From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 29 March 31 March >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete, WP:SNOW-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Monkey (elasticity)

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

Not a notable phenomenon... a minor comment in a minor publication, and not much more. UtherSRG (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:09, 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. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Andrew JC Jackson

Andrew JC Jackson (  | 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 he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB talk 23:12, 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 merge to Chicago Cubs minor league players. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 18:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Billy McKinney (baseball)

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

does not meet GNG, WP:BASE/N, WP:NCOLLATH. WP:TOOSOON John from Idegon ( talk) 21:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB talk 23:11, 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 no consensus, default to keep. I can't see the discussion below converging towards either a keep or a delete consensus within another week so I'm closing this as NC. There are calls for this to be deleted as a recreation, but the history of the article (AfD deletion → refund → draft → move back to mainspace 2 months after closure of the previous AfD) precludes such a claim and this AfD should be treated as a fresh AfD of a fully rewritten article. Der yck C. 07:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Country Party of Australia (founded 2014)

Country Party of Australia (founded 2014) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Party (Australia). Why anyone would think this was OK to start a few months later without it passing a deletion review I have no idea. Either way, it's still WP:TOOSOON. It's unregistered (generally the benchmark for party notability), it's almost certainly never going to be registered under this name, practically all of the coverage is surrounding its founding. This is also not a new thing; people try to get "country parties" going all the time. Frickeg ( talk) 23:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg ( talk) 23:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I didn't !vote in the earlier discussion but I remember having a quick look at the article, and I would definitely have gone for deletion at that stage. The party certainly wouldn't pass any notability guidelines specific to political parties (no registration and no elections contested), but I think BDD's work in expanding the article pushes it over the line when it comes to the GNG. Two non-trivial articles from the ABC, three of the same from The Land, and one each from Queensland Country Life and Farm Weekly is a lot more than many AEC-registered parties, and definitely significant coverage in my book. The ABC is definitely an WP:RS, and I'd strongly argue the same of the three rural publications. I'm not a regular reader of them by any means, but I have come across them on several occasions (for Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia purposes), and I would suggest their quality meets or even exceeds the standards of the capital city dailies – they of course don't have the readership level, but they're on a completely different level to the free community rags you get in the metro area. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Oh, someone is reviving the Country Party? Again? But this time, there is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, so I view this as meeting the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC). reply
  • Keep: So far, I haven't seen a Delete rationale that comes within a country mile of policy. I'm not seeing a single guideline or policy that says political parties have to be registered to qualify for articles, or disqualifying articles for being same-old-same-old. (Never mind that "yeah, no" and "it needs to go" are the sorts of rationales we see from sockpuppet anon IPs.) This meets the GNG. It's got substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Period. Nha Trang Allons! 20:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • No, those are the sorts of rationales you get from Australians who actually understand the background and know that this is probably the fourth use of that name for a loose political grouping this year. In Australia, we have the National Party which is a conservative political party that claims to be "from the country" (rural, bush, etc) and used to be called the Country Party. Problem is, plenty of people don't agree that is what they represent and there is a culture of independents (non-aligned candidates) running against the National Party because the largest opposition party (the Labor Party) don't do as well in the country. A few times a year, someone proposes to bring those independents together as the "country party" (a kick in the pants to the once-Country Party, now National Party). I'm not even sure all the sources are talking about the same iteration of that nonsense proposal. This isn't a real thing but every time someone suggests it, they get coverage in rural press because it is more interesting than cattle prices (actually, probably not, but they have the room to run both). This is not a "revival" or a "party" or even a "proposal" - it's just the latest brain-fart from someone who thinks they can organise a bunch of fiercely independent politicians into some loosely (no-very-cleverly-named) collective. There is nothing here to cover and we'll be back in 3 months when someone proposes a slightly different version of the same thing. The announcement wouldn't even pass WP:EVENT. St★lwart 111 22:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • And that's a big fat "So what?" There are a lot of articles out there based on things I think are stupid, but I don't get to unilaterally delete the Kim Kardashian article just because I think she's a media whore who's the 2000s' answer to Zha Zha Gabor. Nha Trang Allons! 18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. This should have been speedied as a recreation of a previously deleted article, but since it is receiving keep votes I'll again point out why this should be deleted. They are not registered with either the Australian Electoral Commission or any state and territory electoral commission, lacking even the extraordinarily low bar of 500 members (Australia has something like thirty federally registered parties). There is no evidence that they will ever be registered, and are particularly likely to not ever be registered under this name due to legislation around party names. They're a bunch of dudes intending to start a rural political party who sent out a press release announcing that intention that got picked up, on one occasion, by three rural-focused magazines and have subsequently gone nowhere. I am a staunch inclusionist on actual political parties, and if and when they actually make it to becoming a registered party, I will ardently argue the article should be kept; until such time as they actually achieve that, they're just another bunch of random dudes in a shed claiming to be a political party. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 10:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The GNG is not a bright-line rule. Getting two or three news articles written about you online doesn't mean you're guaranteed a Wikipedia article forever and a day. So much is clear from the statement in WP:GNG itself that the guideline establishes a presumption of notability. Not a guarantee. Here, even if the presumption is established, it is rebutted. It is rebutted by the fact that it is a micro-micro-party with no formal status and a handful of members. And that the media coverage of its inauguration was fleeting at best. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not notable. The candidates have less press coverage than I'd expect for an independent with any chance of getting elected. The group couldn't find enough people to nominate a group that gets an "above the line" box on the ballot paper so their How-To-Vote leaflet includes voting below-the-line for all of their candidates and at least one other to make a formal optional preferential vote. If they do pull a significant vote on Saturday (definitely if one is elected), I'm prepared to revisit this assessment; otherwise WP:TOOSOON to tell if they will ever become notable. -- Scott Davis Talk 13:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Don't strongly disagree Scott, but if one of them is elected it would be as an "independent", not as a member of this non-party. They would still have to formally register the party after the election and then seek leave to join it as a Parliamentarian. Until that point it remains a non-party without an elected representative and nothing but a day's worth of coverage in local rural press. St★lwart 111 22:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't really agree with this, for the record, but the thing is 0.0001% likely to actually happen so we needn't discuss it till then. Frickeg ( talk) 23:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Ha ha, which part? (Not that it matters - feel free to take it to my talk page). St★lwart 111 03:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I said "revisit" not automatically reverse my assessment. i don't expect it to become an issue. -- Scott Davis Talk 03:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Spot on; I think we're all on the same page (broadly). Ha ha. St★lwart 111 03:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
So best-case scenario is that one of their informally endorsed candidates runs second and another runs third. Endorsed candidates who lose aren't considered notable, surely the same applies to unendorsed or "informally endorsed" candidates. There is not a single member of the self-declared "party" anywhere close to being considered notable. Even if they were, the notability of their "party" (of which they are not members) would still be questionable. St★lwart 111 22:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Helen Dalton (Mrs 18% in Murray) lists her website as the Country Party's website on her Facebook campaign page, features "Endorsed by the Country Party of Australia" on her campaign posters, and has been described as running a "Country Party branded campaign" in rural media. I'm quite curious as to why you've chosen to use scare quotes around the word "party" and claim that their candidates "are not members" of the party for which they are running (???). Anyway, my point is that any standard of notability that says yes to these sorts of parties simply because they're registered, but no to a party that can outpoll major parties in two electorates (on its first go), is ridiculous. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
They aren't "scare quotes" in that context (at all), it was an acknowledgement that while they have called themselves a "party", in actual fact, no such entity has been registered and so there are no membership lists to join. St★lwart 111 22:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Interesting then that her hashtag is #Dalton4Change, not #DaltonYourCountryParty or #DaltonCountryPartyofAustralia. Most of the local news clippings she's posted to her Facebook page call her independent candidate and don't mention this group. She does not meet the Wikipedia politician criteria to have an article about her, so there are still no real inbound links to this article from other articles. I can be sympathetic to the cause without believing the entity is worthy of an article. -- Scott Davis Talk 22:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
This group has actually been fairly unusual in the way they've endorsed candidates - they've been more of a "we like this person and think you should vote for them" rather than "this person is running on our ticket" with a few, Dalton included. See here, and here (where it's called "Country Party branded"). The Cyclists Party actually also endorsed both Dalton and Mailler (clearly after negotiations - and called them "independents" while the upper house ticket was "Country Party"). Funnell here calls himself very clearly an "independent"; Dalton has also described herself as a "Country Party-aligned independent". This is in contrast to other unregistered parties like the Socialist Equality Party or even the tiny non-notable Communist League. In this case I think it's far from certain whether Dalton and Funnell are even members of the Country Party. Frickeg ( talk) 22:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB talk 23:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Content is certainty newsworthy so I would recommend the editors who made the article look at making an article on WikiNews about the party and it would be a lot more appropriate, as for an Enyclapedic entry? I think it misses the mark (today at least) for that notability. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 12:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Until such time as a member is elected, it is a non entity. Drs002 ( talk) 07:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to inclusion for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or ideology. This is, plain and simple, the sort of material that any encyclopedia pretending to be the "sum of human knowledge" should include. File this argument under the banner of our policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia) if you will. Think about it though — I'm right. Carrite ( talk) 00:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Carrite, I've always appreciated your point of view here and I think you do great work on a lot of minor political parties (and pretty much everything you write I would keep). And I think your goal with this philosophy is laudable, but I just don't think it's practical. I mean, how do you define a "party"? Is it the joke group formed by twenty-five uni students - which has membership lists and a whole (satirical) constitution, and runs candidates for the student union? Is it the loose groupings that register to run for local council? Is it the guy sitting in his basement who swears he has at least a hundred members - or at least, he has emails from people who want to join, and that counts (and then, under this approach, he gets an article too)? Consider this a question from someone who is genuinely curious about how this proposed approach would work. Frickeg ( talk) 00:48, 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 delete. j⚛e decker talk 02:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Daniel Forlandsaas

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that Mr. Forlandsaas is Not a professional footballer. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. In any case, he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - his name is Førlandsås. Anyway, appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Grrahnbahr ( talk) 12:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. AlbinoFerret 18:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep *Neutral I work with the webmaster of his personal website. There has been guit many hits to his website in the search engine over the past years where his name + wikipedia has been searched for. I am aware he has not played in the biggest leagues in the world yet, but I seen pages of other similar footballers here - some them might have been deleted, but I dont think all of them.

I am very interested in football, I do know that you can play and earn a living of football in many lower leagues in among other countries like England, Spain, Italy, Germany etc. Lower then 3rd and 4th league. He has had a very international career from Australia - Spain doing it. But yes, like a normal job not as a millionaire I suppose. There are many TV interviews / reports etc on him on his YouTube channel for example, but I did not want to add personal website links and references to his Wiki page. I have not been editing on Wiki for some years, forgot my old log in details. So it might look a little messy at the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinMarch18 ( talk • contribs) 13:41, 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. North America 1000 01:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Nee preme naa pranam

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

Non notable film-as well as too soon. Kind of looks like a brief advertisement with no major refs even. Wgolf ( talk) 21:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:21, 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 redirect to Ted Haggard#Scandal and removal from job. Der yck C. 06:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Mike Jones (personal trainer)

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

Classic case of WP:BLP1E. Jones was completely unknown until he became involved with the Ted Haggard sex scandal. He's been non-notable since then. He published a book about the scandal that was widely ignored (#1.3 million currently at Amazon) and won't help him pass WP:AUTHOR. Was in AfD once, but nobody even mentioned BLP1E. Possibly redirect the name to the article on Haggard. Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree with Mangoe. Postcard Cathy ( talk) 16:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:02, 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. North America 1000 01:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Healthpoint Ltd

Healthpoint Ltd (  | 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, does not meet WP:CORP; was one of 16 winners of a local (Lancashire) business award in 2013 (see here). Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 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. Nakon 02:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Mahajah

Mahajah (  | 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:NPLACE, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. I added it's first ref but couldn't find more and not saying that source is a reliable source (and almost word for word this article, possible copyvio or mirror). I could find no valid redirect target. Boleyn ( talk) 13:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment There is a language link to ar.wikipedia. -Arb. ( talk) 01:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 20:07, 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 no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 08:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

CLC (band)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only one secondary source listed even approaches reliable; the rest are the usual kpop gossip/promo machine. This group first record was just released 3 days ago. They've only been on one TV show as a group and it was self-produced on their agency's own youtube channel. The user who created this article frequently creates articles for non-notable singers, albums, and songs. This is WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOO SOON, etc. Shinyang-i ( talk) 00:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i ( talk) 00:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'll expand the article however the reason why some sources are unreliable is because most sources that talk about Kpop are Korean and the only webpages who translate Kpop content are gossip news (like Allkpop) if you want I will include Korean news sites talking about them however it will be in Korean. The group are new but they will release more music so it would be useless to delete it now and in a few months someone has to create it again. ( User:4minute lover ( talk) 14:50, 23 March 2015‎ (UTC))
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 20:01, 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. Nakon 02:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Urban Artist Soap

Urban Artist Soap (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the article Street art doesn't have any information on Polish street art ( which is easy to find, a quick search brought up stories from Business Insider and CNN on the street art scene ) my recommendation is to delete this article, and put any wikiworthy information into the street art article, if enough builds up, spin out Street art in Poland and if that gets so crowded that we need a article just for soap. let's make it happen, as is I don't see any notability for this particular article ( couldn't find any 3rd party refs in a search ) and the wikilandscape doesn't support the idea either. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 11:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:41, 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. Nakon 02:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Textbase

Textbase (  | 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. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years unresolved. Boleyn ( talk) 19:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:43, 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 speedy delete. Speedy G11 as political advertisement DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Rachel Blaney

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

Does not meet wiki politician standards. Wgolf ( talk) 19:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for pointing out the shortfalls in this page. I have resolved both concerns you mentioned, by inserting two citations and linking other pages to this page. Let me know if you see other problems. -GrahamHMay

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I disagree - she has done some important work in the past (independent of her candidacy), and is currently a very prominent member of our region (which I am from). People deserve to have a relatively impartial source to get information about where she comes from and what she stands for. Furthermore, if others have information to add, they deserve a forum to do so. I have populated the page with five references now, to demonstrate the point. -GrahamHMay

  • Delete per nom. Fails POLITICIAN, BIO, GNG, etc. No doubt a credit to her community, but Wikipedia is not here to provide a forum. Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as far as being notable in an encyclopedic sense I couldn't find much in the way of 3rd party references to support the claim. The coverage from the article references is really temporary. Whenever there are elections happening good coverage is allways needed at Wikinews to synthesize multiple reports into a single narrative. but as far as encyclopedic? it doesn't meet that threshold for me. but who knows what the future holds, she may end up the president of Canada and be notable in the future but for today, delete. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 12:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 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. Nakon 02:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Rob Childs

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

Non notable author, Fails WP:AUTHOR & WP:GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 19:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw ( talk) 15:18, 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar ( talk) 04:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Jarnail Singh (referee)

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

I don't see how football referees are inherently notable. Perhaps if he refereed English premier league which he hasn't. Sources provided aren't really third party as they're all football related. LibStar ( talk) 15:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
the first Sikh to referee English football does not advance notability, so we now create an article for the first Jew to referee English football? LibStar ( talk) 12:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
in a sport where the exclusion of non-white, non-English people has been to subject of much discussion, yes the first Sikh to referee is of great importance. To introduce the first Jew into this is merely irrelevant.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
the lifetime award is not a notable award, in fact found no coverage of this award besides primary sources. LibStar ( talk) 12:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) - Really? Really??-- Egghead06 ( talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
so by your logic then being an ambassador for the FA is of no importance either or maybe this is just another deletion discussion where nobody bothered to look for references!!?-- Egghead06 ( talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Ref added - refereed at international level.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 06:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Is that source reliable? It incorrectly says Singh was born in England. Also it is highly unusual for a referee to officiate an international game without ever refereeing in the highest national league. LibStar ( talk) 09:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Do we have a reliable source to say he was born in India? At the moment there is a deadlink which attempts to support him being born in India yet he is later described as "of Indian descent". Which is correct? Do you have a reliable source to support your view that it is unusual to ref at international level without refereeing at the highest national league level or is that your opinion? -- Egghead06 ( talk) 11:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Egghead06. Obviously notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils ( talk • contribs) 12:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep The article itself still has a lack of high-quality references but there are a few details that have emerged since this article was nominated that lead me to think that the subject of the article might meet WP:GNG. I don't think the "lifetime achievement award" is a notable award in itself (and it is not an award bestowed by the FA, rather a promotional vehicle which was a joint venture organised by a company called "Inventive sports" and so of course some recipients are mentioned in newspapers, although I can't find any newspaper article that gives more than a passing mention to Singh's award; it does seem that there was more coverage of the 2013 awards than the inaugural 2012 event). I don't think it likely that Singh ever made it onto FIFA's men's referees list, also I don't think the friendly international game that he refereed in 2011 is likely to have been authorised as a tier 1 international match by FIFA. It does however appear that the FA have been keen to acknowledge his involvement and promote his profile, attempting to rectify diversity issues affecting English football. But, as I already said, there is hardly any newspaper coverage that has emerged to describe aspects, including any FA ambassador role, which is a still real problem here. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 07:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 19:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I looked in here merely out of curiosity, knowing nothing about football. This is rather a nice, pretty well referenced, brief biography. It's a whole lot better than I expected. He has indeed received coverage of a somewhat substantial nature and dealing with a variety of aspects of his life to make all this into more than a scorecard. And regarding the (rhetorical) question about whether being the first Sikh refereee advances notability, then maybe in itself it doesn't. However, if sources write about the matter then indeed it does count. Thincat ( talk) 21:41, 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. Nakon 02:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Journal of East-West Thought

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

Article was deleted as a copyvio several times, now re-created as a one-line"article" with a long list of external links. Most of the latter are press releases, postings of articles published in the journal, library listings, and such. None of them constitute both independent and in-depth coverage. Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree, fails WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, so delete. Joseph2302 ( talk) 18:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:33, 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. Nakon 02:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Adrienne Carey Hurley

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

Appears to fails WP:NACADEMICS, and sourcing mostly appears to be routine and not help pass WP:GNG. Mdann52 ( talk) 17:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:30, 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. Nakon 02:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Sorrow (film)

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

Non-notable film planned for release next month. No indication of notability per WP:NFILM, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Article's creator evidently realized this, and attempted use of fake references. Not much left following cleanup: at best, WP:TOOSOON. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 17:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 17:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Filmmaker:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Production:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Soft delete Apparently a rough version this screened in Houston in 2014. The finished version is only now being scheduled to make the circuit of horror film festivals, so we may hear more about it. Until then, a bit TOO SOON.... but it's close, very close. Your Houston News relates how the final version was completed in July 2014. [7] and then in August 2014, Houston Press shared that the film (they had watched) was good but the (original) poster was boring. [8] Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I wonder what that means by that bit having been written by someone named "Community Reports". It looks like a forwarded press release. Geogene ( talk) 18:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Not that it matters much as we both suggest a deletion, but I'll WP:AGF that "what that means" is that a small community newspaper chose to report community news as "Community Reports", rather than under some unknown or anonymous byline. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 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. Given that he's now appeared for his country, a lot of the objections raised to the existence of this article have been removed. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Chris Ikonomidis

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested because he is signed to Lazio and has been called to the Australian national team. Since he has not played any actual matches for either of them, this is insufficient to meet WP:NSPORT, and in the absence of significant coverage, the article fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 07:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 07:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now, rather than keep for now. Obviously created WP:TOOSOON by someone keen to highlight his "prodigious" but as yet untested talent. He'll likely be notable in the future, perhaps in the very near future. But we don't create articles about non-notable people and then wait and hope they will become notable. We wait until they are notable and then create the article. This was simply done the wrong way around. St★lwart 111 07:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I believe the article meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from reliable sources, but you guys have a much better handle on the wiki meta language than me so it seems you'll get your way. Cheers. - Paladisious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladisious ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Not at all - if such coverage exists (considered to be coverage of him and not simply WP:ROUTINE signing announcements and the like) then that would most certainly be worth considering. St★lwart 111 08:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 01:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In addition to a rash of article about him after he was selected for Australia there is Gatt, Ray (3 August 2013), "Teen winger driven to succeed", The Australian. Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Thincat: I'll remind you that serious allegations such as canvassing which lack evidence are personal attacks, and point out that all comments above were made before the source you cited was published. I invite you to either provide evidence of misconduct or strike your remarks. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Ah, well, I should have included a smiley. Or used the convention at WP:RD to put facetious remarks in small print. Thincat ( talk) 07:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Paladisious, please do not remove deletion templates from articles while a discussion is ongoing. St★lwart 111 22:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
What is there to discuss? He's had a senior international cap now, and reliable source for this has been added to the article. He meets WP:NFOOTBALL, case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladisious ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Then an administrator will come and close it. St★lwart 111 10:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This discussion can probably now be speedily kept, him playing this morning for the national team changes everything and means the grey area has entirely been removed. Daniel 02:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - as people have mentioned, he featured for Australia's Senior National Team against Macedonia this morning in a FIFA Sanctioned Friendly. There can be no argument now. I had strong sympathy to holding fire prior on this, but there can be few better ways of signalling your arrival to senior professional football than appearing for your nation's National Team in a FIFA-sanctioned friendly. Also, I've perused the pages of other young pro players over the years and I've seen others kept on for far longer for far less, like a solitary League Cup match. Evidence for Ikonomidis' NT appearance:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-31/teenager-ikonomidis-delighted-to-make-socceroos-debut/6361430
http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/socceroos/macedonia-v-socceroos-chris-ikonomidis-and-tarek-elrich-delighted-to-make-roos-debuts/story-e6frf4l3-1227285941004 Xfiles82 ( talk) 11:50, 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. Discounting the blocked socks, there is clear consensus to delete. Nakon 02:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Living Hell (band)

Living Hell (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)

Major COI issue here-band members have the names of the contributors. Not sure about notability either Wgolf ( talk) 17:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

This band is notable per wikipedia guidelines

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 6] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses.

Furthermore - I don't see a COI here? Because of the picture? I don't think that qualifies?

Thanks,

Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.14.35 ( talk) 19:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

COI is due to the fact one of the major contributors has the same name as one of the band members. I actually don't mind if a obscure band, obscure film, ect have pages to be honest, but this is a bit much. Wgolf ( talk) 19:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I just think marking it for deletion is a bit much. This and the other article aren't promoting anything. The bands releases are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.14.35 ( talk) 19:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but they definitely meet the: *** Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).*** requirement. 66.161.14.35 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

keep easily meets the "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" requirement.Both labels have Wikipedia pages.Both releases are listed. 76.119.12.233 ( talk)

Keep. I created this page. I did so because I like the band. I was happy to see the singer was writing movies. If you need two records from a notable indie label Living Hell meets this requirement. Popular band for their genre. Dilbert Grapes ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:24, 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. Discounting the blocked socks, there is clear consensus to delete. Nakon 02:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Follow Through (Band)

Follow Through (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)

Band that is pretty much a huge COI give then the band member name Craig Mack is one of the articles contributors. Not sure about notability as well Wgolf ( talk) 17:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Wgolf - Follow Through were on two of the largest indie straight edge labels ever (Revelation and Smorgasbord) and are listed in their discography.

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

Really, a big punk band.

GB,

Tim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.14.35 ( talk) 19:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Disagree **Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).** easily meets that requirement. 66.161.14.35 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

KEEP clearly meets the "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" requirement. This band actually has a large punk following. Big straightedge band in the 90's. 76.119.12.233 ( talk)

Keep. I created this page. I did so because I like the band. I was happy to see the singer was writing movies. If you need two records from a notable indie label Follow Through meets this requirement. Popular band for their genre. Dilbert Grapes ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 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. Nakon 02:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Anmol Chand

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

Subject appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. PROD declined without explanation. Safiel ( talk) 16:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 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. Nakon 02:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Universum Studio

Universum Studio (  | 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 about a German distribution studio was tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax (G3). I declined speedy deletion because, if it is a hoax, it is not blatant and obvious; it has an elaborate website (from which I gather it is a BluRay distributor) and it has a detailed and consistent presence on IMDb. The user who applied the G3 tag challenged my decision on my talk page. I then looked a little further and found a couple of mentions at third-party sites. [16] [17] Last August the article was deleted as G3, after being tagged as a hoax by the same user who tagged it this time. I am not convinced it is a hoax; that can be discussed here; but in any case I don't believe the subject is notable and I recommend deletion per WP:CORP and WP:GNG. MelanieN ( talk) 16:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

P.S. The article last August was created by an editor who was recently blocked for socking. The current article was created by an editor with a similar name, and I have suggested they also be looked at as a possible sock. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
The article ist a hoax. When you visit the Website, there is only given a mobile phone number, no telephone of fax. And the "Founder" and "Key man" has an "outlook.de" email. Its also told that the company ist registered in the German Trade Register (Amtsgericht Zweibrücken), but on the official website https://www.handelsregister.de the Universum Studio cannot be found, although in Germany every GmbH must be registererd at the trade Register. The Websites MelanieN found are about de:Universum Film, a real film company, not Universum Studio. -- JLKiel ( talk) 19:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is almost certainly a hoax. Having dealt with the hoaxer (including their numerous sockpuppets) before, I know that their activity here also involves astroturfing IMDb with similar bogus information. There are zero reliable sources that the subject of this article exists. I agree with JLKiel in that the film studio of the similar name exists, but this company does not. -- Kinu  t/ c 22:14, 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 send for cleanup (yes, this is an option since the old days). I think everyone is in agreement that the article needs additional sources and work, so let's get it done. If that doesn't work out, the keep arguments will be significantly weakened in any future AfD or merge/redirect discussions. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication

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

In short, WP:RS. I have nominated this page because it has no citations, and it appears that the information is taken directly from the "SOJCs" own webpage - i.e. is just promotional garbage. Also lacking WP:Notability, as we don't have a page (or need one) for every journalism department in the world. FarahPanda ( talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I'd be happy to help adding citations and making the tone more neutral. As for notability, SOJC is considered by some to be one of the top journalism schools in the United States and certainly in Oregon. [1] ChaseKR ( talk) 18:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Best Journalism Schools at U.S. Colleges and Universities". College Media Matters.
  • Keep w/ Reliable Sources. I agree with Chase, but the source he quotes isn't very reliable. It's a blog, from what I can tell - let me know if I'm wrong, Chase. I did a quick search through google news and various other pages, and I couldn't find anything that supports notability. But I could absolutely be wrong. If anyone finds some reliable sources (e.g. Chronicle of Higher Ed, AEJMC, etc.), alongside Wikipedia pages for notable alumni and faculty, the argument for notability is easily met. I can't do that work, though: Full disclosure, I've graduated from the SOJC, so it's hard to tell what is actual fact, and what is PR bs coming from what can often be an echo chamber about how "excellent" we are. If I don't see anything in the next couple of days, I'll have to change my vote to delete. But let's work on this puzzle together!
    • On a side note, Fara: The entry does help with some other entries that you're working on (e.g. Carol Stabile). People have different philosophies for editing Wikipedia, but mine is generally to help build up the encyclopedia rather than delete things that could use improvement. That's the purpose of the stub tag that is admittedly way over due on this page. I don't mean to be condescending, or to tell you how to do what you want, but to suggest a different way of looking at editing. Either way, thanks for being so involved! Great to see new Wikipedians coming out of the FemTechNet project!! Thebrycepeake ( talk) 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, it is a blog and its methodology is pretty questionable, but it is tied to Associated Collegiate Press. Surprisingly enough, there isn't much in the way of journalism program rankings so we need to work in a broader sense of notability. Thanks for being honest about the conflict of interest! ChaseKR ( talk) 17:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:06, 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. Nakon 02:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Vinson Real Estate Group

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

No evidence of notability of this company. Only three sources, of which 2 are over 15 years old. Joseph2302 ( talk) 13:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:03, 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. Nakon 02:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Marine Software Limited

Marine Software 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)

Fails WP:CORP as non notable company Flat Out  let's discuss it 12:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:29, 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. Nakon 02:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Muslim Heretics Conference

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

There is some coverage and notable people are involved, but I'm not convinced it's enough to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Tagged for notability 7 years ago by Deb, still unresolved. Boleyn ( talk) 12:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 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. Nakon 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Philip Clayton (theologian)

Philip Clayton (theologian) (  | 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 any independent reliable sources about this person. Sam Walton ( talk) 11:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
There is a lot of coverage. I put "Philip Clayton" + Claremont into a google news search, and came up with ppages of substantive stuff. Page could certainly use expansion. But notability is not in question. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
E.M.Gregory, could you give examples of some of this coverage? Sam Walton ( talk) 21:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as the holder of a named chair and author of a number of academic works. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the necessary criterion is satisfied. (the actual notability is as an expert in his subject, but we regard the named chair as a convenient shortcut, since it's a reliable indication of that). DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Holder of a named academic chair. Carrite ( talk) 00:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment per WP:PROF: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." Does anyone actually have any reliable sources to use in this article? If not, saying "has a named chair" carries little weight. Sam Walton ( talk) 09:13, 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) – Davey2010 Talk 17:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Dolmen Press

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

There are claims to WP:NOTABILITY but not substantiated. Seems promotional. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully it can now be resolved. Boleyn ( talk) 11:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Hutton, Clare; Walsh, Patrick, eds. (2011). The Oxford History of the Irish Book, Volume V: The Irish Book in English, 1891-2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 591. ISBN  0199249113.

      The subject is discussed in Chapter 25 of this book. The book notes on page 11:

      The failings of state-sponsored attempts to control the direction of book culture through censorship of Irish language publishing were obvious. But for the shining exception represented by the Dolmen Press (established in 1951 and discussed by Derval Tubridy in Chapter 25) little was to change in the world of Irish publishing during the 1950s—a period of very heavy emigration—until late in that decade when new economic policies were introduced.

      The book notes on page 591:

      Though initially it seemed like a hazardous venture, the range of publications and the quality of the editions marked the Dolmen Press out as an extraordinary publishing house which rejuvenated Irish literature and criticism, and further advanced the tradition of illustration begun with the illuminated manuscripts of early Christian times. The man behind this achievement has been described as 'a new kind of impresario and a reinventor of prevailing tradition.' Typographer, artist, architect, set-designer, Yeats scholar, and philatelist, Liam Miller played a vital role in the development of a new generation of poets and writers of the 1950s and 1960s in Ireland, making possible, as one writer notes, 'a normal career, one volume evolving from another.' With his tremendous eye for design Miller brought the art back into publishing, encouraging collaboration between artists and writers, sourcing the very best in materials and ensuring that Dolmen Press books were of the highest standard. For Louis le Brocquy, Miller 'was an artist enraptured by a vision of perfection for its own sake, by an overriding concern for the thing itself.'

      The book notes on pages 633–634:

      The Dolmen Press ceased business following the death of Liam Miller in 1987 and the firm's archive is now in the Z Smyth Reynolds Library in Wake Forest University in North Carolina.

      The book notes on pages 1–2:

      A few salient details may be drawn from the example of Heaney's publishing history. Heaney is one amoung a number of major twentieth century Irish writers to establish a literary career in London, and then desire publication in Ireland. At the very beginning of his career, in 1964, he sent a collection of poems to the leading Irish cultural publisher of this era, the Dolmen Press in Dublin, which was run by Liam Miller (1924–87), a distinguished book designer with great enthusiasm for fine literature and printing.

      The book notes on page 110:

      In addition to these major players there existed a plethora of smaller firms, many of which were miniscule in size, short-livved in their duration, and frankly non-commercial in their activities (being little more than hobbies for their owners). A small number of these private presses, most notably the Cuala Press from 1908 to 1946, and later the Dolmen Press from 1951 to 1988, were dedicated to the publication of imaginative literature in beautiful hand printed form, and, in particular, to the promotion of the work of new writers.

    2. Redshaw, Thomas Dillon (May 2012). "'The Dolmen Poets': Liam Miller and Poetry Publishing in Ireland, 1951–1961". Irish University Review. 42 (1). Edinburgh University Press: 141–154. doi: 10.3366/iur.2012.0013.

      The abstract notes:

      With the publication of The Dolmen Miscellany (1962) and the inception of Poetry Ireland the same year, Liam Miller's Dolmen Press came to represent artistically and commercially Irish poets and their works within the Republic of Ireland and abroad. In Miller's publishing practice, the liberal notion of ‘Poetry Ireland’ had come to supplant a narrower one: the idea of the ‘Dolmen Poets.’ As the nineteen fifties drew to a close, the Dolmen Poets were Padraic Colum and Austin Clarke (but not Patrick Kavanagh), Richard Murphy, John Montague, and especially Thomas Kinsella. In Dolmen's earliest years, however, the notion of the ‘Dolmen Poets’ had entailed other figures – David Marcus, Donald Davie, Valentin Iremonger – as well as a “group” editorial method and small, economical print format suited to Dolmen's elementary technical facilities. When, in the ‘Dolmen Poets” format Miller printed the programme for the famous, three-way reading by Murphy, Montague, and Kinsella at the Royal Hibernian Hotel on 3 February 1961, both the occasion and the souvenir programme signalled Miller's embracing of the concept of ‘Poetry Ireland’.

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

    Cunard ( talk) 23:12, 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. Nakon 02:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

ChipVault

ChipVault (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SageGreenRider ( talk) 18:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Non-notable web project. I only found one mention of it (apart from Wikipedia itself and the repo at SourceForge). The original contributor has a single purpose account ( contribs) and appears to have a close connection with the topic. SageGreenRider ( talk) 11:35, 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 no consensus. Nakon 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Aileen Lee

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

Contested PROD about a businesswomen who lacks any real n notability. No significant award or achievements. Mrfrobinson ( talk) 03:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - There are enough references to establish notability. Though no awards or achievements have been described her activities and opinions seemed to have attracted non-primary source attention.   Bfpage | leave a message  19:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Off-topic Comment The nominator has made it his mission as an editor to pursue my edits. He does little else other than reverting and nominating my edits for deletion. For a recent example see my comments in a previous nomination “discussion". I have been complaining about this behavior for months, but it seems that on Wikipedia the victim is automatically at fault. Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I strongly suggest you strike that comment. Not only are you off-topic, you are casting aspersions on another editor, and have done this multiple times. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm leaning to delete at the moment, but this is a very borderline case, hence the appropriateness of bringing this to AfD.
Of the 7 references currently in the article, [1] is written by the subject herself, [2] is more a less a summary of the article by the subject, [3] is clearly press release based, about another person and company, and mentions the subject only in passing, [4] is a profile from a site with user-generated content, [5] is a brief "interview" with the subject about her view of another company, [6] and [7] are from TechCrunch (as are [1] and [3]) and are connected with publicizing the launch of her new company. Incidentally, TechCrunch is owned by AOL, which had a heavy investment by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, for whom the subject still works. Note also that "founding CEO" of RMG Networks means she was the first CEO but not necessarily the founder of the company, and she had left RMG four years before it became a publicly traded company.
I have found nothing which covers the subject herself in any kind of depth. Thus she arguably does not pass WP:GNG, and she clearly does not pass the alternative criteria at WP:ANYBIO. One of the major problems with assessing articles about businesses and business people is that they are all seasoned users of the public relations industry who can generate coverage, out of all proportion to the importance or long-lasting significance of the subject, especially in the case of start-ups and venture capital. I suggest reading "Benjamin Wey and the Power of PR" from the Columbia Journalism Review for caveats that all editors of business-related articles should be aware of. Voceditenore ( talk) 15:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Another comment: It's possible she's notable for reasons the article doesn't make clear. The WSJ apparently finds female VCs interesting enough to write about. How rare are they? How rare are female VCs who start their own firms? If she's breaking new ground, the article should say so up front. Right now the article suggests she's just another respected businessperson who occasionally gets mentioned briefly in articles along with a bunch of other people. -- Rosekelleher ( talk) 11:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • That's a very good question. According to Reuters [19], 6% of all partners in all VC firms globally are women—a small percentage, but not a small number, given the number of VC firms. As an example, Lee was previously a partner in Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which alone has about 10 women partners (junior and senior). See also this list of 105 women venture capitalists, although largely confined to the US. There are already several VC firms started by women which are dedicated solely to funding start-ups by women entrepreneurs. As far`as I can see, Lee's new firm, Cowboy Ventures, is not one of those. Voceditenore ( talk) 13:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without prejudice. She is undeniably successful as an individual, but notability is another thing, and she is not that. I tried to find an article she could be merged to, but none seem apropos. As an editor above enumerated, the citations in the article are all borderline and weak except for the TechCrunch one. This passage made me think that it is too soon for her to have her own page, if ever:

It’s generally too early to tell how those bets will ultimately play out, although a few of those companies have already moved on to successfully raise Series A rounds. Lee declined to comment for this story, but after two-and-a-half years, she and Lichtenstein are apparently now ready to raise a new fund. While the SEC filing shows they are seeking slightly more capital to work with for Cowboy Ventures Fund II, at $55 million, the amount is consistent with the same type of early-stage investments.

$55million isn't that much money in the venture capital world (I don't think?), and the company's impact remains unproven.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The Tech Crunch articles ( [20] [21]) suggest that the subject meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. She also seems to be mentioned regularly in major press outlets, even outside of the many mentions she gets in articles about Ellen Pao. Last week Lee's firm was one of the subjects of a New York Times DealBook article where she was quoted. A week before that, her unicorn club article was mentioned in both Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. gobonobo + c 03:04, 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 delete. j⚛e decker talk 02:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

InstaForex

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

No evidence of notability NE Ent 09:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 10:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 10:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability, no evidence of anything really since there are no reliable sources. There are 2 reference to the financial regulatory authorities of Belize - which is not known for its financial markets. The first one says they are regulated, the second says that the license has been withdrawn (and is now a deadlink). There is no way we'd even be able to tell if it is still in business. Smallbones( smalltalk) 12:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability, clearly created to promote the company. Furthermore we need to nuke these obviously commercial pages even when they do include include sources trying to claim marginal Notability. Alsee ( talk) 21:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 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 redirect to Greenford. Closing early as most primary schools now get redirected if no notability can be found. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 15:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Ravenor Primary School

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

Non-notable primary school; PROD removed — teb728 t c 08:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 10:13, 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. Nakon 02:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Broadclose House

Broadclose House (  | 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. Pinging those who have looked at its notability before: Jbhunley, Necrothesp. Boleyn ( talk) 08:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 08:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 09:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 09:17, 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 speedy delete. A7, no reasonable claim of importance DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Ranuka Hewage

Ranuka Hewage (  | 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:SCHOLAR. — teb728 t c 08:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 08:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 08:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 08:18, 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. Michig ( talk) 08:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hatable

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PROD removed. — teb728 t c 08:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:49, 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 procedural close; incorrect forum for a redirect page. The page has been renominated at RfD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 30. North America 1000 13:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

People's republic of poland

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

WP:MOS, bad English Poeticbent talk 05:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 08:21, 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. Michig ( talk) 08:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Chris Young (rugby league)

Chris Young (rugby league) (  | 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 rugby league player who no longer meets the WP:RLN guidelines. J Mo 101 ( talk) 12:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: Doesn't appear notable and the references are all dead links. Mattlore ( talk) 19:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ⨹ 05:27, 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 22:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Y. S. Sharmila

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

During my second look at this article it appears there is nothing to be salvaged. Recommending deletion as subject does not meet any relevant guideline for notability, and is lacking non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 18:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ⨹ 05:25, 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. Michig ( talk) 08:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Asharfi Lal Mishra

Asharfi Lal Mishra (  | 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:Notability. Non-notable person, only sources, which editor is now edit warring over, are WP pages, WP:Commons pages, Twitter and Facebook. Likely autobiography. 220 of Borg 05:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete A7 No assertion of importance in the article. Unremarkable maths teacher. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 07:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Is document not reliable source?(Teacher1943)
I have found sources from Facbook,twitter & website and also met to Asharfi Lal Mishra in a annual function at Galuwapur Inter College.He is eminent educationists of State Uttar Pradesh,India.If administration is not satisfied please delete it shortly.Thanks.(Teacher1943) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
teacher43 I have told you, more than once, that "Facbook,twitter & website" (personal website that is) are self-published and therefore not reliable sources and so cannot be used on WP as references. 220 of Borg 10:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 08:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Dear gentlemen! I have linked documentary proof ie. A certificate given by state government of Uttar Pradesh,India for "Teacher Award 1998" but not accepted Please tell me option for it. I have linked other many photo groups & certificate but not accepted please tell me suitable & reliable option source. Teachers/educationists are not willing go to media for publicity in India. Educationists are not businessmen.Print media is also under pocket. Please tell me a certificate is reliable or a news paper,photo group is reliable or news paper. According to WP news paper is reliable.It means any degree or any award or any prize has no meaning without approval of print media. and print media is not so fair and its work.At last I have found that according to WP any achievement has no meaning. Dear sir achievements are ornaments of print media.(Teacher 1943) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Please first of all you provide me reliable list of news agency,news papers ,reliable books,reliable scholars.(Teacher1943} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Here is how to find out if a source is reliable or not.-- Skamecrazy123 ( talk) 16:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
There is also the question as to whether the award confers enough notability to push its recipient over the notability bar. Le petit fromage ( talk) 16:39, 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. Nakon 21:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

TalkLocal

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

Almost entirely advertising. The refs. are either to the company web site or press releases or only mention the company, or are routine notices about funding. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I read all the references and a few were trustworthy 2nd parties, but a lot of times they are just references to listings and databases that would have info on nearly any company. I don't see anything notable just seems another company par for the course. Maybe it's horrible but we have articles on plane crashes not planes landing. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 14:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Mostly questionable sources, seems best known for raising money. But new companies raising money is nothing new or notable. AlbinoFerret 19:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This Articlee is no more of an advertisement than the one on facebook or thumbtack or adobe photoshop... Further most references to how photoshop works would reference the photoshop user manual written by adobe. Further wikipedia policy states that notability is not solley based on a companies popularity. Mynameisdeleted 21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per the nominator; there is no significant notice outside of advertorial or passing references. There is no discussion of how the business earns its money (nor can I find any information about this on their website or any other site), aside from raising capital investment. On looking at the article history, it is clear that much of the content has been added by single-purpose accounts, including what looks like a company-operated account. The website says it has made over a million calls, but doesn't discuss its success rate in linking people to service providers, so there is no measurement of the success of the company anywhere. It is not discussed in any of the sources, nor could I find any other sources that provided this information. In other words...there's nothing here but promotional material. Risker ( talk) 03:54, 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. Nakon 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Patta Patta Singhan Da Vairi

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

Film that sounds more like a promo page based off of this article Wgolf ( talk) 04:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 04:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 04:33, 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 speedy delete by MusikAnimal as WP:G7, One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Fox Archive

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

The topic does not appear to be notable by Wikipedia standards (see WP:N and WP:CORP). I can find no coverage of it in any secondary source at all, let alone significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Furthermore, the user who created the page has not edited any other pages, suggesting a strong personal involvement with the topic and a resulting conflict of interest. Lemuellio ( talk) 04:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I would think that 20th Century Fox would be interested in a site trading on their trademark in a confusing way, unlike the legit Warner Archive Collection. As it is though, this is pretty much an archive.org scraper looking for pageclicks and wrapping ads around them. User has also added links to several articles to film links on their site, undercutting the free archive.org links, which I have removed. Nate • ( chatter) 07:53, 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. Nakon 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The Fight For Bala (film)

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

Non-notable film lacking non-trivial support. Mentions are passing in nature, very little about the movie. reddogsix ( talk) 01:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_March_30&oldid=1142625164"