessment of their data. The relevant passage in that article is "...In one of the most read and widely-cited articles of this latter type, Conway and Siegelman (1982), the authors of Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change (1979), claim..." which is not about the book in question here, but rather about a 1982 article. In general, this field is pretty fringe and one finds a large number of reprints, compilations, "encyclopedias", etc. all citing each other. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 15:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Notability not established because no substantial coverage by secondary sources cited. The one secondary source cited in the article is about an article that was a source for the book, not about the book itself. The fact that it's mentioned and/or cited in other books and articles does not establish general notability or notability for books (which policy has fairly high standards.) Borock ( talk) 14:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete This article has been around since 2005 and still has no secondary sources cited that discuss the book itself. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 13:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Apparently Cunard was making an eleventh-hour post as I was closing this. Given the content of his post, I'm WP:IAR'ing and relisting this instead of closing it. –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 00:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See the long list of editorial reviews from Amazon.com:
  1. From Library Journal:

     In this expanded edition of the 1978 original, Conway and Siegelman continue their study of the altering of the American psyche, which has led to the rise of religious cults, super Christian sects, private citizen militias, and other phenomena that dominate today's headlines. Probably more timely now than when first published, this is an important title for academic and public libraries.

     Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.

  2. From Scientific American:

     Explores the way cults and other factors are causing people to give themselves over to those like David Koresh of Waco infamy, or becoming walking time bombs like Timothy McVeigh, the alleged perpetrator of the Oklahoma bombing...a powerful look at a social phenomenon that is making headlines.

  3. From The New Yorker:

     Their book is judicious, sensible, well-researched and very frightening.

  4. "Snapping" is an exciting and responsible and original piece of research which has taught this old poop amazing new ways to think about the human mind. -- Kurt Vonnegut
  5. Classic returns....More timely now than when first published....An important title for academic and public libraries. -- Library Journal
  6. Conway and Siegelman are onto something important..."Snapping" is a fascinating book with frightening implications. -- Edward T. Hall, author of "The Silent Language"
  7. Conway and Siegelman deliver a powerful book and an amazing yet responsible look at the inner workings of the human mind. -- The Examined Life: A Psychology Newsletter
  8. In a prophetic vein again...."Snapping" is not only fascinating and frightening reading, it is also extremely well-written....The escalating pattern of cult fanaticism and religious-political terror that the authors call a "death spiral" seems to be widening. If we do nothing to understand and ultimately reverse that pattern, it will pull more and more innocent people into its vortex. -- Cleveland Jewish News
  9. It is a book of investigative reporting at its best. -- New York Post
  10. What Woodward and Bernstein were to Watergate, Conway and Siegelman may well be to the cults. -- United Press International
  11. What are the social links between cultists, born-again converts, and political extremists? There are closer connections than one might think, and this labels the alteration of personality which has become an American norm, examining how mind-altering practices change the brain's information processing system. Intriguing examples of cult extremes accompany the authors' contentions. -- Midwest Book Review
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 00:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• The book reviews from Library Journal, Scientific American, The New Yorker, Cleveland Jewish News, United Press International, and Midwest Book Review clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard ( talk) 00:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• More coverage provided by Amazon.com:
  1. "Classic Returns!....In this expanded edition of the 1978 original, Conway and Siegelman continue their study of the altering of the American psyche, which has led to the rise of religious cults, super Christian sects, private citizen militias, and other phenomena that dominate today's headlines. Probably more timely now than when first published, this is an important title for academic and public libraries." - Library Journal
  2. "Their book is judicious, sensible, well-researched and very frightening." - The New York Times Book Review
  3. "It is a book of investigative reporting at its best." - New York Post
  4. "What Woodward and Bernstein were to Watergate, Conway and Siegelman may well be to the cults." - United Press International
  5. "Credible and chilling . . . The second edition of SNAPPING is as important a resource in understanding spreading societal chaos as the first edition was in explaining the chaos of cults." - Minneapolis Star-Tribune
  6. "Important. . . . this book provides a tool to exercise judgment, monitor incoming information, and interpret what has become an increasingly intrusive battle for our minds. . . . At its core, it is language that holds the key to our mental health or to our destruction. What George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' is to literature, 'SNAPPING' is to non-fiction." - Albuquerque Journal
  7. "In a prophetic vein. . . . SNAPPING is not only fascinating and frightening reading, it is also extremely well-written. . . . The escalating pattern of cult fanaticism and religious-political terror that the authors call a 'death spiral' seems to be widening. If we do nothing to understand and ultimately reverse that pattern, it will pull more and more innocent people into its vortex." - Cleveland Jewish News
  8. "For anyone threatened with snapping, this book is a dispassionate, valuable study of an often frightening phenomenon." - People
  9. "There is no doubt that Conway and Siegelman are opening the door on areas of human understanding that have never been examined and that are in urgent need of study." - New Society
  10. "SNAPPING is an exciting and responsible and original piece of research that has taught this old poop amazing new ways to think about the human mind." - Kurt Vonnegut
  11. "SNAPPING is by far the best and most scientific treatment of the cult problem yet published. For the scientist, politician, clergy or parent, it is valuable and wonderfully readable." - John Gordon Clark, M.D. Asst. Clinical Professor of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School
  12. "Conway and Siegelman . . . place cultic behavior in the wider context of the communication revolution of our time. . . Indeed, SNAPPING unfolds as a traveling detective investigation. . . . they very capably trace and analyze the course of the phenomenon and . . . contribute greatly to our understanding of it." - The Cult Observer
  13. "Conway and Siegelman are onto something important. . . . SNAPPING is a fascinating book with frightening implications." - Edward T. Hall, author of The Silent Language
  14. "[The] classic book on cults, still the best book ever. . . . Believe me, folks, these are the real experts." - Geraldo Rivera
  Cunard ( talk) 20:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Kitfoxxe- Elmmapleoakpine ( talk) 18:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Please keep. I will try to improve the article by citing texts that define terms correctly and adding citations and reliable sources. SNAPPING is now a classic reference book on this subject matter and time period. The book has been used as a reference for many articles, dissertations, MA theses and research projects in many fields including religion, psychology, medicine, and newer fields actually dealing with deprogramming and the distinctions made regarding the technologies of "information overload", "brainwashing" -- "snapping" and the "epidemic" of cult phenomena, and now there may even be possible current sub-categories that deal with this "disease" / phenomena within politics, multilevel marketing, social media, etc. The fact that users search wiki to FIND "anything" wiki has on this book as a reference for others is a sign that Wiki is a viable source and so it is important for wiki to keep the book. I agree that the article needs work but I will need time to get and link the right sources, etc. Again, in terms of its "classic" status as a reference, this book seems to stand on its own merits and the original research of its authors apart from any other books they may have authored. Startarrant ( talk) 15:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)startarrant reply

• Keep -- I'm very confused how WP:NBOOK can be cited as reason for a delete when it clearly says "two or more ... this includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." (emphasis mine). Looking up there are clearly more than two reviews from notable and reputable sources. — Noah 16:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Noah - The above are Blurbs and don't meet the "non-trivial", "independent" requirement for reviews (see the footnotes in NBOOK). They are solicited by the publisher (and some don't appear to be about this book). Thanks, Tgeairn ( talk) 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the clarification. Keeping my keep for now... even with some percentage of what has been mentioned above being discarded there seems to be enough citations of this book to establish notability. Such as: 1, 2, 3. — Noah 17:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Understood. I don't dispute that the book has been cited by others, I just don't think it meets the notability requirements for a standalone article. Thanks for the link to 1973 Nervous Breakdown - it looks interesting and I'm going to find a copy of that for myself. Cheers, Tgeairn ( talk) 17:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Tgeairn: I haven't read it myself but it does look appealing. I suppose the opening Warhol epigraph was meant to be ironic? The '70s were most certainly not empty. — Noah 17:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete No independent sources in article. It does not matter how many random Amazon blurbs you post here, these are not sources for the notability of the article. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 23:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• No independent sources in article. – There is no deadline.

  It does not matter how many random Amazon blurbs you post here, these are not sources for the notability of the article. – the snippets I posted from Amazon.com are small quotes from reviews of the book by Library Journal, Scientific American, The New Yorker, Cleveland Jewish News, United Press International, Midwest Book Review, The New York Times Book Review, New York Post, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Albuquerque Journal, People, and New Society.

  It is ignorant to say that these small quotes are all blurbs. There are a few blurbs above (like the ones cited to people rather than actual newspaper or magazine publications). But the overwhelming majority are reviews from newspaper or magazine publications, which do not write promotional blurbs for books.

  Those reviews strongly support Rhododendrites ( talk · contribs)'s assertion that "As an older book the reviews available online may be a little lacking, but there seems to be little doubt that it had an impact judging by the number of citations."

  Cunard ( talk) 00:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Please don't add comments in the middle of my comments. I've refactored the discussion so that our comments are not interspersed.

