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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Unit (art collective)

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

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

Art collective long tagged for notability-was up for a AFD late last year and was voted no consensus. Wgolf ( talk) 23:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Yep, it's been tagged for notability for over 7 years, so certainly deserves a good discussion. Has some notable members, but doesn't seem to be notable. Pinging those who have commented on its notability before: AllyD, Andy Dingley, Ethicoaestheticist. Boleyn ( talk) 06:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete: That sure as hell shouldn't have been a non-admin closure, it should've been relisted until more than two people spoke up. For my part, my answer to the only Keep voter is that notability is still not inherited. I couldn't find anything remotely close to reliable on Google UK, and the sources in the article are garbage: a blog post from a long-defunct webpage, two gallery websites and an unlinked "Artists Newsletter." Fails the GNG by a country mile. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - yeeuch. Notability is not inherited, no significant coverage, no notable achievements (not to mention non-encyclopaedic content and a big old puff-piece. Elephantbronze ( talk) 22:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete- nothing notable here. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Repeating here most of my position on the first AfD: "not finding anything substantial that would indicate critical attention or evaluation of Unit as such. The principals of the group don't appear to have the established notability in their own right which might confer retrospective notability on this group, as suggested above, nor does notability inherit from putting on exhibitions by say John Latham, much of whose career probably preceded the lifespan of the Unit members. Unless someone can identify actual coverage of the group itself, this fails WP:ORGDEPTH." AllyD ( talk) 07:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete because notability isn't inherited from its members, and it isn't notable on its own. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 20:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Am slightly perturbed as to why User:Sukhvirlam has used the seemingly fake signature FrankUnderwood12 on their keep !vote but it doesn't change the outcome. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Surf (2015)

Surf (2015) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Explicitly states that the album release is "rumored". Smileguy91 ^{Spread the knowledge!} 01:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete It is based on rumors, and the single source mentions the end of 2014, not 2015. Clearly not notable and not yet real. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• KEEP In this Fader ^[1] exclusive cover story, Chance the rapper himself acknowledges the album's expected release and quote "The rest of the crew is looking slightly worse for the wear, though, having been up until the crack of dawn putting some finishing touches on Surf." The album was expected in October 2014, however due to delays it has been pushed back. No there isn't a release date, but the direct implication of it being released in the near future is there as in this cover story Chance states that they are just now finishing the album and to expect a summer tour, which also implies the album will come out before the summer. FrankUnderwood12 22:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Let's discuss.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Reply We need coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability. The rapper talking about his own (possibly) upcoming album is the exact opposite of independent coverage. What else have you got, FrankUnderwood12. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - "to be released in 2015" - Well judging by that no one's updated the article because I assume no one has any idea when it gets released, All for we know it could've been cancelled .... so unless anyone can find anything that says this is getting released any time this century than I'll have to say Delete, oh and per WP:CRYSTAL....... – Davey2010 ^Talk 05:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete would make more sense as section discussing change of direction by Chance the Rapper on article page until it is verified: WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL @Rob talk 15:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete (no redirect -- too generic a title) per the above -- WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 23:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Ruos Cheat Jivit

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

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

Obscure show with no refs or even notability at all. All the Google hits I got were wiki links even. Wgolf ( talk) 23:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Withdraw-This has to be a record for the quickest withdraw. Anyway as it turns out there is a alternate English title that was on the side bar that was not linked here The Taste of Life-which I'm going to create a redirect for. Well sorry about that! Wgolf ( talk) 23:06, 29 March 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. The Snowager -is awake 13:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) reply

The Babysitter Battle (TV series)

The Babysitter Battle (TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I put a csd up-but this is nto a real show and a hoax-surprise it has been around this long! Wgolf ( talk) 22:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as hoax. Basically inconceivable that a new series, supposedly around for over a year on the Disney Channel (which has a huge fan base), would not generate vast numbers of Google hits, reviews, commentary, fan pages, merchandise, etc. Every sign of a clear hoax. Calamondin12 ( talk) 16:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment-Can't believe it wasn't speedied last year-I saw it was a hoax right away even-I put up a csd but decided to do a AFD as well seeing how pages go on the Hoax page (well at least it will have the (dis) honor of appearing on Wikipedia hoaxes!) Wgolf ( talk) 16:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete - Every little trace of this article tells me it's a hoax since no hits related to the series were on Google and due to the fact that the article is unsourced. I would close this submission if I was an admin but alas. The Snowager -is awake 02:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I did put a csd up. (I have some younger family who watches Disney channel and they could tell you this is fake) Wgolf ( talk) 02:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 01:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Maja Čukić

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

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

fails WP:GNG, only known from WP:ONEEVENT. No sources conform WP:RS. The Banner  talk 21:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - winner of a national beauty title. Plenty of potential sources exists - see WP:BEFORE. Bearian ( talk) 00:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per Bearian. WordSeventeen ( talk) 00:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep after adding several references from reliable third-party sources as subject crosses verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky ( talk) 20:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • She still participated in only one event... The Banner  talk 22:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 01:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Javidan Gurbanova

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

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

fails WP:GNG, only known from WP:ONEEVENT. No sources conform WP:RS. The Banner  talk 21:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep as while English-language coverage of Azerbaijan topics is difficult to find, it's not impossible. Sources in other languages are not ideal but would fulfill the WP:GNG requirements, should they be located. - Dravecky ( talk) 21:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep - if more reliable sources were found, she'd easily pass as winner of a major national beauty contest. Bearian ( talk) 00:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep I added the source Dravecky mentioned above as well as another one from a news site. I found more coverage when I used the native spelling of her name, Cavidan Qurbanova. I will keep going through the list to see if I can find anymore WP:RS. WordSeventeen ( talk) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Sarkari Naukri In India

Sarkari Naukri In India (  | 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 that was removed by a IP-a article that comes across as more of a advertisement I believe. Wgolf ( talk) 21:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 10:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per nom and WP:OR. Lakun.patra ( talk) 10:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - an ill-conceived article with no sources. Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is bad, shit article and not suited for wikipedia. -- Haccom  ✉ Talk to me 07:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Very bad article, the only reference is in the reference section, not tied to anything. AlbinoFerret 23:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete The article is very poorly written and sources as well. Should be deleted immediately. Dormantos ( talk) 12:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 15:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and WP:OR. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above/OR. At best this would be a WP:TNT situation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Snow Delete - WP:BLOWITUP and start again, Clearly WP:OR. – Davey2010 ^Talk 19:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Appears to be WP:OR. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 20:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Liesl Laurie

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

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

fails WP:GNG, only known from WP:ONEEVENT. No sources conform WP:RS. The Banner  talk 21:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep as subject easily crosses verifiability and notability thresholds with references in reliable third-party sources such as [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. - Dravecky ( talk) 21:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - as a winner of a National Beauty pageant title she is notable. As Dravecky points out there are enough reliable third party sources, which will increase over the time spent in the role of Miss SA. Gbawden ( talk) 08:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep I agree with the above statements. She is Miss South Africa 2015 and this makes her notable, especially to our country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.111.30.100 ( talk) 14:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Nikol Svantnerova

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

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

fails WP:GNG, only known from WP:ONEEVENT. No sources conform WP:RS. The Banner  talk 21:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep and rename to Nikol Švantnerová, which is her real name. Česká miss is a notable annual competition and the winner usualy becomes a "celebrity" or public personality. Reliable source do exist: [6], [7], [8]. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 08:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Participating in one notable event does not make a participant notable, as notability is not inherited. The Banner  talk 10:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Perhaps not, but winning it, and going on to take part in another one is a different case. Typically winners of this contest receive year-round press coverage, which is ample for WP:GNG. So that's the three arguments in the nomination put to bed. C 679 16:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep as sufficient reliable third party sources ( [9], [10], [11], [12], etc.) exist to push subject across the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky ( talk) 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per my comments above. C 679 07:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep As per Dravecky and the sources he noted. WordSeventeen ( talk) 08:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Cato Hoeben

Cato Hoeben (  | 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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY Tagged recently by Duffbeerforme for lack of notability. 1st AfD attracted no comments; hopefully we can resolve it this time. Boleyn ( talk) 20:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now per being TOO SOON. It appears this person's end works have notability, but THIS composer does not have the media coverage to meet WP:BIO... yet. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Perhaps TOO SOON, but I'm certainly not seeing anything in the first 100 or so Google results for this very unique name that counts towards fulfillment of GNG. Carrite ( talk) 17:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 20:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Scott Alan Meyers

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

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

not notable Fuddle ( talk) 22:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No significant, in-depth coverage here; local business cites are run of the mill. Neutrality ^talk 23:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree with Neutrality, it also reads like a promotional pamphlet. AlbinoFerret 23:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete As per Neutrality not notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Payam Yazdanjoo

Payam Yazdanjoo (  | 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 signs of reaching notable status Amortias ( T)( C) 19:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I had a look at the references in the article and in my opinion they are not enough to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC as there is not enough secondary sources available about the subject. Dalba 15 Farvardin 1394/ 04:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep - Taking a quick look at the Persian Wikipedia's article about him and doing a quick search for his name in that language (پیام_یزدانجو) I did turn up a few sources. If only there were a few more, I'd love to feel more convicted in my keep !vote. He looks to have written a few books, ~Frankvla (فرانكولا) and ~Goodnight John (شب به خیر یوحنا), both of which turn up some google hits, and seems to be known for translations (including Richard Brautigan, which is what attracted my interest in the first place, and various works of philosophy). Some sources: interview at aftabir.com, book review, book review, interview with radio zamaaneh, another interview with radio zamaaneh, book review? at khabgard.com... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to WCW Nitro. Been up 3 weeks and and only one !vote so closing as redirect ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 01:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

WCW Nitro (truck)

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

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

Can't find reliable, independent sources that support notability. Fisheriesmgmt ( talk) 17:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to WCW Nitro Wgolf ( talk) 23:12, 29 March 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. ( non-admin closure) —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 05:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

ERMES

ERMES (  | 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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, although it's not my area of expertise. Has been tagged for notability for seven years. Boleyn ( talk) 13:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Very weak keep If only for potential encyclopedic value. Article states that "ERMES" acronym stands for "European Radio Messaging System", but this source says it also stands for "Enhanced Radio Messaging System". I've found a handful of sources on both meanings, mostly in technical publications, and they just may (barely) satisfy WP:GNG. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Levdr1lp / talk 11:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 01:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Sarah Polonsky

Sarah Polonsky (  | 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. Thin on content. Promotional. Tagged as needing citations since December DaveApter ( talk) 09:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Notable media journalist, numerous reliable sources meets the general notability guideline.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - editor of Page Six seems notable. Bearian ( talk) 00:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Journalists are notoriously hard to get through the GNG gate since other publications don't write about contributors to their competitors and their own publications writing about them is regarded as self sourcing. We need to use discretion here. I feel that the career achievements of this individual merits inclusion, although honest people may certainly differ with this opinion. Carrite ( talk) 17:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 13:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Bill Marshall (drummer)

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

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

Unwikified autobiography of a musician. Doesn't seem to have won any major awards, so notability hinges on WP:INHERIT. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 09:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• I have blanked the article for review at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 March 24. The author admits copying the text from a copyrighted source on the article talk page, claims ownership of the source text but hasn't supplied proof of this. Hut 8.5 22:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete a massive copyright notice is all thats left. Notability is very weak if it exists at all. AlbinoFerret 23:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete If one is willing to believe the author's claim of being Bill Marshall and this text being therefore not a copyright violation (see Swarm's talk page), then notability is still not established. I suggest WP:TNT, and wait for someone else to write a new biography based on reliable sources rather than Marshall's Facebook profile. If someone does before this AfD closes, please ping me. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 09:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 05:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Pig fallopian tubes

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

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

discussion shows that dish essentially doesn't exist anymore Adgggadggg ( talk) 14:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Well referenced article with invalid deletion rationale. There is no "discussion", just an IP (which I assume to be you) noting your opinion on the talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo ^{bons mots} 19:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Here's the thing though: all those articles point to one restaurant that serves the dish and that restaurant no longer exists. You can't buy the ingredients at a market nor can you walk into any restaurant and ask them to prepare the off-menu item. It may be well-referenced, but so is every other dish in that article and I don't feel it to be completely necessary to have every dish in the articles to have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adgggadggg ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply

There are myriad regional food dishes that no longer exist, which what makes including them in an encyclopedia even more of a necessity. -- Jezebel's Ponyo ^{bons mots} 20:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

How about just editing it to say that it used to be commonly found in Singapore? Adgggadggg ( talk) 16:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Per WP:NTEMP, notability does not expire. In any case, the topic is wider than Singaporean cuisine as the dish is eaten in other countries such as Vietnam. And then there's the basic anatomical and veterinary aspects of the topic - see Swine in the Laboratory, for example. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - we have a whole list of weird but notable food articles at Wikipedia:Unusual_articles#Food. This seems well-referenced, like sambong or balut. Bearian ( talk) 00:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

After some digging around, I found out what this dish was. Nobody refers to it as "pig's fallopian tubes" but it is indeed still served in some places in Singapore. It's known as Kway Chap, and it pretty much consists of pig offals, including fallopian tubes, and rice noodle rolls. Would it be more appropriate then to change the name? I could list some references, but those are endless. Adgggadggg ( talk) 12:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Kittitian Hill

Kittitian Hill (  | 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 to meet notability requirements and is purely advertising Mostlyoksorta ( talk) 18:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep advertising content can be toned down by editing, but the argument here should be about the topic, which seems to be notable to me. There are quite a few published pages on the topic, they do seem to be independently rewritten at least and not just press releases. so WP:GNG is satisfied. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - article may be vaguely promotional, but certainly is not "purely advertising". Tone problems can be solved via editing and the subject is clearly notable sourcing based on extrensive reviews such as [18] & [19] and the many reliable sources in the article. Pinging @ Gigs: who accepted this at AfC for input. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 15:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Seems to be enough coverage to meet notability requirements, including three non-trivial mentions in the NYTimes. The slightly effusive tone of the article not a valid reason for deletion. TheBlueCanoe 03:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• It has a pretty good reference/content ratio and there is coverage in independent sources. There are a few sentences that read a little promotional and could be toned down. Gigs ( talk) 21:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Reality (rapper)

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

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

Appears non-notable, no secondary sources to be found. Ref's provided purely prove of existence. Jcmcc450 ( talk) 19:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

As a note-there was also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality discography that was merged into this. Anyway, delete. Wgolf ( talk) 19:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - this is a little WP:TOOSOON. He gained notability for his album, but it didn't charted. -- Karlhard ( talk) 14:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No reliable sources, no charting songs/albums, released on a non-notable record label whose website looks like it was created in Notepad in 1999. Tarc ( talk) 12:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( NPASR) ( non-admin closure) —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 05:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Historic Hotels of Europe

Historic Hotels of Europe (  | 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 "independent" in-depth coverage in web, books or news found (only press releases and passing mentions from member hotels and tourist organisations). Notability is not inherited from member organisations. GermanJoe ( talk) 23:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 17 March 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 03:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Just Rich Gates

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

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

Spammy and weakly sourced article fails WP:NMUSIC. Careful about clicking on the links in the References! Logical Cowboy ( talk) 23:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello Logical Cowboy, How you say this article is spammy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaji E.M ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep It is spammy but this guy recorded with Waka Flocka Flame so I'd say keep but watch. 98.221.118.184 ( talk) 14:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)(edit to add that is me/my IP saying KEEP above as well) 2601:C:6783:6A01:C80C:A620:F3FB:D718 ( talk) 18:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete- very few of the sources look that good. Joseph2302 ( talk) 00:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above and Fails WP:NMUSIC. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 12:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep this artist is credited on many other artist's prominent recordings. I have a COI in that while looking for info about this artist, I noticed a domain that was heavily-linked that they actually did not own-so I bought it cheap. (full disclosure) That link is not a part of the article. Yes this article was created by a paid-editing spammer who subsequently disclosed that on their page, (I still don't know exactly how I feel about that).....but 1)-we don't really know WHO paid to have the article created, so why "punish" the subject? I worked on the article a little, but as far as the references to track-samples and players, I really do not know what is WP-proper for artists in this category. I tweeked this up with category, NPOV, and fact-checking, but I refrained-from adding extensive youtube --or--any--youtube linking, like I said, I just don't know enough about musical artists to know what would be acceptable, so I am only linking like I would for a "regular" article. Internal links and connections on WP, and reliable sources. 2601:C:6783:6A01:C80C:A620:F3FB:D718 ( talk) 17:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment So, basically, there are two keep votes from the same IP, who admits a COI, and whose best reason to keep is that the guy recorded with Waka Flocka Flame! Lol. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 02:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 05:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Jacqueline Bobak

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

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

This is probably a talented and capable singer; but she appears not to come close to meeting WP:ACADEMIC. The world is chock-full of talented and capable singers holding down teaching jobs to survive; they are not notable. Ms Bobak has no in-depth coverage in reliable source to support her notability. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Although not apparently notable as an academic administrator, she may well pass WP:GNG as a performing artist because of brief (a sentence or two,) but favorable reviews of her performance in reviews of concerts, operas in which she was a soloist. I linked a couple of reviews from Variety and Los Angeles Times to the page. There were more. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:HEY. The reviews at Variety and the LA Times are substantial enough to push her over the GNG threshold. Bearian ( talk) 00:30, 31 March 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. ( NPASR) ( non-admin closure) —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 05:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Ballet Chancers

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

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

Once-off show sourced only to the network. No indication of independent notability. Greykit ( talk) 19:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Use It or Lose It

Use It or Lose It (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Once-off show sourced mostly to the network. One possibly independent source gives it one sentence. No indication of notability. Greykit ( talk) 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. -- Inother ( talk) 19:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Like most of the other programmes on this TV network, it's non-notable. Joseph2302 ( talk) 19:27, 31 March 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. ( NPASR) ( non-admin closure) —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 05:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

So You Want To Be Taoiseach

So You Want To Be Taoiseach (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Once-off show sourced only to the network's website. No indication of notability. Greykit ( talk) 19:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Consuming Passions (Irish TV series)

Consuming Passions (Irish TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Once-off 'summer filler' show sourced only to the network. No indication of notability. Greykit ( talk) 19:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. -- Inother ( talk) 19:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete As above. Joseph2302 ( talk) 19:35, 31 March 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. ( NPASR) ( non-admin closure) —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 05:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The Hampstead Trash

The Hampstead Trash (  | 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 couple of mentions in local newspapers, in relation to a single incident, do not confer notability. This is a blogspot blog for pupils at one school, not any kind of significant website.   Mogism ( talk) 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:49, 17 March 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hets (band)

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

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

Unsure about notability-no refs, only one page links here. Maybe a redirect at best. Wgolf ( talk) 15:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Looks like a COI also-the page creator has the same name as a band member. Wgolf ( talk) 15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete No refs, notability is unsourced. The Swedish Wikipedia page on it is not much better. Fails WP:GNG. —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 19:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Does not appear to meet WP:BAND either. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( NPASR) ( non-admin closure) —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 05:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

YoungGoldie

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

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

Definitely a case of TOOSOON, sources are either irrelevant, (potentially) incorrect, or a single paragraph with no indication of notability. Primefac ( talk) 15:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 19:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Marin Honda

Marin Honda (  | 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)

Not notable according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability. No competitive bio at isuresults.com Hergilei ( talk) 13:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• (uninitiated) Keep by WP:GNG alternately. Sports Graphic Number Asahi Shimbun (1) Asahi Shimbun (2) Osaka Nichinichi(3-parter interview) Daily Sports 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 02:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the references identified by Hisashiyarouin. She is notable outside of her skating career. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 06:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Up truncation

Up truncation (  | 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 cited reference does indicate that the truncate function may be used to expand the size of a file, no source is given, nor can one be found, to indicate that the term "up truncation" is used to describe this action, nor to indicate that performing this action has any given reason or benefit. As such, the description of the action here appears to be original research. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 16:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Down truncate to zero bytes per nom. No hits whatsoever for this term other than this article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Search hits shows that any usage are almost exclusively coincidental: either from a hyphenated adjective or phrasal verb before it (e.g. "look up truncation", "follow-up truncation"), or just from a completely different clause/sentence separated by punctuation. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 07:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete: no evidence of this term being used for the task described. If there is a term that has the same definition as "up truncation", then possibly move the article to that term and assess it for notability. Esquivalience ^t 01:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Nia Sioux

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

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

Possibly too soon, Nia Frazier goes to the tv show it appears also. Wgolf ( talk) 16:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete due to a lack of non-trivial coverage of this subject by reliable third party publications. Extra care should be taken as this is a WP:BLP about a minor child. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 23:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no independent sources. She's really young, it's too soon to tell if she'll be notable or not. Per nom, BLP is especially important here. —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 19:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Delanoistes

Delanoistes (  | 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 cites no references, and I couldn't find any uses of this term in the French media in the sense used in the article. This appears to be original research. Gaullism and Blairism have articles because they are terms very widely used in the media, but this is not the case with the term Delanoiste.  Liam987 (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete In agreement with the nominator, this is purely WP:OR.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 13:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:NEO. I would say merge to Bertrand Delanoë, but as there are no sources there's nothing that can be merged. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - appears to be made up. I'm not sure if this really exists in a significant context. —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 19:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Nico Fazio

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

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

Sources all self-published, doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC Seems to be WP:PROMO, unable to find additional WP:RS [20] ―  Padenton | ☎  18:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nico Fazio production discography, pending separately. postdlf ( talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment The author's creator has been repeatedly trying to remove the AfD template from the page. A protection request has been made ( here) ―  Padenton| ✉   18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment The article is under semi-protection status, expires 18:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)) ―  Padenton| ✉   18:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Even when I went to the site listed as a reference and checked out the links in the press section it was hard to say any of them were good, one had no author listed, one did not link to the article it quoted, and one ...might have been good but one source is not enough to make this article. There doesn't seem to be any reason to have this page on wikipedia other than to promote the individual. Peachywink ( talk) 18:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, I'm not sure whether WP:CREATIVE is the right place to judge this, but I don't see that he meets either that or the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 03:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Bob Hogan

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

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

Fictional character that only appeared in a few episodes of a TV show from what I can tell Wgolf ( talk) 22:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. A "few" episodes or not, I do not understand what is the point of deleting this page. It is a legitimate encyclopaedic entry as far as I am concerned. Joe Gatt ( talk) 22:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Redirect to Spooks#Other (Surviving). No evidence of individual notability, but a valid search term. Boleyn ( talk) 20:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete or possibly redirect to Spooks (series 6). A "guest" star for one series/season doesn't require a separate article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:14, 29 March 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 03:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Andrew Lawrence (Spooks)

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

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

Fictional character on a tv show who had only 2 appearances. Wgolf ( talk) 22:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete per nom. He's a character in two TV episodes. What next? Unnamed mutt (Spooks series 6, episode 1)? Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Merge to List of Spooks characters or delete if the character is too minor for even that. No evidence of WP:GNG, we just have primary source plot summary. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 21:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Danny-Boy Hatchard

Danny-Boy Hatchard (  | 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 appears to fail WP:ENT. From what I can find out his only main role to date appears to be as Lee Carter in EastEnders. WP:ENT states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I think it's too soon to make an article for Danny-Boy Hatchard, I suggest either deleting the article or re-directing to Lee Carter (EastEnders). That way, if Danny-Boy does become notable, we can simply take the redirect off. 5 albert square ( talk) 22:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as fails WP:ENT because he's only had one significant role. – anemone projectors– 16:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Les Jones (politician)

Les Jones (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)

As far as I can see, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN: local politician, candidate for national office but not yet elected, only press coverage is in passing as a side-effect of covering a story on another politician The Anome ( talk) 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Only a candidate, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Time enough to create this article if he does get electiod on the back of a liberal collapse in the constiuency. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per many, many precedents. He's not so much a perennial candidate as a failed one. Bearian ( talk) 00:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Local politicians who ran for higher office are not default notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Carlos Gonzalez "Calofer"

Carlos Gonzalez "Calofer" (  | 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 put this as a BLP prod but I'm starting to wonder how real this is-of course its a bit hard to find Carlos Gonzalez since there is a bunch-so I did try to find Carlos Carlofer and the only result I could find is a car dealership in Florida (kind of instructing since Florida is mentioned) also the articles creator has the same name. Wgolf ( talk) 19:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete - based on what I read in the article and your reasoning for nomination, this looks like a hoax. – Michael ( talk) 22:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Total lack of sources. He may exist but nothing in the article clearly says notable, and without the details it is hard to say what some of the claims mean. The soccer group he is with may well use the name given, but that does not make his position notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to K.C. Undercover. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Veronica Dunne

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

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

per WP:NACTOR ―  Padenton| ✉   19:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ―  Padenton| ✉   19:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―  Padenton| ✉   19:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to K.C. Undercover, she probably will get her own article someday anyway. Wgolf ( talk) 19:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Mostly minor roles, one main cast role. Not multiple significant roles. No independent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 20:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Perez. She's only had one role, fairly recently, that is anything more than a cameo or redshirt. If and when she gets more media attention, then this can be recreated. Bearian ( talk) 00:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect for now to K.C. Undercover, the series in which she stars, until coverage emerges such that she meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT.  Gongshow    talk 01:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Bbb23 per CSD A9 (music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 22:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

East of Alexandria

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

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

Not notable. The band referred in the article does not have a Wiki page. Conflict of Interest writing. Cahk ( talk) 18:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete As both A9 and G11, which I've now tagged it as. I've also (soft) blocked the creator's account per WP:ISU. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hazelgreen Baptist Church

Hazelgreen Baptist Church (  | 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 church. Article is a generic background of a generic church with one local newspaper reference. Article was prod-ed by another user, which was contested. ~EdGl ! 13:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 29. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not seeing notability, just seems like a run-of-the-mill congregation. Neutrality ^talk 21:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete I can't source it. (Sounds like a nice church, but no one writes about it.) E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• (with regret) delete -- A nice but NN local church. The content would look good on the church website, but does not beloing in WP. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Very local notability only. We probably should have explicit SNG guidelines for churches; this one seems to be on the delete side of that imaginary threshold. Carrite ( talk) 17:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Possible Solutions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Cattle

Possible Solutions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Cattle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unencyclopedic original research. Prod contested by creator. -- Finngall ^talk 15:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:OR. PianoDan ( talk) 15:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete – sourced, but compiled via WP:OR, good as a term paper, not as a wiki article.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

3E Accounting Private Limited

3E Accounting Private Limited (  | 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 accountancy firm, which doens't appear to have received any independent 3rd party coverage by WP:NCORP. I am very suspicious about paid editing in this case given the large number of similar articles produced by what appears to be a WP:SOCKFARM. Le petit fromage ( talk) 15:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• I've fixed the AFD as as seen here [21] it all appeared to have went wrong ..... – Davey2010 ^Talk 18:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This is one of the articles connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvin Aghayev and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khangrah, although the subject matter appears unrelated and no socks have appeared here yet. I share the cheese's suspicions about paid editing, giving the pattern of unrelated topics in the SPI. Note also that the related article 3E Accounting was deleted last November per WP:CSD#A7. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The Times link is just to a business directory, and the Singapore Business Review link is to something that does not appear to be about this company. The remaining sources look worse. So we don't have the multiple reliable, independent, in-depth sources required by WP:ORG. And as I already stated above the pattern of editing in the SPI makes me suspicious of paid editing. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Leadership by Virtue

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

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

Novel published in 2013 with a suspiciously complete summary. Doesn't appear to have been the subject of any reviews. [22] Nobody appears to have read it on Goodreads either. The tone is also overly promotional, which suggests WP:COI. Le petit fromage ( talk) 14:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete - I wasn't able to find sufficient sources to pass WP:NBOOK, but I'd like to see if anyone more familiar with Slovenian can find more? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. This is one of the articles connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvin Aghayev and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khangrah, although the subject matter appears unrelated and no socks have appeared here yet. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - all the cited reviews are blogs or worse, no coverage in reliable sources. This is quite likely the work of a paid editor or editors trying to scrape the lower range of notability criteria (and failing badly, IMO). — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I agree with Yerpo: this is written with the surface appearance of notability (having many sources on a varied selection of sites) but none of the sources looks reliable. And the scattershot nature of the topics related by the SPI makes me suspicious of paid editing. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 22:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Bibi Chowdhurani

Bibi Chowdhurani (  | 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 show, part of a massive group of non-notable show articles created by puppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamsiraj and User talk:Tanns.25630 for background). References are mostly a bunch of cruft indicating merely that the show exists. Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 14:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator

• Comment. So this article from the Times of India is "cruft"? -- Michig ( talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  I didn't go through every reference in every one of the scores of articles these puppets posted, neither do I think a single reliable source makes an article notable. That's particularly true in this case, the article you reference is used in the article merely to support the fact that Nibedita Biswas is an actress on the show. That certainly doesn't make the show notable. Particularly a show that all anyone can say about it is the "show was about a girl called Bibi who was a liar but ultimately the lies turned out to be beneficial for others". I've inserted the word "mostly" in my nom above to clarify.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 18:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  There's a whole article about the show from ToI linked above, which says a lot more than that about the show. There may well be more Indian coverage - Google isn't a very good indicator when searching for Indian topics. I wouldn't dispute that the article as it stands is poor, however. -- Michig ( talk) 19:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  @ Michig:OK, I'll close this nom based on the information you provided.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 20:21, 30 March 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. Clear consensus to delete, please see AFC should you wish to re-submit this article. Nakon 03:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply