Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_May_24 References

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 23 May	25 May >

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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 04:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

ADO Group

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

Sister article Adopen just died at afd, and now I am turning the Adopen guns on ADO Group for the same reason I put Adopen up at AFD: Both pages appear to be twins separated at birth, both are overly bloated ads, both are poorly written, and now that Adopen is deleted I feel that ADO group should join its sister article in the digital dust bin since the article is written like an ad and asserts no notability. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete: No evidence of notability found from multiple searches by both the English and Turkish firm name. (Note that there is also a Mexican transportation firm by this name who do have some coverage.) AllyD ( talk) 06:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Unable to find any evidence that the subject meets GNG or CORP. Cited sourced all fail WP:RS. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Don't Delete This group is obviously among biggest 200-300 jobs of Turkey with international investments in region, definetely important for the sector No evidence found in web comment is quite weird, there are min 4-5 pages in google for searches made from turkey location with ADO, ADO Grup, ADO Group, ADOPEN etc. Adopen is well known brand in Turkey, which was removed also from wiki on unfair ground. So why you have Deceuninck with all links etc. Same job even ADO & Adopen may be reporting even bigger profits. Deletion of ADOPEN was unfair, Deletion of ADO is also unfair. Additionally, deletion of proper articles on such basis, is discouraging to ppl who want to expand wiki as an global encyclopedic free resource. Deletion wont harm those corporations but wiki will miss the data for ppl searching for it anyway. User:Antalt07 ( talk) 15:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence of notability that meets criteria for inclusion. Amortias ( T)( C) 21:59, 30 May 2014 (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 00:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Wavetec

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

Creating account has been blocked for being a company account. The company itself doesn't seem to be notable, links are mainly to press releases. Zeus^u|
c 23:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Article appears to be SPAM. A Google failed to turn up anything that even comes close to ringing the notability bell. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Notability appears to be an issue. Not quite an advertisment but definite COI. Amortias ( T)( C) 22:02, 30 May 2014 (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 Suleiman the Magnificent. Go Phightins ! 18:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Şehzade Mahmud

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

No evidence of notability Miszatomic ( Talk) 16:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Absolutely no references; fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Notability is not inherited. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep He is on Turkish Wikipedia [1]. Sources for notability are on paper not the Web. I am One of Many ( talk) 05:28, 21 May 2014 (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 ♔ 23:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom - Fails GNG. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 01:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - I added a reliable source. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 08:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect to Suleiman the Magnificent. Normally the progeny of monarchs have some limited claim to notability by virtue of being "blood royal," but this article doesn't pass muster. The subject died in childhood and what we have is a two sentence stub with little realistic hope of expansion into an encyclopedic article. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Suleiman the Magnificent. If, at some future time, sufficient information and reliable sources come to light, recreate at that time. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect per User:Ad Orientem. Otherwise likely to remain a perpetual stub.-- Mojo Hand ( talk) 15:57, 1 June 2014 (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 00:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Chad Lee (politician)

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

Unelected politician fails WP:POLITICIAN. No significant 3rd party sources that would pass the WP:GNG. Tassedethe ( talk) 21:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 21:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN unless significant coverage can be shown with citations, etc. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 04:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete As others have observed, the subject clearly fails POLITICIAN and there is nothing else that suggests notability. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Unsuccessful candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — a person has to either win the election, or already be notable enough for other things prior to their candidacy (e.g. as a writer, as a musician, as an athlete, etc.) that they'd pass a different notability criterion. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 00:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian ( talk) 20:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete fails politician criteria and no other notable mentions Amortias ( T)( C) 22:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. Concur with views expressed above. Finnegas ( talk) 11:20, 31 May 2014 (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 00:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Wilson Wan Sze Chung

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

It just has way too much of a feel of a self-promotion article, and I think the notability is questionable — although, obviously, I'd want the community to think about it with me. As for myself, delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 19:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Heavily promotional in tone. A couple of primary source references. Other references are mostly irrelevant and do not relate to the article topic. I can't find anything reliable to establish notability via Google search. Educational and accountancy qualifications are run of the mill Philg88 ^♦
talk 10:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Grossly promotional to the degree it would be a good G-11 CSD candidate. And yeah, the subject seems to lack any kind of encyclopedic notability. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Promotional and no sign of notability to the standards needed. Amortias ( T)( C) 22:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per G12. ( NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC) reply

SteamCMD

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. czar ♔ 19:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete seems to be a part of Steam, not necessary of its own article. Zeus^u|
c 20:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 00:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:54, 25 May 2014 (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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 04:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Renz Baluyot

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

Does not meet notability standards and is mostly self-written ( WP:NOTE, WP:AUTOBIO, WP:SOAP, WP:COI) Pcwendland ( talk) 13:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Not enough significant coverage from third-party sources. 舎利弗 ( talk) 21:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I would like to remind all parties that using multiple accounts to create an illusion of support is prohibited in Wikipedia, and may result to a block or a ban. (Please see WP:SOCK) I have the very strong suspicion that User:Mahleen27, User:Mcluhanesque, User:Irene dolphin and User:Mariean2net are very well the same person, or at least persons under the influence of the same person ( WP:MEAT). I thought moving a userspace talk page to the mainspace was very irregular. The content of the talk page was suspicious as well. While it might not be hard evidence, but one can find striking similarities in the user pages I have provided. I have not so far found any evidence of multiple-account misuse apart from the said talk page (note the timestamps) to merit a sockpuppet investigation, but please consider yourself warned. 舎利弗 ( talk) 21:47, 23 May 2014 (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 ♔ 17:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 18:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom, no evidence of notability Amortias ( T)( C) 22:15, 30 May 2014 (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 00:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

La Otra (2015 telenovela)

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

Telenovela unconfirmed created by user already has many warning, and still the same. GeorgeMilan ^TALK2ME 19:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 20. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:13, 20 May 2014 (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 ♔ 17:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - We may write about it when we see it, not before. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 18:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Another creation by a user who has been warned about creating articles about unconfirmed telenovas. Amortias ( T)( C) 22:38, 30 May 2014 (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 00:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Househappy

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

I see only local sources, or sources that provide an incidental mention, neither of which prove notability. It seems that all small startups sponsored by various incubators manage to get a small amount of publicity. Some actual degree of success should be needed before they get into an encyclopedia--there is no need for us to emulate a web directory. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete I think it's too soon and I'm not seeing substantial coverage in reliable independent sources for this recent startup. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 00:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:05, 17 May 2014 (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 ♔ 17:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 18:15, 24 May 2014 (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 14:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Trouble Ticket Express

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

Clearly fails notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Admittedly this is my first article authoring, so I'm at a bit of a loss since comparing it to other ticket system pages this seems quite complete and better supported. For example, have a look at SimpleDesk, there's nothing there. Having put together all available information I can on the subject, referencing multiple third party sources, if it does not meet the criteria still, I'll just let it go. I've just used the software before and found it odd it was not included in the Wikipedia Help Desk software lists and comparisons. Jasondaemon ( talk) 19:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Completeness isn't the criteria. Notability is. WP:PRODUCT discusses a different notability guideline. And as for comparing it to other ticket system articles, feel free to nominate them or list them on my talk page and I'll review them. Feel free to read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:38, 10 May 2014 (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 ♔ 22:42, 16 May 2014 (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 ♔ 17:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Subject fails WP:PRODUCT. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:PRODUCT. But, thank you to new wikipedian Jasondaemon for your contribution. Please don't take it personally that your first attempt to write an article wasn't received well. Read up on Wikipedia:Article development and please come back with more contributions. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2014 (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. Based on the discussion, I'm wondering if the whole series of these articles should be deleted by the same logic, but that's way out of scope for this AfD, so no action on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC) reply

After I closed this, @ Peter James: contacted me and pointed out some issues with my original close. Upon closer evaluation, I've come to the conclusion that I may have made an error, so I'm re-closing this a no consensus (and restoring the article). No prejudice against immediately relisting this on AfD if anybody feels that's appropriate. Pinging the other participants to make sure they're aware. @ Anthony Appleyard: @ Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: @ Davey2010: @ Ad Orientem: -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Now That's What I Call R&B

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

Re-creation Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

It's a different album with the same title. The deleted article was about an album released in the US and possibly only sold in Walmart stores; this is about an album released in the UK and Ireland later in the same year that was top 10 in the UK's compilations and downloads charts. Peter James ( talk) 19:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography. The title's a bit ambiguous if there were different versions released in multiple areas. These Now! albums sell well no matter what without receiving any significant coverage in reliable sources, so charting in and of itself doesn't seem to be enough to warrant its own article. --00:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep as notable UK album. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 18:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Four charting songs clearly rings the notability bell for this album. But I am tagging it for ref improve. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note that all of the songs on the album charted before the album was ever released. That's what these Now albums are all about: compilations of current hit songs. The album has NOTHING to do with the charting of these songs and each is completely independent of the album. Notability is not inherited. Significant coverage of the album in reliable sources does not exist. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Changing !vote based on comment by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 26 May 2014

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). ( non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC) reply

S.R.Prabhu

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

An exact replica of Studio Green but for the history section which has been replaced with an unsourced biography. Fails WP:BIO. Veera Dheera Sooran ( talk) 21:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 10 May 2014 (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 ♔ 22:41, 16 May 2014 (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 ♔ 17:11, 24 May 2014 (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 Elite Model Look International. Go Phightins ! 18:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Elite Model Look International 1991

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

Non-notable run of contest. No independent sources with in depth coverage. Creator acknoweldges on talk page that there aren't many sources. Redirect to Elite Model Look also possible. Stuartyeates ( talk) 20:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect per nom. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:27, 24 May 2014 (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 ♔ 17:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - I can't see a reason why this specific year should have a separate entry. Bali88 ( talk) 21:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - I concur. No real clear reason for singling out this one year. Mabalu ( talk) 22:01, 27 May 2014 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Somedays

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment When I searched for "Somedays" -wikipedia "Matt Wertz" I found these potential good hits. http://www.allmusic.com/album/somedays-mw0000790877 and http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/cdreviews/Somedays.asp and http://www.newreleasetuesday.com/albumdetail.php?album_id=1759 None have a staff review, so they do not help make the case. Nothing else even remotely approaching a RS in the first five Google pages. Clearly fails notability, but PROD was removed because, and I paraphrase, the subject was notable so the album must be as well. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - I note that, other than the sources (all being from the same sites, just referencing the relevant albums), this is identical to the AfD /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twentythree_Places - My response is just the same: This album is a stub. It meets notability, but hasn't been developed into a full article. That is its only shortcoming, not that of being notable of encyclopaedic entry. As with the prior, it is referenced on iTunes at https://itunes.apple.com/au/album/somedays/id287443236 and is a debut album, which in itself denotes the album's ubiquity. Having said that, I am well aware that ubiquity alone doesn't denote notability, but the range of factors involved do. Again, the only thing that doesn't work for this article is that it's a stub (albeit larger than most music related stubs on WP), and that's no crime. -- rm 'w a vu 01:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment No, the article is not a stub and therefore notable, notability requires references and you have not provided any to support such. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment Where in WP:ALBUMS is referencing a requirement for notability? The ability to be referenced is. This does achieve this, I simply haven't had the time to implement these, but the implementation is not the requirement, the availability of such said sources is. -- rm 'w a vu 23:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  - Sorry, you are correct. No sources are available though and that is what I was saying. Are you saying that sources are available? If so, provide them or the case is clearly closed. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:11, 23 May 2014 (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 ♔ 17:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Stubs don't get a "get out of jail free card" with respect to notability. They still need reliable sources. I don't see anything obvious on Google, and the article itself is completely unreferenced. It can be recreated if reliable sources are located. Could also be userfied if the creator wants. It sounds like the creator might want to work on this article. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 09:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. Per above. HotHat ( talk) 09:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. I don't see the sources Görlitz mentioned, or others provided, as establishing notability even under the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 19:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - same reasons as above Nz101^Userpage_Talkpage 09:05, 2 June 2014 (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. G12 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply

European Forum of Deposit Insurers

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

Self-presentation of a Belgium-based NGO. The article cites no independent reliable sources, and has been labelled as such for two years. - Andrei ( talk) 16:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Sounds like an important organization. Deletion nomination lacks any valid-for-deletion argument. Sure, sources should be added. Probably many sources are in Belgian or French or other languages. What is the name of this organization in various languages, could someone add, and set up searches on those terms? -- do ncr am 00:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete. Copyvio http://efdi.eu/index.php?id=2 duffbeerforme ( talk) 02:11, 26 May 2014 (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 14:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The Rise and Fall of the First Popeil Gadget Dynasty

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. This was created by an apparent single-purpose account and hasn't been improved since being tagged in late 2013. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete as nomination, no significant third-party attention & so no way to expand this article beyond the bare synopsis that it is at present. TheLongTone ( talk) 17:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. All the references are self-published, and the tone is way too promotional for wikipedia. At least some of this text is copyvio (from, for example, https://www.prbuzz.com/books-publishing-literature/142823-book-clubs-explore-the-original-pioneers-of-telemarketing.html). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2014 (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 00:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

2006 in information technology

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

Completely unreferenced and original resarch. Nothing links to this page; annual summaries exist for no other years. Mikeblas ( talk) 15:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Per nomination. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 16:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete: useless, unreferenced, unencyclopedic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 13:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per czarkoff - Unencyclopaedic crap. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 03:20, 27 May 2014 (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 Poppy Z. Brite. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) reply

R.I.P. (story)

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

Non-notable short stories. Mikeblas ( talk) 14:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages by the same author as they're similarly non-notable:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect all to Poppy Z. Brite. Not seeing RS for these stories that demonstrate notability. PaintedCarpet ( talk) 23:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect all to Poppy Z. Brite. That seems reasonable to me. I don't see much but blogs and wikis in a Google search. I don't think Poppy Z. Brite achieved the obsessive interest that Stephen King has, such that even King's short stories are analyzed and adapted to film. If reliable sources do show up, the article can always be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 09:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Poppy Z. Brite, notability of individual stories not established.-- Staberinde ( talk) 15:32, 28 May 2014 (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 15:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hylon Williams, Jr.

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

Non-notable boxer, nothing steller as amateur does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and the only source is a link to his fight record. Jakejr ( talk) 06:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 02:37, 1 June 2014 (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 00:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

IGNArchives.com

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

The article seems like a advertisement of a website and not context the notability. Also there is no external sources other than the mentioned website. Abhilashkrishn ( talk) 14:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete as per the above Zeus^u|
c 20:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete as it seems advertisement.- Abhilashkrishn ( talk) 09:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete fails organisation notability. No third party reliable sources found via Google search. Philg88 ^♦
talk 12:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete as per the nom. Repeatedly recreated promotion. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete No reliable sources found when searching. Amortias ( T)( C) 22:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Arnoud van Doorn

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

Not notable. Arnoud van Doorn is an obscure Dutch politician whose main notability is his conversion from being anti-Muslim to becoming a Muslim. References mainly repeat the same story almost word for word. Jason from nyc ( talk) 13:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep per WP:BIO1E, I would not consider him a "low-profile" individual per WP:LPI so he avoids the WP:BLP1E concern. Roberticus talk 15:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - adequately sourced, with good English-language coverage (which points to him not being so obscure for a Dutch politician), and as above. Eustachiusz ( talk) 00:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - There has been coverage of the subject sustained for about a year now, and he still seems to be in the public eye. Seems to pass WP:POLITICIAN per criterion 2 in addition to the WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 04:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep His primary notability stems from a single event, but the coverage is longer lasting and he continues to have impact. Passes WP:BIO1E and maybe WP:POLITICIAN . -- Jersey92 ( talk) 04:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep As councillor for the Freedom Party, and then the Islam Democrats, he received - and keeps receiving - media coverage, both domestically and internationally (for example in a short documentary by Vice which followed him campaigning for reelection this year). His habit of courting such coverage (most recently by criticizing a fellow Muslim party for being too gay-friendly, and by being sentenced in court for leaking secret documents and selling drugs to minors), will likely keep people turning to Wikipedia to find more information about him. If he was the (co-?)producer of Fitna, as the Wikipedia article says, that's an additional reason to keep it, since the film was notable and (for better or worse) influential, provoking world-wide reactions. No-itsme ( talk) 13:55, 28 May 2014 (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 00:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Atheist nationalism

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

There is no evidence this is a formally accepted concept or a noted specific "type" of nationalism. The phrase appears in a couple of books available via Google, where it appears to merely be the passing conjunction of the words to describe nationalism that happens to occur in an "atheist" context and vice-versa. Also the page is little more than a stub and unlikely to progress beyond that N-HH talk/ edits 13:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Synthesis--a passing phrase in several sources. There is no book or article devoted to the topic. It seems to be a descriptive phrase dynamically created by independent authors and used in passing. Jason from nyc ( talk) 15:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Per rationale of nominator and Jason from nyc. Article is based on original synthesis.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 16:24, 29 May 2014 (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. Having read this entire discussion (as well as the last AfD), I see no consensus either way. On one hand, we have editors (such as the nominator) suggesting that the article's cited sources are not reliable, third-party sources, which are required per GNG (regardless of project-specific notability guidelines, disregarding them under the reasoning that their stipulations "may" establish notability). On the other hand, there are editors who believe that the group meets either or both GNG and the project-specific guidelines. As this is the second AfD within a month's time, I feel relisting will likely also fail to achieve consensus, and as such, am closing it as no consensus with apologies to the nominator, who obviously has spent much time meticulously promulgating his admittedly valid viewpoint, and to those supporting outright keeping of the article, who also have valid reasoning. My advice is that the editors involved wait a few months, and try again if some editors still feel it is necessary. Best, Go Phightins ! 22:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Fly Project

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

Recently, an AfD on this closed as "no consensus". I then proceeded to remove the "sources" with which the article is stuffed, as they simply do not belong in an encyclopedia, as will be shown. The article creator proceeded to restore them, with the edit summary "not biruitorul decides which sources are reliable and which not". Now, if I understand his rather limited English correctly, my response is that as an editor in good standing, I very much can decide on reliability of sources, and if there's a complaint about a particular link I removed, that can be resolved via discussion. However, since the article creator appears uninterested in this process, it seems best to return here and achieve a consensus this time. Hence the new AfD.

So, just what are these "sources"? Well, for starters, many of them are based on the band's biography at their official site.

This one is a Russian translation of said biography. Also, I'm not clear on what makes www.europaplus.ru a reliable source.
Likewise. And romanian-music.net is definitely not reliable; it's user-submitted.
As for this: I'm afraid www.starmania.ro is also a user-generated site.
This appears to be yet another Russian translation of their publicity material. Moreover, www.fly-project-la-musica.ru (just look at the URL) cannot be considered a reliable source.
And another rehash of their promotional stuff, this time in a radio station directory.
Directory entry, and again, without any sort of depth.
Press release from MTV about MTV awards. Discard per WP:SPS.
The Russian thing is getting a bit boring, so all together now: here and here and here and here and here we have yet more Russian translations of Fly Project's official biography, on sites we have absolutely no reason to believe are reliable sources: www.energyfm.ru, www.zvezdi.ru, muzebra.com, music.ivi.ru, www.piter.fm.

The article looks like a classic case of WP:MASK, where multiple links are thrown together to create the appearance of notability where none exists.

This time, I hope we can achieve consensus to delete. And in closing, I will add that before we can even consider whether criteria 2-12 of WP:MUSICBIO may apply toward this band's notability, it's imperative that point 1 be satisfied — "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" — at least insofar as the claims in the article are made. In other words, chart positions and award nominations are mentioned, but as things stand, they are meaningless unless and until reliable sources emerge confirming those assertions. Thus far, that has manifestly failed to occur. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 18:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep: added other sources which confirms chart positions in different countries for some of band songs. I repeat - band is notable. Maybe they are not notorious, because they not appeared in TV shows or not offered interviews, but they are notable, at least for music they produces. XXN ( talk) 23:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC) reply
- Simply repeating that something is notable does not magically make it so. Let's look at what you've added instead. You've added their Facebook page, which obviously is meaningless as a source per WP:SPS. Then you added eighteen links to charts - things like this. I'm sorry, but that is trivia, and WP:MUSICBIO is fairly explicit in demanding "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". Keep looking for those non-trivial, independent, reliable sources if you wish, but so far, you've come up glaringly short. The fact that the band has not been the subject of such coverage (as far as we can tell) strongly, even implicitly, indicates a lack of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  - It's acceptable to cite oficial band website/FB for componence of band. And look at Wikipedia:Notability (music):

“

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

”

and i present you at least 3 critearias met by band:

“

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

”

XXN ( talk) 18:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Notice: may be notable; "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Even if this band has placed on some chart or been played on some radio station, WP:GNG still applies, and signs of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" still need to be shown, not just the trivia you've produced thus far. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply

....”Even if this band has placed on some chart or been played on some radio station” band is not notable and article must be deleted because user Biruitorul want this, and nothing else matters. XXN ( talk) 15:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Weak keep. From what I can see, they've had multiple singles on national charts. My concern is sourcing. Other than the singles rankings, nothing is adequately sourced. The only biographical info in the article cites the band's own Facebook page, which is of course not a reliable third-party source, and the MTV Europe award nomination is sourced to MTV's own page. They've had hit singles and, according to the article, won a Romanian Music Award (though this claim is not sourced at all), so some media outlet must have written something about them. All I've been able to find is [2], but it's pretty cursory and I can't really assess its reliability (at least, it seems to be independent of the subject, and not user-edited), and I can't read Romanian, so my ability to search in depth is limited. I'd be more confident if more reliable third-party sources featuring more then trivial coverage or passing mentions of the band could be found. — Gwalla | Talk 07:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC) reply
- romanian-music.net may not be connected to Fly Project, but it has the feel of a self-published site. I can't quite put my finger on it, and you needn't take my word for it, but something about the layout, the ads, the promotional tone suggests it's not a professional publication.
- Other than that, as you indicate, the rather striking thing is the scarcity of quotable sources. We haven't been given a citation for their alleged Romanian Music Award, and what I could find by searching in Romanian mainly consisted of routine coverage - concerts in provincial cities, birthday concerts and that type of thing. More substantial coverage remains elusive.
- Even if we grant that the band has reached some chart positions, I would argue that doesn't by itself constitute encyclopedic notability - that some sort of prose source is needed to accompany the raw data on charts. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC) reply
- Added source for Romanian Music Awards (It also contain full list of nominations and winners). XXN ( talk) 09:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nom. As mentioned many times already on this page, WP:GNG applies here. Specifically "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Honestly this band should be included in the encyclopedia if it can be shown on reliable sources. The band must be notable then get an article, not the other way around. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. If the article contains references to sources do not meet the WP:RS criteria, they should be removed. If we cannot find any reliable source for some phrases in a reasonable amount of time, we should remove those phrases too. However, the band seems notable to me and I think we can find enough reliable sources to keep the article. In my opinion, MTV Romania is a reliable, independent source, when they say "Fly Project is one of the most successful names in Romanian dance music", so WP:SPS is not an issue for this phrase. If you want an independent source for the nomination, we can find Evenimentul Zilei or TV Mania, for example. As for in-depth coverage of the band, we have the profiles published by Pro FM and MTV Romania, which, inspite of the promotional tone, are published by independent websites. According to WP:CHART, for the chart positions, acharts.us is a reliable source (at least for the France charts); so is FIMI for the Italy charts and ZPAV for Poland chards (cited in the article). About their debut and the two albums we can find some information at Mediafax. And finally, another clue that Fly Project is a notable band is the description of this book (published in Romanian language at Polirom), where Fly Project is listed (among others) as a famous Romanian band. Razvan Socol ( talk) 19:00, 24 May 2014 (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 00:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Sasan Adibi

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

Really not sure if this person passes notability criteria. Have repeatedly asked for cites to be added, but all we're getting is more and more personal/self promo links added and anonymous ISPs deleting the tags without making the slightest effort to address the problem. I think I've given enough chances now. A search on Google Books only brings up stuff he has written, I'm not seeing independent third party coverage on a general Google search. However, it is an extensive bibliography and obviously he's successful, but is it enough for notability? Mabalu ( talk) 12:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Easy one this. This early career researcher fails WP:Prof#C1 widely with a GS index of 7 [3] in a highly cited field. Nothing else. Far too early. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC). reply
Delete Non notable person, was researching the subject, limited results came up. Once the subjects gets significant coverage, for now delete. ///EuroCar GT 21:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Lacks sources to prove notability. -- Rob ( talk) 03:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Yes they might be successful but success doesnt always confer notability Amortias ( T)( C) 22:46, 30 May 2014 (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 00:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Andrisoft WANGUARD

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

Seems to be more notable than the first time it was deleted Jac16888 ^Talk 21:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete: I am not finding anything stronger than PR and occasional blog mentions of this product. Its strongest ground appears to be that it is covered in a report by a firm called Infonetics Research. That is paywalled but in the absence of seeing the depth of coverage, inclusion in a product comparison is not enough to establish notability in itself. This is clearly a specialist product, so happy to revise if anyone can locate strong coverage. AllyD ( talk) 06:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ( T • E) 10:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:GNG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 11:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The only independent ref is a paper from a 'market research and consulting firm' which would not typically meet RS requirements. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 10:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep for the following counterarguments: "Infonetics Research is not known or enough for the RS requirements" - To my knowledge that's the only company that does global and independent surveys of DDoS mitigation solutions like this one. Reports from Infonetics are listed on Wikipedia articles for Cisco Systems - worldwide leader in networking, Openet, Jasomi Networks etc. "Infonetics report is paywalled" counterargument: Andrisoft is listed in the SYNOPSIS, but that report is freely available at link. "Unclear notability" counterargument: The product was presented at security conferences and expos: Infosecurity Europe link, AEGIS link, few other academic conferences. There are less than 10 companies in the world that offer this kind of product, and this one is known by network security professionals. Vborcan ( talk) 17:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The freely available report you've linked makes no mention of WANGUARD, and Andrisoft is only mentioned incidentally at 2 points and in a graph. Without other independent refs, this is not sufficient to establish notability. Dialectric ( talk) 17:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply

In this case mentioning the company equals mentioning the product because this company develops a single product. Yes it's only a mention for a small global market share, but consider that the mention was made by an independent market research company. It's better to list as refs payed press articles like most of the vendors listed on Comparison of network monitoring systems have ? Unfortunately there is no independent press that covers network security software used for DDoS mitigation. Vborcan ( talk) 18:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply

You are missing bits about significant coverage. The fact that articles about "most of the vendors listed on Comparison of network monitoring systems" should also be deleted is irrelevant to this particular discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 19:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply

What's in other articles is indeed irrelevant, sorry for that. I hope at least the customer list can be used to assess significant coverage. Vborcan ( talk) 20:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Quick test: can you guess the name of the software by the customer list? If not, it does not really cover it at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 21:36, 26 May 2014 (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. policy-based arguments support deletion Go Phightins ! 18:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Carter Harris

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

unsourced BLP of a journalist/screenwriter with limited notability The Banner talk 22:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Quite possibly a candidate for WP:PRODBLP as no references. Amortias ( T)( C) 14:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep According to the IMDB, he has been nominated for three notable awards. IMDB. wirenote ( talk) 17:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply
- Three times nominated as part of a team and never won. The Banner talk 18:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ( T • E) 10:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete, Wasn't able to find reliable sourcing showing notability (However, there is a late Illinois State University janitor of the same name who has more coverage, and who might be notable himself, per [4].) -- j⚛e decker ^talk 15:07, 1 June 2014 (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.

Jplippstein ( talk) 23:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)please help! trying to get this page re-listed. it's my first article on wikipedia. I thought i cited all sources correctly. Please tell me how to proceed. reply

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Pillarhurst Cabins

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

PROD removed by article creator with no explanation. Unsourced (single ref makes no mention of subject) article about what I assume from reference are a small group of wooden buildings that burnt down killing some people in 1911. Where, the article does not say. Absolutely zip online to expand this article: if there was probably content belongs in the article on the settlement (possibly Malpeque Bay, Prince Edward Island, a stub)< TheLongTone ( talk) 10:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete non-notable subject TBrandley ( T • E) 10:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - I find nothing online, nor through Google Books, no Google News, under either of the spellings listed in the article. No mention in the one listed reference. While a tragedy is involved, it is not something that inherently rises to the level of notability if true. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete for reasons above. -- Rob ( talk) 03:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. There is no context for the information given. Where was this? The visible text says only “Malpeque”. The referenced Webpage is about PEI, but as two previous editors have pointed out, that page does not mention this title, and so may be unrelated. (I've added a PEI stub template anyway.) What was this? Was this an attempt to settle a new community? If so, who were the other settlers, and what happened to them? Alternately, there are hints that this was a commercial lodging business, described as “a successful cluster of cabins” with a “proprietor” which “closed September 1911” and “was sold”. If that's true, the article should say so. All of these issues could be resolved quickly with one or two real sources, but since none were provided and finding any online has been unsuccessful, I've got to side with delete. Unician ∇ 10:34, 30 May 2014 (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. J04n( talk page) 15:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

How to Kill a Dragon

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

While the author of this book is indubitably an important figure, the book itself does not appear to have acquired sufficient notability to merit its own article. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. It seems to have won an award from the APA and received some reviews at first glance, but I'm also finding it heavily referenced in other works, which backs up claims in the reviews that the book is considered to be fairly definitive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I found some more coverage and linked it to several other articles. As far as I can see, my belief that it was a fairly influential book seems to be pretty spot on. By all accounts it seems to be wildly, wildly influential and is pretty much THE book for the stuff it discusses. I've asked for help from a few WikiProjects (also asked for some of them to help User:Jayakuma RG as far as mentoring goes, hope you don't mind Jayukuma), so hopefully we can make it into another WP:HEY type situation. I've found enough to save it, but it really needs more attention from people who are familiar with the work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Please dont delete this article. This book is an important work by a noted academic. I wont add copyvio in the future. Jayakumar RG ( talk) 14:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep A quick search through JSTOR brought up seven reviews of this work from seven different journals [5]. These journal entries, in addition to the points brought up by Tokyogirl79, are more than enough to justify a keep. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 20:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep It passes criteria 1 and/or 2 of WP:BKCRIT, being:
1. It's reviewed in several, independent, reliable sources;
2. It's won the Goodwin Writing Prize from the APA, although not exactly a "major literary award" the guideline only requires one criterion to be fulfilled anyway.

Why was this even AfD'ed? 舎利弗 ( talk) 21:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep as passes GNG. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 01:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Nomination withdrawn. 舎利弗, I brought this here so that a community decision could be reached on whether to have a stand-alone page for this book or to merge the content into the page on the author. I'm now convinced, by the sources added by Tokyogirl79 and the arguments of others, that it should be kept separate. I think this could be speedy-closed. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 09:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Please use the talk page and the relevant Wikigroups next time. AfDs are not supposed to be tests of fire. :D 舎利弗 ( talk) 09:57, 25 May 2014 (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 The Dead Rabbitts. -- BDD ( talk) 22:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Shapeshifter (The Dead Rabbitts Album)

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

Album does not currently meet WP:NALBUMS. Why do we need to create articles for albums that do not meet notability criteria the moment they're announced? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete-- Blue userz ( talk) 08:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete-- Blue editorz ( talk) 08:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete-- Blue wiki userz ( talk) 08:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Ignore current votes - the three votes above appear to be invalid per WP:SOCK. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 10:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter ( talk) 08:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to The Dead Rabbitts. If album charts upon its release, then it may be notable, but not before. PaintedCarpet ( talk) 23:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 14:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Krishna Savjani

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

Withdrawn ~~Fails WP:BIO.~~ 舎利弗 ( talk) 08:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep, "Krishna Savjani acted as Chairman of the Malawi Stock Exchange from 2000 to 2010", "Savjani has acted as spokesman for the Asian community in Malawi from 1971.", "He was awarded Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth II in 2003.", are clear indications of notability. There might be issues with clean-up and better referencing in the article, but notability is not an issue here. -- Soman ( talk) 08:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
How about sources though? I can't find any that covers him significantly. Of the few sources I could find, it's only passing mentions. I'm not aware, but does an OBE, per current policy, makes a person instantly notable? I see he fulfills WP:ANYBIO item 1, but he does not meet both basic BIO criteria. 舎利弗 ( talk) 09:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
- http://books.google.com/books?id=ac4RAQAAIAAJ gives a fairly detailed account, which clarifies notability. http://www.nyasatimes.com/2012/06/23/malawi-to-respect-rule-of-law-rights-jb/ confirms his consular position. Mail and Guardian nmaes him as a prominent Asian lawyer, http://mg.co.za/article/2002-01-01-indians-in-malawi-to-seek-equal-rights . -- Soman ( talk) 13:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your hard work. I apologize for my failure to research more thoroughly. I withdraw this nomination. 舎利弗 ( talk) 13:08, 24 May 2014 (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 Source (game engine). ( non-admin closure) Ansh 666 02:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Source Dedicated Server

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

- I have serious doubts about this feature's notability. Sure there are lots of hits online, but I cannot seem to find an independent, reliable source to establish its notability or demonstrate significant coverage.

It might also be worth noting that the article was previously tagged for speedy deletion due to a copyright violation. The user seems to have addressed this matter now, but almost none's left of the page after that, which puts to question if there's really anything encyclopedic to write about the matter. 舎利弗 ( talk) 07:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

- There is not much to write. If you compare the SRCDS article to the HLDS article, they both have little info. Thats why I even made it a stub. So people can find more info and contribute. Sarabveer ( talk) 13:04 (1:04 PM), 24 May 2014 (UTC)

- If there is not much to write in the first place, please consider placing your contributions to a related article instead. The fact that there is not much to write is one of the very reasons why it can't have its own article. Regards, 舎利弗 ( talk) 13:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

- I have just edited the article with more info. See for yourself, Srcds. Sarabveer ( talk) 13:34 (1:34 PM), 24 May 2014

- Have also stated the SOURCES! Sarabveer ( talk) 13:39 (1:39 PM), 24 May 2014

Hi Sarabveer and welcome to Wikipedia. The article WP:42 should provide some background for why pages such as this are unlikely to stick around. Let me know if you have any questions. czar ♔ 18:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 14:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Source (game engine). Possible ( cheap) search term and nothing worth merging right now, but it didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search and, as such, doesn't have independent notability. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 18:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

- Im going to combine SRCDS, with Source (Game Engine). Sarabveer ( talk — Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 24 May 2014 (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 Miss Earth. The page would be promotional enough to be eligible for G11 in any case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Miss Earth Singapore

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG as most sources are related or social media. Article is also highly promotional, and at least close to advertising. The Banner talk 21:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Possible merge or redirect to Miss Earth. I did find a number of websites that cover the pageant, but most of them are either sites related to it (such as broadcaster official websites) or to blog-like sites of questionable notability. There was this, but it doesn't appear to be coverage on the pageant itself. However, a mention in the Miss Earth article or to a list of pageants related to it could be a better alternative to deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 04:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Unwilling procedural keep - as with Miss Supranational, we need to bear in mind all the similar links on this pageant's related template, Template:MissEarthCountries. This is a tiny root, not the actual weed itself. Miss Earth is clearly shown to be notable in its main article, so would never get deleted at AFD, but merging all the participant's sub-articles from the template to Miss Earth would make that page unwieldly and overlong. So I think this page is harmless enough as an offshoot of a more notable page. Mabalu ( talk) 17:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply
- Bundle by continent? The Banner talk 18:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  - That's one way of handling/rationalising it. I really don't care much about these contests but I can accept the presence on Wukipedia of such articles as this one, which relate clearly to a main page. I imagine such a bundling might require discussion/consensus separate from an AFD... Mabalu ( talk) 21:59, 27 May 2014 (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 00:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Miss queen of india

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

Non-notable competition failing WP:GNG. PROD contested by creator without providing any reason. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 11:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 11:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete no evidence of notability - Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment As an event I think WP:EVENT applies here? In my opinion the article doesn't meet the criteria as a notable event - Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Please tell me what the problem . i will clarify your queries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keralaarmy ( talk • contribs) 13:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Keralaarmy: Please read Wikipedia:Notability (events) and tell us if this competition meets the criteria stated. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 04:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - Poor sources, little evidence of notability. Mabalu ( talk) 17:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination proposes the non-deletion action of merging, and no delete !votes are present. Per the merge !vote herein, a discussion of such can continue on an article talk page. ( non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Silvanus of the Seventy

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

There is no need for this article. I prefer to merge it with the article: Silas Jerm729 ( talk) 04:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge with the Seventy article. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 08:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep per WP:SK as the nomination proposes merger, not deletion. Andrew ( talk) 08:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep per Andrew, as the nom is not recommending deletion. In any case, this is a notable saint who may or may not be the same person as Silas. -- 101.117.3.222 ( talk) 10:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - based on long-standing precedent, any real person mentioned in ancient texts is presumed to be notable; the fact that he was a bishop also makes him notable. Bearian ( talk) 20:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD A7, "Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Money Brother$

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

Does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO, also no references. Claim to notability seems to be WP:INHERITED from a band the brothers were in for a short time. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - I'm afraid I don't see the notability either. Bali88 ( talk) 04:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails music notability criteria. No reliable sources found via Google search. Philg88 ^♦
talk 05:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom Cwobeel ( talk) 05:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦
talk 05:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦
talk 05:08, 24 May 2014 (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 00:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Patrick Scales (American football)

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. He is not credited with any regular season appearances and by all accounts, given the nature of the position, had an anonymous college career prior. Nothing has changed since the page was previously deleted except for signing with a new team back in January only to be released at the beginning of April—again failing to make it to training camp. The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 02:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - I'm afraid I'm not seeing the notability either. Bali88 ( talk) 04:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete long snappers get their lunch eaten every play they are in and never get any credit in the media. It's not fair, but... fails WP:GNG and any other notability measure I can find. (note: this is a flip from my previous review on the last AFD of this article. I'm not able to find the sources I apparently found then. Sorry.)-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Unsourced BLP about a player who fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Jakejr ( talk) 04:42, 30 May 2014 (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 00:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Sab Khelo Sab Jeeto

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

No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline. It was created by a now blocked sockpuppeteer so I haven't notified them of this nomination. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Non-reliable sources so no notability: references 1 and 2 are connected fan sites. Reference 3 asked me to sign up to an SMS service. Philg88 ^♦
talk 04:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Though it is a real TV serial and may be notable but in this condition it is better to delete per Philg88. Jim Carter ^(
talk) 07:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦
talk 04:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦
talk 04:49, 24 May 2014 (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. Go Phightins ! 18:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Evan Wecksell

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

Fails WP:NACTOR Cwobeel ( talk) 01:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I will re-edit the page to fall in line with policy. I meet the NPACTOR Notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanw219 ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

— Evanw219 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Also note WP:COI (UTC). reply

What is typically suggested in this situation is to add relevant information on the talk page and let someone else do the edits as it is very difficult to be neutral about your own information. :-) Bali88 ( talk) 04:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - I think the "I love the 70's/80's/etc" stuff meets notability as well as the role on Conan. See if you can find any other sources though. Any newspaper articles covered your work? Bali88 ( talk) 04:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

For inclusion, we need to have a degree of notability, per WP:NACTOR, which this person does not meet the criteria: (1) Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. (2) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, and (3) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Cwobeel ( talk) 04:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The source he provided for these claims [6] does not provide any support for these claims. Actually, the more I dig on this this article, it should be speedy deleted per A7. Cwobeel ( talk) 04:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete, not a notable entertainer, the sources in use and available are insufficient. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 06:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. Sorry Evan, but neither evanwecksell.com nor a college newspaper are the right kind of sources, and the GreatNeckRecord is extremely weak too. Please take a look at the reliable sources policy, and please don't take phrases like "not a notable entertainer" as a slur on your skills or reputation. It merely means your sources don't meet the guidelines so far. All articles need to meet a certain threshold of sourcing. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC). reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:06, 24 May 2014 (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) czar ♔ 03:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Roderick Sawyer

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

If the only claim to fame for Roderick T. Sawyer is that he's an alderman of the 6th ward of Chicago, that surely doesn't confer notability! Slashme ( talk) 21:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Is being a two-term alderman in Chicago enough? I don't know, but if it's not I think it would be reasonable to merge a couple sentences on this individual into his father's article. As the subject seems to be getting substantial coverage in reliable independent sources as here for example, I think I would leave it independent. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 21:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep There are a few very large cities whose city council is of enough significance that the individual members of it are notable. The best US examples are NYC and Chicago. We have consistently kept such articles. There is always enogugh material to be added, even if it has not yet been added in this case. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 4 May 2014 (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 ♔ 03:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The real problem here isn't that he's an alderman in Chicago — city councillors in fact are deemed to pass WP:POLITICIAN in certain metropolitan "world cities" in the millions population range, such as New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto or London — but that the article's only cited reference is a primary source (his "meet your alderman" biography on his own website), making this effectively an unsourced WP:BLP. Since he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article in principle, I will gladly rescind this comment if the article sees sourcing improvement by closure, but it cannot stay on Wikipedia in this form. Delete if sources don't start showing up, but no prejudice against recreation if somebody wants to start a new, properly sourced version at a later date. Keep due to Milowent's sourcing improvements, though the article does still need more sources and should remain tagged for {{ refimprove}}. Bearcat ( talk) 21:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep: Bearcat's concern was legitimate. I added two sources, I think it can be kept.-- Milowent • ^has
spoken 03:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relist rationale: This many relists is unusual, I know, but I would like to see a second view following Milowent's addition of sources. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 24 May 2014 (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 00:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Sylvain Azougoui

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

This was originally a redirect, before being turned into an article by @ Werldwayd:. The subsequent PROD was removed by @ Xoloz:. The player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL - no significant coverage and he never played in a fully-pro league. What little coverage there is falls under WP:BLP1E, relating to the unusual death. I therefore suggest that the article is either deleted, or re-directed. I think the best target for a redirect would be to List of association footballers who died while playing. Giant Snowman 07:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually Sylvain did play first division football in the Gabon Championnat National D1, the top division of the Fédération Gabonaise de Football for several seasons. The club was promoted after being renamed and re-organized to first division. The following year, it finished 9th overall in the season of first division it played. Sylvain was the team's main goalkeeper. Slvain has also played second division Gabon football league for several years and as an achievement, we can mention that his club won the championship of the second division in the 2011 season and the club was promoted to first division for a second time in 2012 season and stayed there without demotion. The unfortunate death actually happened in an all-first division official match between first division AC Bongoville (2014) and rival Centre Mberi Sportif also first division. See the list of top clubs of Gabon this year ( Gabon Championnat National D1) This makes Sylvain a top league player for no less than 3 full seasons, contrary to the reasoning for deletion. Thanks for colleague GiantSnowman putting me in the picture as I was the main editor and creator of the page, and thanks to colleague Xoloz for trying to save the article werldwayd ( talk) 07:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I am fully aware of those facts - but the Gabonese league is not a fully-pro league, so it is irrelevant. Giant Snowman 08:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I really don't want to argue about fully professional leaguesand the wisdom of taking it as the sole criterion. To my mind, and I think it's only fair, the official top league of any country (the official division 1 of that country) is valid in itself as being the main indication of notable play. Or else, with such a restricted logic, we are clearly discriminating against all Gabonese players in their D1 league, except in the case where they are in the Gabonese national team (a select few for sure). Clearly the Gabonese league accomodates fully-paid foreign players who play in its league professionally, exactly as the case with Sylvain was, a Benin player playing in Gabon professionally with full pay for many years. werldwayd ( talk) 08:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Well national team players are notable per WP:NFOOTBALL - but that doesn't apply to this player. Also it's not the sole criterion for footballers, they also need to meet WP:GNG. Has this player received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources? No. Giant Snowman 08:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

True true. Anyway he wasn't in the Benin national team for sure. In that case, I think your proposal to include him in a listing such as List of association footballers who died while playing is adequate enough. Anyway, he is also mentioned in the history of his AC Bongoville club article which I considerably developed after the incident. werldwayd ( talk) 08:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Between the significant media coverage surrounding his death, and the Gabon league over the last 2 seasons becoming government-funded and professional, with some relatively hefty payrolls and foreign players, and a lack of evidence that it's not a fully-pro league, I'd say keep this player. Nfitz ( talk) 19:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The coverage of his death fails WP:BLP1E, and the Gabonese league is not fully-professional. Giant Snowman 08:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

So you claim, but there's been no consensus about that in discussions at WP:FPL, nor even any evidence presented. Nfitz ( talk) 02:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

No, the burden is on you to prove the claimed notability. Giant Snowman 11:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Surely the burden should be on everyone in the community, to establish the facts. We haven't seen a single reference to say that this league isn't fully professional. Nfitz ( talk) 22:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

No, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" i.e. YOU! Giant Snowman 12:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

If there was evidence that this league wasn't fully professional, then one would have a burden to find verifiable material. But that is not the case. What we have here is some paradoxical information suggesting some surprisingly high payrolls, and a lack of any indication that it's not fully professional. The concept of "fully professional" just doesn't exist in many societies. Nfitz ( talk) 01:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage since the coverage about his death fails WP:BLP1E, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. – Michael ( talk) 19:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\
talk / 00:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Death alone rarely makes one notable. WWGB ( talk) 02:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:BLP1E. Number 5 7 21:09, 24 May 2014 (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 00:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Len Rhodes

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

Subject appears to be not notable. All sources are either affiliated or trivial mentions. No evidence of notability per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 15:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:36, 10 May 2014 (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 ♔ 22:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. I couldn't find anything significant out there about this guy. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:SIGCOV Roberticus talk 15:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Could not find any sources to support notability. The problem is that there is a more notable Len Rhodes who takes up the Google searches. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:37, 31 May 2014 (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 00:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Marilyn Steed

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

A biography I was going to use for this article listed the subject as Steed but was actually another wife. As it stands, this article shouldn't be kept. -- Kbabej ( talk) 16:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - I'm not sure I fully understand your afd reason listed, but I don't see the notability. She may very well be a notable member within the community, but that doesn't translate into being notable to the rest of the world. So far I can't find anything she is notable for except showing up to his court hearings. Bali88 ( talk) 00:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment - "She was always trying to shame you with her virtue and then she'd stick the knife in when your back was turned." If this is what she was notable for, we have a dilemma here. I was preparing to vote "delete" for notability but after seeing that... I think "nobility is not inherited" could be the basis for a delete argument. Yes, count me on the "delete" side please. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 09:10, 24 May 2014 (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 Majdel Al Koura. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

St maria Magdalena in Majdel Koura

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

No point in having this article when we have Mary Magdalene. Also, little relevant content and no references. CTAГЛИT ( talk) 00:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - Apparently this is a church in the tiny village of Mijdel in Koura district (neither Majdel nor Mijdel appear in Google Earth, but Mjaide does, so possibly these are the same). No evidence of notability whatsoever.- Mr X 01:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - I wouldn't think an ordinary parish church is notable unless there's something particularly significant about it that has received independent coverage/discussion (just spitballing, but such significant points might include things like being linked to an important relic, miracle or saint, or having an important historical role). The article suggests that it's one of only two Middle Eastern churches named for Mary Magdalene but I can't find anything that confirms or remarks on that, and I don't think that would make it notable anyway. I'd note that a lot of this content is duplicated in Majdel Al Koura, a page for the village, which I think might be redirectable to Mijdel.-- Nasica ( talk) 04:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge and redirect to Majdel Al Koura. Seems like it is significant, including that it has a claim of notability about being the only church named for Mary Magdelene in some area. But because sources are lacking and the English in the article (and Majdel Al Koura) are poor, i suggest merger as a compromise, and per wp:PRESERVE. If/when more documentation becomes available, redirect could be converted back to a separate article without losing credit to contributors. In the nomination, what does "No point in having this article when we have Mary Magdalene" mean? Is the complaint that Wikipedia has an article on Mary Magdelene? Or does the nominator mean to refer to some specific church? -- do ncr am 01:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

* Sorry for the misunderstanding, when I first read the article I was under the impression that the article was about a specific part of Mary Magdalene's story, because I couldn't understand the language. Still, I think the church is still insignificant and the article should be deleted. Staglit 15:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staglit ( talk • contribs)

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.