  I disagree that the article must have the sources. The essay WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP is applicable. Startarrant ( talk · contribs) has expressed interest in rewriting the article. Per WP:NOTDEADLINE, we should give him and any other interested users the time to do so. Cunard ( talk) 00:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Article does not indicate notability. I can make up anything and post it on Wikipedia, but it won't be kept just because I say my friend will rewrite it. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 00:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• From your essay on NOTDEADLINE, "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." This supports deletion by suggesting you should have waited for notability to be established to write the article. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 01:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - The argument above that the quotes from Amazon are "blurbs" is just false. For your referencing pleasure, here are a few of the full citations:
  • Library Journal -- Book Review: Psychology & Psychiatry -- Conway, Flo & Jim Siegelman. Snapping: America's Epidemic of sudden personality change. [review] Library Journal. 6/1/1978, Vol. 103 Issue 11, p1180-1183. 4p.
  • Library Journal -- Book Reviews: Nonfiction. By: Rogers, Michael. Library Journal. 12/1/1995, Vol. 120 Issue 20, p165. 1/8p. (note: review of the expanded edition)
  • New York Times -- Paperbacks: New and noteworthy. (1980, Jan 06). New York Times (1923-Current File) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/121183091?accountid=12725
  • People Magazine brief review in "Picks and Pans"
  • People Magazine full article
  • also just happened to run across this one at NYT -- a primary article indeed, but one in the New York Times which was seemingly written in connection with this book: By Jim Siegelman and,Flo Conway. (1979, Nov 15). Still, jonestownism runs on. New York Times (1923-Current File) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/123920755?accountid=12725 --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Unfortunately I am still discussing deletion of the article, not of this AfD. When I do a google search, blogs and groups come up, not these book teviews, and, with so many words of discussion, you don't find these sources notable enough to add to the article, only to discuss here, for some reaon I am not interested in exploring. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 02:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• "I googled it and nothing good came up" is an unusually poor argument. WP:N is very clear about both of these issues: where notability is concerned, the sources must exist. That you don't see them in your google search is not relevant. That they're not cited in the article is not relevant. In the first place, there are links and citations above that should make finding the sources fairly straightforward. In the second, that's what maintenance templates are for (e.g. Template:Refimprove). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:12, 18 February 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. Nakon 04:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Highland Mills Fire Company

Highland Mills Fire Company (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Small town fire department in NY fails WP:GNG, only source is primary. Vrac ( talk) 14:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Per nominator. Jackninja5 ( talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep the topic is notable being historic and documented in sources such as this. Andrew D. ( talk) 09:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Merge – to Woodbury, Orange County, New York. After several source searches, not finding enough coverage per WP:GNG for a standalone article. Passing mentions abound such as [24], [25], [26], so the topic is verifiable. The merge target presently does not even mention this fire department. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 7 February 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. postdlf ( talk) 23:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedaway

Speedaway (  | 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 checked Google, and I didn't find much beyond a few school sites posting the rules. I'm not convinced it has enough notability for an article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless something more is shown in terms of notability. There are many games played in school PE departments that don't get articles - I can't see one on Coastguards and Pirates (which definitely makes use of a very wide range of muscles and agility...). At present, there's too much reliance on two sites in the referencing, and I've put a 'citation needed' on the claim to being world-wide. Peridon ( talk) 13:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep Here's a journal cite. Pax 08:54, 29 January 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. czar  ⨹ 13:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

F. Gregory Holland

F. Gregory Holland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Autobiography with no indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO, and no substantial coverage online from WP:RS, just passing mentions on niche blogs and self-published lists of his recordings on Discogs, CDbaby, etc. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 12:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD ( talk) 12:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The article stresses that the subject is listed on AllAboutJazz; however, one usually has to be careful in using that site whether as a reference or in an AfD discussion, as it includes both bylined reviews and user submitted content. There is a past discussion on this in the Wikiproject Jazz archive. AllyD ( talk) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete: The most substantial reference in this WP:SPA article submitted by User:Greg's wiki is probably the brief review of his new album on "Smooth Jazz Daily", but it falls short as a reliable source as a non-bylined review on a blog which itself has no evidence of notability. Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google, Allaboutjazz, Allmusic) are not turning up evidence of notability. AllyD ( talk) 13:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per AllyD. Looks like an extensive discography, but they all appear to be self-released (either via eponymous label, or CD Baby). I wouldn't rule out an artist's article based on self-released albums (see also: Sun Ra), if the recordings had been reviewed in a notable medium and/or by a notable reviewer. But as AllyD pointed out, that doesn't seem to be the case. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:33, 14 February 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. Nakon 04:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

U. T. Downs

U. T. Downs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Being the mayor of a small US town does not satisfy WP:NPOL. Prod was disputed; other than being a small town mayor/sheriff, only other claim to fame is being mentioned in a 1925 encyclopedia of Louisiana OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 10:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. He is in the Henry E. Chambers 1925 History of Louisiana with his own biography. A History of Louisiana, (vol. 2), pp. 245-246, by Henry E. Chambers. Published by The American Historical Society, Inc., Chicago and New York, 1925. This alone should meet notability concerns. That is a major work of pre-1925 Louisiana history. There is no restriction listed in the Wikipedia guidelines in regard to mayors and the population of their cities. Nor are sheriffs specifically mentioned. City council members are not mentioned; there are twelve articles on city council members for Bangor, Maine, a city of 33,000, much smaller than Rapides Parish, Louisiana, of which Mr. Downs was sheriff but larger than Pineville, where he was mayor prior to being sheriff. I found two out-of-state newspapers with articles on U. T. Downs. There won't be much else on the Internet about him since he died in 1941. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 12:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment From WP:NPOL: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[11] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. I fail to see how a small town mayor or sheriff would meet that guideline. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment It also says "local politicians" can be covered with significant news coverage. The Chamber history should alone meet the notability test. Bangor, Maine has twelve city council members and eight mayors. So if a mayor/sheriff does not qualify, how does a city council member in Bangor, Maine, qualify? Billy Hathorn ( talk) 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)A "local politician" should cover a mayor or a sheriff, or in this case, one who held both offices. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 01:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• If there is a two page encyclopedia article about him, and newspaper coverage, he will satisfy GNG. James500 ( talk) 18:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Source: http://files.usgwarchives.net/la/rapides/bios/downsut.txt Billy Hathorn ( talk) 15:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per WP:BASIC, which indicates that people who meet WP:GNG may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria (such as WP:NPOL).-- Antigng ( talk) 15:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Imran Pratapgarhi

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 22:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (yarn) @ 13:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (utter) @ 13:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete -There appears to be some bit of coverage of subject in few reliable sources such as, - [27], [28], [29], [30]. However they are not enough to help subject meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG standard (majority of the sources are only having passing/short mentions). Anupmehra - Let's talk! 18:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• I am looking forward to a redirect proposal. Anupmehra is right about numerous mentions in reliable sources. Noteswork ( talk) 16:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Lack of progress, not enough notable for having separate article. Noteswork ( talk) 15:22, 14 February 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 VIXX. postdlf ( talk) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

N (singer)

N (singer) (  | 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 any reason why this person should be notable outside of his own band, VIXX; the only thing he seems to have done by himself is be on TV a few times and guest in a video clip or two. Drmies ( talk) 17:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete and redirect to VIXX. Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of individual notability outside of his group. Shinyang-i ( talk) 01:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect I see no true reason for a single/individual article. Redirect to VIXX BlackJack58 ( talk) 04:59, 31 January 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. Nakon 04:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Dyro

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

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

No evidence of notability, fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSIC Cult of Green ( talk) 04:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - I can find interviews, including this one but I'm seeing a lot of name association with him, which would contradict WP:NOTINHERITED -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 23:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep I had to ponder on this but I was able to dig further and find some coverage from some reputable magazines/ news feed. Including Vibe magazine. BlackJack58 ( talk) 04:53, 31 January 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. Nakon 04:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Agustín Fernández (director)

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

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

It's in Spanish, I think. I don't actually know Spanish. It could be in Portuguese. Either way, it's not in English. k_scheik ( talk) 02:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 02:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 02:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment-wrong tag to put on it, you don't put a afd for a article in another language. Anyway, can't say keep or delete. I put the right tag up on the article though. (I know only a little Spanish and that's it) Wgolf ( talk) 03:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I've tagged this as a speedy since it already exists on the Spanish language Wikipedia here. If anyone wants to translate this into English they can, but all articles should be in English. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• On a side note it does say that he's won some Emmys, but I'm having some slight trouble actually finding anything to back this up. His IMDb doesn't say anything about that and while the site will sometimes not have every award on there, the Emmys are one of the more major American awards out there. Even when they're regional they tend to be listed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep for now. The article is now in English (although it possibly could use a little editing for style) and there are sources. I am not sure if his career actually passes notability, but it seems to. The reasons above do not justify deleting though. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:29, 12 February 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 Veil of Maya. Nakon 04:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Lukas Magyar

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

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

Looking over this-it seems this could just be redirected to the band. Wgolf ( talk) 02:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Lukas Magyar is the lead vocalist of the band who's had a major influence and in some eyes, is the reason, for the entire Djent metal scene. He's been highly controversial among the fans and a major topic in metal sources and the blogosphere. He's without a doubt having an impact on the this scene of music and plays an important and crucial role in the telling of the Dent metal scene story. Lukas Magyar is relevant and a Wikipedia notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorkMayo ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

^ Lukas, we know this is you who made this page and it's you who just wrote that. I highly doubt if you never joined Veil of Maya nobody would have ever heard their name in this entire life. You have an ego the size of Jupiter. Your arrogance is insane. You are not James Hetfield or Ronnie James Dio. What the hell, dude? You've been part of a deathcore band for only a few weeks!!! Second Skin ( talk) 05:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Veil of Maya. He was confirmed as replacement lead singer of this band one week ago, and it is far too soon to have an article about him. The article is based mostly on Facebook speculation and social media rumormongering. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Wrong. He was speculated in November and confirmed January 1, 2015. If he fell of the earth tomorrow, his impression on the djent scene has been profound. Currently he stands as the central reason for the band who began this scene to shift the style of the metal style as it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.170.126 ( talk) 17:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete or rediect, either one I don't care. This was just some page made by Lukas who obviously has an insanely huge ego. Needs to get over himself. He's not a rockstar just because he's been in a popular deathcore band for a month. Second Skin ( talk) 05:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment-So it is a COI page also? (And are the IP edits possible sock puppets of him too?) Well that is interesting. Never even heard of this person or anything about this band until well, the other day! Wgolf ( talk) 05:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to band article. Too soon, most sources are to facebook and twitter, blogs. Then there are the other troubling issues with COI / autobiography. This member needs to be discovered by some reliable sources. Fylbecatulous talk 12:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Lukas did not create this page. I did. I have no past relationship with him other than meeting him briefly last year. I am working on laying down the foundry for a project I am putting together on the Djent scene. My intention was to build and create Wiki pages for guys like Spencer Sotelo, Marc Ocubo and Tosin Abasi who've all had major influences or helped trail blaze this style of metal. Reason for beginning with Lukas is I began my research back in September with Veil of Maya when the VOM story got increasingly interesting. Lukas, was the center of it. This is likely TMI, but to be fair to him and the band, I just wanted to clear his name of any wrong doing. I've already relocated the content on Lukas to the Veil of Maya page. Would anyone like to do me the courtesy of telling me whether or not the names listed above are WIKI worthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorkMayo ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

It seems I've already created my first Wiki mistake. How do we delete this page? Could someone please inform me on the people listed above?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 04:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Pop Music (album)

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

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

Searched and this does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley ( talk) 03:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:NALBUM Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:07, 9 February 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. Nakon 04:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Clèmerson Merlin Clève

Clèmerson Merlin Clève (  | 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 exceptional notability established other than being a jurist, professor and lawyer. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. WP:N requires that article topics be notable, not exceptionally notable, so the nomination does not appear to advance a valid rationale for deletion. Multiple papers with 100+ cites is notability in any field. I suspect that a GS h-index of 14 will also satisfy criteria 1 of WP:PROF in this field. Law is apparently a very low citation field for academics. According to LSE, the average h-index of a (full) law professor (2.8) is the lowest of any of the social sciences, significantly less than the average across all such disciplines (4.9), and far below the number suggested by Hirsch for a (full) professor of physics (18). James500 ( talk) 09:06, 8 February 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 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

1321 Downtown Taproom Bistro

1321 Downtown Taproom Bistro (  | 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 sounds like a local bar in a small town with no history. And it's not even open anymore. It operated for all of three years and nothing important seems to have happened there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strassburguesa ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 22 January 2015‎ (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not notable. Single-location, apparently unsuccessful, short-lived, now-closed restaurant. The article lists a few references but they are standard here's-a-restaurant-in-our-area type stories. (I was almost fooled by the Huffington Post reference into thinking it got national coverage; turns out that was the Los Angeles Huffington Post.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as above. This really needn't have been relisted... Neutrality ^talk 06:36, 15 February 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 Transwikify to Wikisource. I will be moving these articles to User:Ariostos's userspace so they may move it as necessary. Nakon 04:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

List of United States political party platforms

List of United States political party platforms (  | 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 consists of the full text of various party platforms of political parties in the United States from the 19th and 20th centuries. However, WP:NOTREPOSITORY states that Wikipedia articles are not merely "collections of ... public domain or other source material such as ... original historical documents". Such content may be appropriate on Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. See also the guideline Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. These are indeed lengthy primary sources. I would not object to these platforms being transwikied to Wikisource, but it should be considered whether some of them may be subject to copyright and thus should not be placed on Wikisource. (I take no position on whether that should prevent the transwikiing of any of the platforms, but I just wanted to raise it as an issue.) However, I recommend that this article be deleted from Wikipedia. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply