Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 April	10 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Go! Discs Records. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go! Beat Records[edit]

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

Defunct record label with no refs at all. I was thinking this could just be a redirect. Wgolf (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Go! Discs Records, where it's already covered. Didn't really need to come to AfD. --Michig (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Go! Discs Records. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Machine Gun Fellatio. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love Comes to an End[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that an article isn't justified here, but the next step is then to look at options including merging, redirecting, or deleting. There's no sourced content to merge, but I see no reason not to redirect this to the article on the band. AfD should be a last resort, not a default action. --Michig (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NALBUMS LibStar (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Machine Gun Fellatio. Wgolf (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artist per Michig. AfD in this case was easily avoidable. Gongshow talk 01:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retain subsequent to the preceding comments, I have found a number of independent references which I believe support the notability of the article. Before closing this debate I feel that the matter should be reconsidered in light of the recent changes to the article. Dan arndt (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I feel the coverage found is a bit thin to support an article, but some of the sourced material could now be merged to the band article before redirecting. --Michig (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Machine Gun Fellatio. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on Me (Grinspoon song)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be quite notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another nonsense nomination by Lachlan Foley, as this is a charting single and satisfies WP:NMUSIC.Dan arndt (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dan arndt.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lachlan, please consider your nominations at greater length - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Made the ARIA charts. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violent and Lazy[edit]

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

Does not appear to be quite notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another nonsense nomination by Lachlan Foley, as this is a charting single and satisfies WP:NMUSIC.Dan arndt (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say one single, solitary chart placement is enough for a subject to have its own Wikipedia article? Should we create articles for absolutely every song that ever charted anywhere in the world? Lachlan Foley (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains numerous references supporting the song, apart from the fact it charted. Dan arndt (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC states it, pretty explicitly: "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." Do you mind me asking how it is you're nominating songs for deletion without being familiar with the notability guideline governing songs? And yes, NMUSIC as written means that folks can create articles for absolutely every song that ever charted anywhere in the world. If you've got a problem with that, you ought to take it to the NMUSIC talk page. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as a prima facie pass on NMUSIC. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD. No new reasons for deletion provided by this nominator.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad nomination - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per all others and passing NMUSIC. Lachlan Foley, when you pull this stuff, you're not helping this project.--Oakshade (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets (Grinspoon song)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be quite notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it charted both on the Australian singles chart and Triple J's hottest 100 - clearly satisfies WP:NMUSIC. Dan arndt (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dan arndt.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please stop nominating tracks that made a national singles chart and thus unambiguously pass notability - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Show (Grinspoon song)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be quite notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:MUSIC in that it was a charting single and contains supporting references. Dan arndt (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dan arndt.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grinspoon. The song did not chart highly on major charts. No particular value added not in Grinspoon article. --Bejnar (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, according to WP:NSONG, the criteria for notability includes "been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts" - the chart position is irrelevant. The article also cites multiple non-trivial independent sources. Dan arndt (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another chart single - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Made the ARIA charts. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minute by Minute (Grinspoon song)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alibis & Other Lies. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cover version by Phil Jamieson (the song's writer) as a solo artist; reviewed by media; new refs recently added.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per shaidar cuebiyar's comments - it satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shaidar cuebiyar - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Choubey[edit]

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

Okay I have a blp prod on this but the refs that keep on getting added are either on youtube or shopping places like amazon for a book-almost sounds like a advertisement here. Wgolf (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: pretty blatant WP:SPAM. Even factoring in that there's a gent by the same name who's a provincial party secretary in India, there aren't any sources discussing the fellow. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SPAM. Educationtemple (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multichannel Group[edit]

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

The article was speedy deleted here and was recreated by a paid editor now indef blocked for socking .The fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG and is only an upcoming organization as of now. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator - not notable, article was a promotional fluff piece before it was stripped of most spam. Citobun (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional --Antigng (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Miller[edit]

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

The 1st AfD was closed only because it attracted no comments. As this has been tagged for notability for 7 years now, I think we do need to discuss this and get it resolved, one way or the other. After looking at WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, I think this is a borderline case, but I couldn't quite establish that he meets the criteria through reliable sources. There were lots of websites which mention him, many using the same wording as his personal website. He seems to be successful within his field, and I considered whether he might meet WP:MUSICBIO #1, but I'm not sure it's quite there. There are statements of notability, but unverified. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I've been too hasty to re-nominate and will work on article to be further sure it's not a case of WP:NEGLECT. Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vancouver Public Schools. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Jude's Elementary[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable elementary school. Quis separabit? 19:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vancouver Public Schools per longstanding tradition for primary and middle schools as expressed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jacona (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But if we are going to redirect it, should we disambiguate it, i.e. to St. Jude's Elementary, Vancouver, as the name is fairly generic. Quis separabit? 13:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Jacona (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most extraordinary primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trigon Engineering Society[edit]

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

student club at one university, with no importance beyond that school. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:UNIGUIDE and WP:ORG, with all sources primary or from the University newspaper. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probable Delete - It seems to be a locally notable organization, but I'd like some more reliable sources added to the article. If those become available, I'll change my vote to keep Bali88 (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bali88: I added two more reliable sources to the article; the first is a peer-reviewed thesis describing the organization's importance to the University and the history of the Lawn, and the second is an official communication from a University administrator that affirms this importance by officially designating Room 17 West Lawn as the Trigon Room. Additionally, I'd like to point out that while Mr. Jefferson's University: A History (already used as a source) is published by the U.Va. Press, it was written by a well regarded author and is a comprehensive work on the history of the University, so I believe it should be considered a reliable source. Puppysnot (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the organization has had a permanent presence on the Lawn of Thomas Jefferson's Academical Village, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and has historical significance to the same. Additionally, as I mentioned above, two new sources have been added that are more reliable than news sources. The first is a peer-reviewed thesis describing Trigon's importance to the University, and the second is an official communication affirming that importance by officially designating Room 17 West Lawn as the Trigon Room (as mentioned in the article, given the prestigious nature of living on the Lawn during your final year, this is a significant act). Finally, the source written by Virginius Dabney (already in the article) is a comprehensive history that should be considered a reliable source. Puppysnot (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puppysnot I'll read through the added sources more thoroughly tomorrow, however my advice to you is to consider writing an article about Greek life as a whole at the University of Virginia and fold this information into that article. There is already a wikipedia article about Secret societies at the University of Virginia and UV appears to have a very active Greek community with a lot of chapters. I think it could be a very good article. That is an alternative if the result of this AFD is to remove the article. Trigon will be eligible to be listed on the List of social fraternities and sororities if it is listed on an article about UV greek life, even if it doesn't have a stand alone article (some people care about that) and there can be a redirect to that section of the greek life page so people can do a search for it. Bali88 (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Edward Schoeneman[edit]

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

Non-notable person. GNews searches turn up nothing, and sources are to primary sources (prlog) and lists of peoples names (detroitmusicawards, realdetroitweekly, and hipindetroit (a blog)) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Musician not meeting Wikipedia notability criteria. Achievements listed are nominations, no wins, for a local association's awards. Virtually no independent, substantial coverage found via Google, and the references given are either from associated sources or WP:ROUTINE listings. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and spammy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Nasheed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:ENT, he's probably more known for being a racial activist known for having sentiments that most deem "racist" instead of things he's listed as in his article,not like that even matters cause he still fails notability for the things he's listed as. Jukitzk (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging ChildOfMidnight, Edward321, Juliancolton and Theserialcomma who participated in last AfD. Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous various sources, most reliable and well known. Absolutely meets WP:N. FWIW, this looks like a POV nomination The term "racial activist" stands out. Tapered (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The individual's media coverage has grown significantly since the deletion 6 years ago. WP:GNG and WP:BIO is now easily met. One does not need to like his views to see that inclusion criteria for a person (no matter that person's views) are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and also... he MEETS WP:AUTHOR, as his being a New York Times Best Selling Author is a decent notability attribute, no matter his personal politics. See AALBC here. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Although some of the references in the ref section seem to be very long descriptions! Wgolf (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Joe Boyd Vigil. merge what's worthwhile Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deeper Space[edit]

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

Album that might be best to be redirected to the singer, no info has been added on it (and noticed that the first album is a redirect as well) Wgolf (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Joe Boyd Vigil. It's verifiable, but not finding significant coverage. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 00:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No indication of notability, doesn't meet a criterion of WP:NALBUMS. Deep Space/Virgin Sky is an album by Jefferson Starship; I would redirect Deeper Space to that article. Seattle (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the content of the albums by Joe Boyd Vigil could fit in his article. It's not like size is an issue for it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gain (singer)#Singles,. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fxxk U (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG, which requires the song not only be notable, but that there be enough information about it from reliable secondary sources that it generates an article of reasonable length. This article is short and primarily charts, tables, and some unsourced claims about its importance. Very few songs merit standalone articles per WP:SONGS. If there was an article for this song's album it could be merged there, but there isn't. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gain (singer)#Singles, where the relevant chart positions are already stated. Much of what else is here isn't properly sourced. --Michig (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gain (singer)#Singles per Michig's rationale Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, without prejudice against recreation of the article if the subject receives significant independent coverage in the future. (I note that the article has not changed substantially since the scheduled start date of the show.) Der yck C. 11:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Style for You[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and there is no assertion of notability. All it says is "this will be a TV show." WP:TOO SOON. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why keep this category Category:Upcoming television series? see google [1]. Kanghuitari (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand when you say "why keep this category." I wasn't proposing deleting or changing the category(?). I just thought since this article says pretty much nothing and there's no evidence the show will be notable, it shouldn't be created until it actually is notable. The google search was a combination of non-reliable sources and a few RS that simply all carried the same article announcing the show as upcoming, just like every single new show in Korea is announced. Because every show is announced like this, such an announcement cannot establish notability. Anyway, I'm trying to find guidelines for upcoming TV shows because I couldn't find a common thread in the articles in the "upcoming" category - some were one line and terrible, some were quite long and well-sourced, some are for things that aired years ago and have never been removed from the "upcoming" category. I just don't get why you don't wait until the show begins and receives actual significant discussion (not just recaps) in reliable sources before making the article. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm back. Per WP:TV, this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The show needs to have received significant coverage in RS, more than just quickie announcements, and there needs to be enough detailed information aside from plot to create a start-class article. This article is one line and the name of the hosts, and there's nothing else to say about it. It might be in the future - wait until then. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, The program was aired yesterday. Bradley sniper (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think this article should be Keep. Bradley sniper (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Airing does not establish notability. Existence does not establish notability. Will kpop fans ever learn this?! Shinyang-i (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just an attempt to promote a new television series that has nothing but regurgitated press releases for sources. Does not meet notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. (On the air only two weeks as of this edit.) --Bejnar (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bizagi[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. All the references are self-referential. Virtually all the editing was done by special purpose accounts. The article was prodded in 2012; prod was removed by one of the SPAs. In a search I found press releases and blog comments; the closest thing to independent coverage was this from TechWorld. MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

07:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bizagi is a Notable company and complies with WP:CORP. The company has been recognized as one of Top 100 tech companies to follow in Europe by Red Herring in 2014 and has notable customers like Adidas, Old Mutual, Its products are well known in the segment were they compete in (Business Process Management), being referenced in current research firms reports and events like Gartner, Forrester Research, Fraunhofer IESE and others, the article has been edited to provide neutral description of the company and their products, finally many self-references have been change to third party sites references. Daniel.Diaz.Col (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC) — Daniel.Diaz.Col (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sophia Abrahão. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fica a Dica[edit]

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

No claim of notability, only references are from Youtube. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sophia Abrahão. Wgolf (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karena Ku Sanggup[edit]

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

Unotable song that falls under COI also. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janji-Janji and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paralyzed (Agnez Mo song) Wgolf (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable Keri (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rindu Agnez Mo[edit]

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

Unotable album falling under COI, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paralyzed (Agnez Mo song) Wgolf (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Keri (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vatadara[edit]

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

Very short, partly incoherent article. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both issues can be addressed by edits. So based on reasons given, I would say Keep. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Length is not a criteria for deletion, and it would be appropriate to discuss any difficult to understand (read incoherent) portions of the article on its talk page. The more usual form of its name is "Vatadra", and the article should probably be moved after this AFD is over. --Bejnar (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep Well written nice article. Good for any encyclopedia. Educationtemple (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Don't see the need for the afd-and not much to add for the reason to keep other then what has been said. Wgolf (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eels discography#Live albums. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen Tons (Ten Songs)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eels discography#Live albums as a plausible search term. --Michig (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Onel5969 (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Williamson[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of an academic who does not fit WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NACADEMIC criteria. Websearch did not produce any support for his notability. Onel5969 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment this biologist needs a closer look, edited [2] a book with OUP; published in Nature [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:NACADEMIC. See Google Scholar search giving publications with top citation counts of 1022, 892, 785, 624, or this research impact case study (pdf): "Mark Williamson, Professor of Biology at York (now Emeritus), OBE for services to environmental protection, and his collaborators at York transformed research on Invasive Alien Species (IAS) and created a framework that has since formed the basis for rational policy. Williamson’s (1996) classic book “Biological Invasions” established the conceptual framework that helped determine the direction of future research and its applications. This is the most heavily-cited work on biological invasions published in the 1990s..." Qwfp (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep per User:Qwfp.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved to User talk:User:LesDuncan/Cyberian hip hop NAC –Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberian hip hop[edit]

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

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a Facebook post, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Contested prod. This article is a non-notable neologism and possibly a hoax or marketing scheme. There are only 39 Google hits, most of which seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Going through refs: Dictionary source doesn't discuss Cyberian hip hop, just "cyberian", the Penny Arcade blog doesn't mention it (and also it's a blog) and the magazine article doesn't use the term "Cyberian hip hop". Looks like 90% of the topic area is Nerdcore.Origamite^ⓣⓒ 13:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking at the new Facebook ref, can you say WP:NEO? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 20:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You guys already know most of my counter arguments for why the Cyberian hip hop wiki should stay up. I can't say too much, really. "If the rapper coined it on April 9th, than how did you start the article on March 14th?" My response to that: I was predicting the future, sort of. I felt nerdcore ARTISTS would see the logic behind my idea and one of them would take the step of "coining" it. I just planted the seed in hopes that people would someday realize it's existence and support it's growth into a healthy, lively plant. The day this page was made doesn't matter now. People know and support the genre. I can't use it for marketing or anything slimy like you assumed I would. Artists from various online communities are using the genre name for it's intended purpose, which I've explained to you yesterday. Also, I don't know what your requirements are for a genre to be "real". It was just coined. Give it some time to grow. How many people need to support the genre before it's a "real genre"? Are you really the judge? How about the artists themselves? Wouldn't THEY be the judge? BBear and KTP (two long time hip hop artists from the nerdcore community) have expressed their support of Cyberian hip hop, even connecting the genre to their bandcamp music (actually allowing this genre tag to affect their music sales). And at the time of writing this, the facebook fan page KTP made for the genre has 138 people who support the genre's existence. Some artists even believe that nerdcore isn't even a music genre. I think it's more of a community. Cyberian hip hop isn't a community, but a genre. The opposite of nerdcore. Nerdcore has nothing to do with Cyberian hip hop, now that i think about it. Cyberian hip hop now has NO ties to nerdcore other than "Other topics" which is fair. LesDuncan (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look--the core of Wikipedia articles, their basis as a "real" anything, is notability, shown by multiple reliable sources. Unfortunately, because you just created the word, they don't exist yet (no, Facebook doesn't count). The policy on neologisms applies here, and as for the 138 people this section bears reading. I have no opinion on the genre-ness or not of nerdcore. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 23:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying it's all based on time, right? Can't you make this page an exception due to how well this genre describes a type of music (not a type of community such as the nerdcore community) that already exists? A type of music that was placing itself under a certain genre due to necessity ("I gotta put my music in some genre... I guess I'll go with this. I don't see anything that better describes my music.") rather than acceptance of logical genre description ("This almost exactly describes my music.")? Three artists so far have already cleared their music as Cyberian hip hop. Can proof of Bandcamp tags back up this point? The longer we wait and the more cyberian hip hop spreads, the more not so understood artists will feel the connection this genre and label themselves under it. LesDuncan (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the existing articles made on nerdcore might of been about the nerdcore scene/community instead of nerdcore as a music genre due to how Nerdcore doesn't really have much of a genre description, on it's wiki page and regarding the opinions of nerdcore community members. "Nerdcore is Nerdcore" and “I don't think nerdcore is a real genre” does not equate to how descriptive Cyberian hip hop is. Cyberian hip hop actually engulfs the music made within the nerdcore online community. Based on Cyberian hip hop's genre description. It also engulfs meme rap, chap hop and tumblr-wave. Like an UMBRELLA GENRE. Something nerdcore, meme rap, chap hop and tumblr-wave is not. LesDuncan (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southern hip hop is an umbrella genre for example. The genre didn't need an article made about it as a genre name to exist. Because it just factually did. Southern hip hop's a region plus hip hop. Cyberia is cyberspace. Cyberspace is a faux region because it's a non-physical terrain that human beings exist and interact within. Then you add the hip hop and it's Cyberian hip hop. It just is. I think Wikipedia should be proud to host such an interesting discovery. Well, it's actually something that's been in existence since the early 2000's. But no one put the words together like I did. All it is, is two words that have definitions for them, put together. To make a new word, mixing those definitions together. LesDuncan (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Southern hip hop, as a name, was not created by one person wanting to "brand" a form of existing hip hop. It just happened, because that is where it was made. Nerdcore does not just exist on the Internet in the realm of Cyberspace. It exists all over the world, in different regional pockets. And your argument for Benjamin Bear and Kabuto the Python "supporting" your new name, you obviously can't tell when you are being made the butt of a joke. They are messing with you. You are being made a laughing stock within other groups in the community; trolled, if you will. This should NOT, as you plead, be "made an exception", since you are merely wanting, under your own admittance under the "Talk" page, which I have screen-shots of in case you decide to delete stuff from it, for your "entertainment company" to use. This is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia. That is really no different than allowing Scientologists, politicians, advertisers, etc. to edit pages for their own ends. This page is not being created for informational uses, but for marketing uses. Gristlehead (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No, I'm not saying that. If society never describes Cyberian hip hop in reliable sources, an article would never get written. And why should we make an exception for you? I personally declined an article draft earlier today due to the same reason that your article is under discussion here. Why shouldn't Chaperitis get the same exception you get? To me, nerdcore sounds like music about nerds and their activities, but nerdiness is widespread now, and nerdcore could easily encompass Cyberian hip hop. (Also, what on earth is tumblr-wave?) Southern hip hop was described in reliable sources and only then was the article written, so give Cyberian hip hop time. Not everything that exists needs an article, and if it's a discovery that you're first putting here that's pretty much original research too. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 03:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no use attempting to convince the people in power, than I'll take the L. But to Gristlehead, two grown men (with real life adult responsibilities) making fun of one of their fans for thinking out of the box (that's all) sounds like something they wouldn't do. They aren't even disrespecting me. The fanpage was made respectably, in a way that adds legitimacy to Cyberian hip hop. I know these two guys can troll hard. But right now, they are assisting me. They're literally giving up their time and using their image and music to support Cyberian hip hop. And as you said, Origamite, the genre exists with or without Wikipedia. I get it. I guess I'll take the growing support/recognition for the genre as a W and be happy with that. I'm telling you, Origamite, nerdcore hasn't encompassed anything in 15 years. It's done. Talented music artists who put long hours into their craft don't want their music to be connected to the definition of nerd. Music made by "foolish, contemptible people who lack social skills OR stupid, irritating, ineffectual, or unattractive people" (that's the actual definition of nerd) isn't encompassing anything. I just feel artists need a proper non-self degrading description for their music. So cyberian hip hop was coined. LesDuncan (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And with everything you just said in this last edit, it shows that you know nothing of any of these people. We all embrace being nerds. We love it. These people want their music to be listened to by other nerds who will understand it and where it is coming from. And, yes, you are being trolled hard. You just can't see it because you are blinded by the "righteousness" of your cause. This is why, as I've said before and, apparently need to say again, Nerdcore is what it is. It always will be. Make your own genre called Cyberian hip hop with your own style. There is really no need to appropriate someone else's style like that. If the artists coming out for the last almost 20 years had a problem being branded Nerdcore, they wouldn't have denoted themselves as Nerdcore. There are lots of "nerdy" Indy hip hop artists that do not class themselves as Nerdcore. Becoming a "Nerdcore artist" is a choice, just like any other. Gristlehead (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. 32.216.147.44 (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I get some proof of being trolled, I'll believe you, but Ultraklystron just signed off on Cyberian hip hop, too. So that's three veteran artists supporting the genre. They just saw the logic within the genre description and put their music under that genre. Cyberian hip hop isn't taking from Nerdcore's style. It doesn't have a style itself, as you know from description of it, so stop with that. It describes authentic creative backgrounds of music and artists within it, just like Southern hip hop or any other blanket term genre (east coast, west coast, etc). The genre description just engulfs the nerdcore online community like an umbrella. It doesn't invade your scene or style. It engulfs it. Covers it. It would engulf the MGTOW online community, too for example, if rappers within the MGTOW community started making hip hop tracks to promote the movement over there. This isn't a genre that can be disrespected, that's why if trolling exists, I can't see it because the genre isn't a community. It's a blanket term genre. The artists can only disrespect themselves (literally). People who disrespect a whole blanket term genre touch every artist within it. My music hasn't really been made, quite yet. I also just realized Cyberian hip hop is technically as old as nerdcore, if not older due to how places like "Song Fight!" were an online community, that frontalot was part of before his nerdcore hiphop track came out. Actually yes. That's it, then. You actually can not say Cyberian hip hop is taking from nerdcore in any way now. It predates it. Wow. Now I gotta see where sites like "Song Fight!" started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesDuncan (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After reading the article, its sources, some of the initial comments here and attempting to find other online sources, it's clear that this isn't a real term or genre of music. Wikipedia is not a platform for advancing one's own opinions or inventing words. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a genre, and there are no reliable sources. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 01:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fezmar9, you seem unbiased, so let's go back and forth for bit. Here I go: Just because a word hasn't been coined for something until now, doesn't mean (under the description of the Cyberian hip hop genre) that it did not already exist. It's existence technically predates Nerdcore and has a different description than nerdcore. Which means nerdcore (if it is a genre) does not interfere with Cyberian hip hop and it's existence. To add onto that, artists from the nerdcore community are now telling me that "I've been waiting for a better name than "nerdcore" for years now". That means he was labeling his music "nerdcore" out of lack of better options. Now that Cyberian hip hop was coined, an already existing type of music (not nerdcore, but this type: hip hop music where it's authentic creative backgrounds originate from an online or virtual community, etc, etc.) has the proper genre label. That would mean the "Song Fight!" and nerdcore wiki page are real sources to cyberian hip hop's existence as a real genre. Nerdcore's news sources would back up cyberian hip hop's existence, too. Because the nerdcore community has had a strong active online community of music/artists, that fits under this genres description. Plus, are you really willing to deny the 200+ people (in just 2 days of the official coining) who agree that Cyberian hip hip is a real term or genre of music? The grime music wiki page is a good example of this situation. Grime wasn't called grime first. The music style was known by a number of names, "including 8-bar (meaning 8 bar verse patterns), nu shape (which encouraged more complex 16 bar and 32 bar verse patterns), sublow (a reference to the very low bassline frequencies, often around 40 Hz[4]), as well as eskibeat, a term applied specifically to a style initially developed by Wiley..." before people decided on coining "Grime" as the proper genre name that blanketed across all these other genres, now called Grime's subgenres. The music (under those other genre names) that predate the coining of grime is now called "Grime". That's because the artists agreed that the music made before grime, fit grime's genre description. Cyberian hip hop blankets over nerdcore, geeksta rap, chap-hop, tumblr-wave, etc. and than blankets over hip hop artists who's authentic creative backgrounds originate from an online or virtual community. Like Sky or Dunkey rapping about their LoL community drama and experiences. It's not like it can blanket over any type of hip hop music it wants. It has to meet the description requirements. It just cannot see the flaws in my position. Especially when others outside of this page (including actual music artists) ONLY agree with me. That's why I seem so righteous, I guess. Because my position and this genre is supported by the artists it was coined for. But on the real, guys, so far your strongest argument is "news articles with "cyberian hip hop" need to be made before wiki will let you remake the wiki page". It's just a matter of time. You could just let me use this genre's subgenres (don't get offended guys) as evidence, because they are evidence. I'm telling you, this genre ALREADY EXISTED before it's subgenres did. I just wasn't there to coin the word until now (just teasing lol). You're holding back the inevitable. This page should stay up but if you're really going to make me have to remake the page, I guess i'll have to deal with the silliness of that. I'll copy and paste the wiki page code, so I don't have to type it all over again. LesDuncan (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fezmar9:, I think he wants to talk to you. LesDuncan, you have to ping people if you want to be positive they see it.

Wikipedia rule #1 is that notability is established by in-depth coverage in reliable sources. If I define Technohiphop as any hip hop based off of any technology (so computers, radios, fire-starting, banging two rocks together), that doesn't mean I can use sources on Nerdcore, or on hip hop in general. Nerdcore's news sources do not mention CHH with in-depth coverage, so that argument doesn't work. Again, read this section on how an arbitrary number means nothing. The difference between CHH and Grime is that Grime has been covered by the BBC, The New Yorker, Rolling Stone online and a bunch of other reliable sources. Also, you wouldn't have to copy paste (you couldn't, that would be copyright violation by removing the other contributors to the page under the Wikipedia content license) but you could wikify the page by moving it to User:LesDuncan/Cyberian hip hop and out of article space. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 02:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What you're saying is fine, it's just that Wikipedia is not the place for a social movement or a personal revelation in music history. Can you agree that not everything that exists is deserving of a Wikipedia page? For example, the grilled cheese that I had for lunch. Can we both agree that there exists a line in the sand between Fezmar9's April 10, 2015 Grilled Cheese Sandwich and Pink Floyd? Wikipedia draws that line with the General Notability Guideline, which more or less describes notability as something with media coverage. My sandwich, sadly, did not garner nearly the media attention in deserved, while it would be hard to find one music publication that didn't at least mention Pink Floyd once. Similarly, I have personal opinions about the secret history of noir punk, but I keep those opinions to my blog and conversations with my friends because I know this isn't the place for them, while I make sure that all of my edits to Wikipedia can be attributed to a reliable source. So, go spread the gospel that is "cyberian hip hop," make some buzz in the mainstream media, and come back with some sources. Cheers. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I finally get it. Even if Cyberian hip hop is a now supported blanket genre that covers existing known genres, CHH as a genre name/term itself has to reach a certain popularity level before getting into Wiki because wiki has to wait until there is no denying the genre exists. It has to reach a popularity level where it would be impossible for a random dude, like some of the dudes here, to challenge its existance. I got to start somewhere lower in prestige level. Hmm. I guess I can always go over to Last FM lol. Thanks, Fezmar9. LesDuncan (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. Would you like me to turn it into a subpage of your user page, so that you can edit it if and when it finds reliable sources? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 03:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you think is best, Origamite. Thanks. You're going to be doing stuff that I have no knowledge about, so don't pull any slick stuff lol. Also, if you are irritated at all by my inability to understand you, while almost instantly being able to understand Fezmar9, I apologize. You guys just approach disagreements with different styles. LesDuncan (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no worries. I know I can be hard to communicate with sometimes. I'll move the article to userspace now. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 04:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rais Neza Boneza[edit]

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

Possible autobio-the Norwegian wiki has even less info then here! Wgolf (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 12:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the 1st of 3 sources listed under "External links" is to a site where writers post about themselves. the 2nd is a review on the website of an organization to which Bonenza belongs. the 3rd is an article written by Bonenza. None of the 3 can be used to establish notability.

The WP page, which I presume to have been written by Bonenza or someone close to him, states that his earlier books were published in French, and that "White Eldorado, Black Fever" is his first book published in English. I can find no secondary sources (except the review mentioned above). It has the lowest Amazon.com ranking I have ever seen and was published by an obscure publishing house.

The sole source I can find on him is a this post [4] on a not well-known website. It will not suffice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

County of Csesznek[edit]

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

The article was about a never existing polity. It was cleaned after no reliable source was found to substantiate the existence of that entity Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 12:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, sorry, but I do not understand your above action. There is no reliable source that mentions this "county". On 27th March, I placed two templates (OR and speculation) on the article ([5]). On the same day, I left a message on the relevant wikiproject's Talk page ([6]), informing the members of the project that I was planning to delete the whole article. On 31th March, the creator of the article emptied it and redirected it to the Csesznek page ([7]). The "County of Csesznek" never existed, consequently I suggested that it should be deleted on 1st April ([8]). On the same day, I informed the creator of the article ([9]), and she/he has not opposed it. Why do you think that the article should be preserved? Borsoka (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's common procedure to relist an AfD listing (twice, actually) that has received little or no attention in a week. I didn't pass judgment on your case at all—relisting is completely procedural. czar ⨹ 17:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, thank you for your above clarification. If my understanding is correct, I do not need to nominate the article again for deletion. Am I wrong? Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Correct—you'll know when the nomination is closed. Hopefully it'll get more attention this time around.) czar ⨹ 18:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no article and the one that was was not properly sourced. I can find nothing to substantiate it. Srnec (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since it's a redirect it doesn't belong at AfD. List on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your advice. I preferred to propose a speedy deletion. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jamey Jasta. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasta (album)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for four years, the article makes no claims for notability at all and is entirely unreferenced. Dweller (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist. Wgolf (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jamey Jasta. Details of the album are easily verified. He appears to have only released one solo album and the size of the two articles means they can happily be combined into one. --Michig (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jamey Jasta. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camelot Films[edit]

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

Prod removed by creator without comment. I don't believe that this company meets GNG. Yes, they have made a number of films but I can't find reliable sources about the company. No google or JSTOR hits Gbawden (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they may have made a few films (none of which I think can be described as notable), but they themselves have no widespread coverage in reliable sources, and cannot be deemed notable by Wikipedian standards. WalkingOnTheB (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, A7. Bazj (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:CORP... but not a speedy A7 Bazj... as the assertion of notability (unfounded) is through its production of films. If the company ever gains notability, the article can be returned. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt The threshold is a credible claim of significance or importance. There was nothing in the article I saw that approached that level. All the generic terms are linked, but none of the films or people. No sources. There's nothing credible about it. It's an A7. Bazj (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazj: no... CSD is a different standard than is WP:N, and an assertion does not require being sourced (different standard)... as it is simply a reasonable assertion being made through the (verifiable) claim of being a production company that has produced some films. NOT an A7... but non-notable, yes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable as per WP:CORP, no coverage in reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 23:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg S. Reid[edit]

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

Advert from a shill. Not notable. Article claims he is "the creator and producer on the International acclaimed films" but the only attempt of verification is from imdb which has no indication of acclaim. Reid lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is mostly promotional and primary. None are independent reliable sources that give any depth of coverage about Reid. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom not notable and lacks independent reliable third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of causes of death by rate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of diseases causing sudden death[edit]

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

Although there are sources, they are not in line and we can't tell what fact they are referencing and I'm not sure why this is RS. This looks like WP:OR and does not agree with WHO, surely the key source for this? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN. For example, see Preventing Sudden Death in Sport and Physical Activity or Sudden Death in Infancy, Childhood, and Adolescence. The page obviously needs improvement but, per WP:IMPERFECT, that is not a reason to delete it. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and improve - Seems like a reasonable list that could be valuable. Agree that it needs to be improved with inline citations. Agree that the external linkout is linkspam and should be deleted. With those fixed, seems like a reasonable stub. BakerStMD 17:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate. BakerStMD 22:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nearly all diseases can cause death. Even acute otitis media and the common cold cause some. This is just a list of all diseases. Redirect to List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but those would not all be causes of "sudden death". Furthermore, lists are normally limited to significant items, and without creating a silly name like List of diseases causing sudden death in a lot of cases, not just in weird, publication-worthy complications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak keep & improve - This is by anyones standards a piss-poor article but IMHO this can be expanded to an actual article by someone who knows all this. –Davey2010^Talk 21:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate - Aaaaand within a space of a minute Doc James has changed my mind - Seeing as we have the other article it may aswell be redirected instead. –Davey2010^Talk 21:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has a number of problems. For a start it should have CAN in the title. "List of diseases than can cause sudden death". Heart attack (Myocardial infarction) is not normally a disease in itself, but a symptom of other problems, e.g. drug/tobacco/alcohol abuse, to much fat, not enough exercise, the wrong genetics, an unfit person exerting themselves too much, electrocution. A Heart attack can cause apparent sudden death, or it might be survivable. The causes of a heart attack can be bad habits for years, so it is not really sudden in that sense. Toothache, not normally associated with sudden death can be lethal, an abscess could cause toothache, explode into the blood stream, and kill by septicaemia, ditto a crush injury to a limb can cause septicaemia. This area is to broad for a black and white list. Martin451 22:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep C'mon, guys, you all know perfectly well that citation formatting – or even inclusion at all! – is irrelevant to the question of notability. (If you've forgotten, then go read WP:NRVE again.) This subject is obviously notable. My trip to PubMed found 1,068 (yes, one thousand sixty-eight) review articles published the last five years that mention "sudden death" (quoted phrase). NB that "sudden death" is not the same thing as "any and all type of death". Wasting away from cancer isn't a sudden death; dropping dead after playing a ball game is. I've added two textbooks to the article already. This is a clear keep. If something there bothers you, then just WP:SOFIXIT already. Also, let's go look at Sudden death, a disambig page, and see if we should usurp it for a page about the main topic, which is people unexpectedly dropping dead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Doc James. Almost all diseases can cause sudden death; hence the list becomes meaningless. Per WhatamIdoing an alternate solution is to redirect to Sudden death and change that disambig page into a proper article (to me this is the better solution) --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- By the "anything can cause a sudden death" logic, it is equally true that every single object in the world ought to be listed as "a cause of death". Pillows kill people (suffocation), butterflies kill people (accidental inhalation), puppies kill people (allergic reactions)... but somehow, I doubt that a list of causes of death would include pillows, butterflies, and puppy dogs. I think the real problem with the !votes above is people not quite paying attention to the subject. Notice that User:Doc James writes, "Nearly all diseases can cause death", rather than "Nearly all diseases can cause sudden death". Sudden death is a discrete, specific event. Almost all diseases don't usually cause it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - We need data about there frequency to put it into context. Otherwise it is not useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources such as Preventing Sudden Death in Sport and Physical Activity contain epidemiological data. Developing the page to include such data is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Cause of sudden death" would be better. 14:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew D that epidemiological information is very easy to come by. It seems to me that this is one of those conditions for which the medical establishment says, "We can't fix it, so let's just see how much it happens".

Why should we limit an article on this subject to just the causes? This list is intended to be limited to causes, but it would make more sense to have Sudden death talk about the whole thing, including some important societal reactions (many American athletes are required to get an EKG because of a few kids dropping dead after ball games) and giving DUE weight to personal effects (many sources talk about whether unexpected deaths produce more severe effects on survivors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misconception here, WAID. "Sudden death" is a symptom, not the actual disease. Sudden death can only happen if a major organ fails (brain, heart, lung) due to something. That something can include emboli, thrombosis, and electrolyte abnormalities. Almost any disease can lead to a state of inflammation, affect electrolytes, or in a susceptible patient cause an internal process that causes "sudden death". So a list of causes is superfluous, because almost anything can cause it. I Think it is simpler if we just redirect to Sudden death and cover the main causes in that article, rather than create a list of potential causes which will encompass almost all diseases. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, but not to List of causes of death by rate. I would prefer to move sudden cardiac death and redirect this article there. The current list of causes is simply wrong (e.g. acute renal failure - this would normally cause some symptoms before the potassium surge). JFW | T@lk 20:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources divide the causes into three categories: arrhythmic cardiac problems, other cardiovascular problems, and non-cardiac (epilepsy is a major component). How would you include that last category on a page focused on cardiac deaths? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the above editor is referring to those instances where sudden death can occur (e.g. Sudden_infant_death_syndrome) , further it is defined... death that occurs unexpectedly and from 1 to 24 hours after the onset of symptoms, with or without known preexisting conditions(Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier).[10] , it goes without saying that cardio-thoracic instances dominate the percent of such, but cannot be solely classified as the lone ailment under such a topic.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Procedural close - No reason given for deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uygar Aktan[edit]

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

Jaaron95 (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Erhabor[edit]

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

I am drive-by nominating this article for deletion seeing as it was previously speedy deleted (see User:Greg Efosa Erhabor), obvious COI, and was also prodded for deletion and had the tag removed with no content change by the prod-remover. The citations are also heavily implied COI with the page creator (seeing as hes the personal secretary, he probably wrote the cited articles). The citations are also quite dubious at best. Jcmcc (Talk) 10:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spent some time trying to make it a little more NPOV. Per the nom, it is clearly a COI problem with with what are effectively primary sources. I don't see sufficient reliable secondary sources to support keeping it. There are some sources and there is perhaps a case that he is notable, at least in Nigeria, but the current article isn't a great starting point. The original version is pretty much a copyvio too (see the duplicate detector). QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No RS, so fails wp:V. Agree with above reasoning. BakerStMD 17:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WEak keep -- I find his status as a church pastor and leader of a ministry - presumably part-time - unconvincing as to making him notable. On the other hand, the academic positions that he holds might just qualify him to remain, but that ius an area on which I would not normally comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Schwede 66 19:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Cresswell Author[edit]

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

The article is not ready for mainspace and does not establish notability. As per the advice on the article's talk page, I AfD this article with a suggestion for it to be moved to draft namespace, so that interested editors can have a look whether it is recoverable. Schwede 66 09:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Schwede 66 09:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Has been added to by two editors and I'm no longer concerned about notability. Schwede 66 19:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shift Script[edit]

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

Fails General Notability Guideline, WP:NSOFT. Unable to find any sources that weren't self-published. External links are dead (2/3) or a webforum (1/3). Tagged for needing additional sources for nearly 7 years. ― Padenton|✉ 08:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Search engine returns only this, which falls short of notability. Searching is hard, though, since many computer hits for "shift script" turn out irrelevant.

Note: of current references, the domain for reference 1 is dead, 2 has been permanently moved and link-rotted, 3 needs a forum login. Tigraan (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no 3rd party references since 2008, also orphaned excl. one list. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gibiane[edit]

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

Fails General Notability Guideline, WP:NSOFT. Tagged for sources for nearly 4 years now ― Padenton|✉ 08:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one-liner without any refereneces since 2006, orphaned ignoring one list. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG and lacks third party references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Platform CLI[edit]

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

Fails General Notability Guideline, WP:NSOFT. Unable to find any sources that weren't self-published. ― Padenton|✉ 08:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software. If the Platform Browser article survives afd, which is unlikely given the lack of refs, a redirect to that page would be reasonable.Dialectric (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unclear 2012 project without 3rd party references. Orphaned ignoring a DAB page and Platform Browser started by the same editor and also nominated for deletion. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Platform Browser[edit]

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

Fails General Notability Guideline, WP:NSOFT. Unable to find any sources that weren't self-published. ― Padenton|✉ 08:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unclear 2012 project without 3rd party references. Orphaned ignoring a DAB page and Platform CLI started by the same editor and also nominated for deletion. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simkin (programming language)[edit]

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

Fails General Notability Guideline, WP:NSOFT. Unable to find any sources that weren't self-published. ― Padenton|✉ 08:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, relevant XML stuff is supposed to be mentioned on W3C or OASIS pages, only one 3rd party external link for something started in 2010 was dead on arrival or needs serious research. Nothing about XML on the first google scholar page, apparently only unrelated author names, no programming language. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks (programming language)[edit]

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

Fails General Notability Guideline, WP:NSOFT. Unable to find any sources. Also, possibly the shortest stub I've ever seen. ― Padenton|✉ 08:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! It's hard to argue against this -- I think I was looking for information about this programming language when I created this article, but the fact that the stub hasn't been expanded and no new publications on this seem to have appeared suggests that notability is limited. About shortest stubs, however, there are far worse; check out Special:ShortPages and e.g. Deutscher Erzählerpreis (2008) -- at least I included a reference, and information that's not implicit in the title! :-) Joriki (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one line, one reference in a self-published paper not cited by anybody, if CiteSeer#CiteSeerX got that right. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaya (programming language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails General Notability Guideline, WP:NSOFT. Unable to find any sources. ― Padenton|✉ 08:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has been tagged for its notability problem for a year now. And it has been deleted last time too. Per WP:BURDEN, the author must have not made it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software (programming language) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software. Previously deleted in 2013 at afd.Dialectric (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 2011, not yet ready for prime time or dead, nothing on the 1st google scholar page for kaya is about a programming language. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kessydriz[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to support inclusion. The few sources provided by the article's author are all self-published. Stanleytux (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no reliable sources online that discusses the subject directly or indirectly. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Versace1608 (Talk) 23:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- Sadly no evidence of notability. –Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cinemassacre Productions. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Matei[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There was an article under this name many years ago that was deleted. Assuming this is the same person, he has certainly become much more notable since then, but it is still not clear that notability has been established. This was suggested as a ProD and was rejected after having been endorsed by a second editor (neither of whom was me), and I feel that it should go to full AfD to settle the matter. It seems to me that WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER are not satisfied (except perhaps criterion 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER), and general notability criteria are probably not established either. It looks to me like all the references in the current article that would establish his notability apart from Cinemassacre Productions and their various "programs" are in non-notable sources. WP:TOOSOON at best. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He isn't notable. The only bit of of notability is that he works with James Rolfe (filmmaker). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:A180:749:8046:508C:F45:5E11 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect though I'm not sure which is the best target. The name is certainly a searchable term, but as noted, non-notable on his own and tied to Rolfe/AVGN/Cinemassacre. I just don't know which of those is the best target for this, likely Rolfe. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't fit the Wikipedia definition of notable. TEH (talk • contributions) 22:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cinemassacre Productions (where he works and is mentioned in the lede by name) as a worthwhile search term. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had only passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search—not enough to substantiate an article but redirects are cheap. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 21:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cinemassacre Productions per Masem and Czar's comments. 23W 01:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basim Elkarra[edit]

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

Appears that prod was contested. This reads like election campaign material for a school board election coming up in about six weeks. Nn politician with nothing evidently notable about him other than he went to an excellent college and he is running for the Board of Education. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found this link which appears to be mainly about him. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-non notable politician. Wgolf (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 Can you incorporate that link into the article? It may influence people's opinion on the discussion. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not convinced that's an RS, don't see evidence of meeting WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I added a controversy section about Basim's involvement with CAIR, and given that this is considered newsworthy on the CAIR page, it would seem to be newsworthy for his page. I'm working on finding other sources also. I tried to write the controversy section with a NPOV, but I should disclose that I have endorsed his opponent Sonja Cameron in the election, but on the flip side, my brother-in-law is a Muslim Arab-Israeli so I am suspicious of attacks on Islamic groups. So I would appreciate a neutral party to investigate the past with CAIR and Basim, and try to be able to have an appropriate NPOV. But, in either case, the controversy does seem to make his page news worthy. --Jacob J. Walker (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 07:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that the longer this article stays up as is, the longer it serves as campaign material for a board of Ed. candidate. Postcard Cathy (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the "controversy" section was found to be notable enough to be put on the CAIR page, it still does not mean this person has enough notability for a standalone page. For example, the British Indian diaspora is possibly not notable enough to have its own page, but it has a mention on the British Indian page.

No comment on notability. Tigraan (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More Newsworthiness - Having done more Google searches looking for mainstream media articles about Mr. Elkarra (While there are tons from blogs, they clearly don't have a NPOV) I have found more controversy, which I have posted, and I also have found a fair number of references to him in Sacramento media, where he is often interviewed or quoted about human rights issues. I plan to post some of those soon. I would appreciate anyone to volunteer to get rid of weasel words in the article (in both the political "posturing", but also in the controversy section, as I'm not sure I'm writing enough NPOV), and to help with more research. --Jacob J. Walker (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. This debate has been open for two weeks. Can someone finally close it? Postcard Cathy (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to have gotten national and even international press for his connection with CAIR. After the election, if he does not win, the article should be refocused to be about CAIR and not his campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. been relisted, no further interest. Have to go with what we have. The argument that he fails SNG has not been refuted and one article in an internet publication does not equal a GNG pass. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Ajayi[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Unsourced biography of non-notable footballer. Fails WP:NFOOTY: not played at a professional level. While the sourcing is no longer an issue, but the notability issue remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG with detailed profile in national paper [11]] Nfitz (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 07:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no evidence provided this meets any inclusion guideline and COI article Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picky (programming language)[edit]

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

Unnotable programming language. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT ― Padenton|✉ 15:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sincerely surprised and alarmed by the nomination for deletion of a young, non-profit, free (as in beer and as in freedom) software project for education... just because it's not popular yet (i.e. notable).

First of all, this is not self-promotion. We work for a public institution and we are not selling anything. Picky is a free software project made for our students. 400+ students/year use this language to learn the basic principles of programming.

Note that the language is very young and it's still on development (that is, it's not a dead project). This year, we developed a new compiler written in Go (the Google language). In addition, we included a new graphics library. The tools (compiler, runtime) are completely functional for Linux, OSX, Windows and Plan 9 from Bell Labs. Very few others can claim the same.

An academic paper is currently under review to be published in a CS education journal. Moreover, several institutions (from Spain and UK) have shown interest in the language, but it's too soon to expect them to adopt it (obviously).

Please consider the deletion. Picky is an alternative to classic languages and it would be interesting for other CS101 teachers.

Enrique.soriano (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication this language is used outside of one course at one university. —Ruud 11:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the result is deletion, please consider WP:ATD-I or moving this page to the @Enrique.soriano: user space or page where it can be improved by him and latter re-instated as a page when notability is satisfied, as there is some evidence that it will be but not now. Aways think about the harm of losing an editor when deleting an article. He seems to have put some effort int this. I see no harm in keeping it though. Caroliano (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 07:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. More then adequate due diligence has taken place and the required sourcing has not emerged, Since no further discussion after relist will go with what we have Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EucA[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator without a rationale. No improvements have been made in the month since. I stand by my original assessment. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather puzzled by Mr Konieczny's proposal for deletion. Not only because of his account of the facts, but also because I don't agree with his statement that the article does not pass the notability requiremetnts.

First of all, as far as I can recall, I did not de-prod the article, as it was never prodded. Mr. Konieczny did place a notability requirements warning on the page. After I improved the references of the page, I notified Mr. Konieczny of my reasoning why I don't believe the page does not pass the notability requirements. Afterwards, I have improved the page more.

Secondly, to make a substantial argument: why wouldn't a large multinational network involving thousands of students from several residence networks or universities and hosting many of them on many events throughout the year that has been in existence since 2008 meet the notability guidelines? "Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit": the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof, not the other way around. Malus Catulus (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Malus Catulus: Wikipedia obeys by different rules than a tribunal (and you oversimplified the question of burden of proof, but let us not get astray). In that case, the relevant Wikipedia guideline is WP:BURDEN, which states that the burden in on the one who puts or opposes removal of material (paraphrased, you might want to read the whole thing). And of course, it makes sense, since proving something is not notable or not discussed in any source is proving a negative, which is impossible in most cases (see Russel's teapot).

I found nothing by searching "european university college association" ("euca" can refer to the European Control Association as well), and the references in the article do not impress me: #2 is link-rotted, #3 mentions it only on the "links" page, #4 is primary, #5 looks primary as well although I cannot read Polish, #6 and #7 are press releases published on a site that may be connected with the subject, #8 is a project of which EUCA is a member which poses problems of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTINHERITED, #9 is written by the subject and I doubt the website is selectively choosing what it publishes (almost looks like a library/bookshop catalog site), #10 is a scan of a print edition of #1. Note also WP:INHERITORG even if the various projects (#5-#7) are notable.

All we are left as references is thus one article, written by Fabrizia Sernia who has a WP:COI with the subject (judging by the other references), in Il Sole 24 ore which is a significant journal nonetheless. Per WP:ORG, "a single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization", and even then there is a question of whether something published independentely but written by someone close to the subject is independent. Tigraan (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: after some diff archeology, the article was indeed prodded by Piotrus, then deprodded by Malus Catulus as part of a larger edit adding references more than two hours later. It may be Malus Catulus having an edit conflict and mismanaging the fallout rather than deliberately removing the prod and denying it on this AfD, but I do not buy it (two hours of edit conflict ? Come on...). Tigraan (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was indeed deprodded by User:Malus Catulus here: [12], through I am tempted to say that due to Marcus unfamiliarity, he might have forgotten about it and didn't know how to verify it (WP:AGF). I am also of the opinion that our notability policies are not sufficiently inclusive with regards to academic and scientific NGOs. Still, my personal opinion is that such networks have to show some modicum of recognition of peers, and this is very difficult to measure - particularly in case of such projects. Having read the article several times, I still have no idea what this organization is really doing. If it was to disappear, would anyone notice? In the end, we have to remember this is an encyclopedia, not Yellow Pages or a catalog of all NGOs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the slight hot headedness of my comments yesterday. So I guess I did de-prod, but I don't remember why, perhaps out of mistake because I just wanted to remove the not enough sources tag, or maybe consciously, after Piotrus said on the talk page that we could leave it for a few years, but I just don't recall. Now as for notability: If you search for, e.g. EucA summer school or Modes project, you will find many references, announcements, etc. from universities, organisations or students throughout Europe. Then there is the sole24ore article, published in the offline paper itself, and the other references from e.g. polibuda, a student information portal. According to WP:ORG, there is not an absolute requirement on the amount of independent sources. So other factors, such as the actual "knownness" in many different countries and the involvement of many students and organisations should be taken into account as well. Many students deal with EucA, and they will expect to find more information on it on Wikipedia. - Richard Prins Malus Catulus (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Marcus/Richrd - no harm was done; and I also forgot that I decided to postpone this a bit longer. Still, we have ti keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopeida. It is not a repository of useful information. Would EucA be in any other encyclopedia? Yes, Wikipedia is the biggest, but it doesn't mean its all-inclusive. And yes, our criteria for NGOs need improvement. Let's see what others think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem for the deprodding stuff, everyone can forget what he has done. But WP:ORG does state an absolute requirement on the amount of independant sources: An organization (...) is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. So that puts at least a lower bound at 1, which the references do not have (see my analysis above), and the precision A single source is almost never sufficient (...) that follows means that barring extraordinary circumstances, the lower bound is in reality 2. The burden to prove "extraordinary circumstances" would then be on the one claiming they exist, and I do not feel convinced that being an NGO is such a circumstance.

Now to be honest, I think that two independant, reliable, deep-coverage sources is too big a hurdle for most subjects (not only NGOs). For example, if a NYT article about EucA written by someone unrelated to it, I would agree that this plus the sole24ore source would be sufficient to demonstrate notability, even though the sole24ore article is written by a COI source.

N.B. You added some sources, probably in a good faith attempt, but again press releases or annoucements do not demonstrate notability. What we need is a few good sources, not a lot of bad ones. Tigraan (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, however, requiring a reputable english language source like the NYT might be difficult for European organisations that operate transnationally but primarily in regions where the native language is not English. BTW, why do you say the author of the Sole24ore article has a COI? I searched the name, Fabrizia Sernia, and couldn't find a connection just now, but please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me to be a fine source however. Then, more COId publications like rivista universitatis could make it reach the threshold.

Anyway, while I understand your arguments, I would say it is a bit arbitrary in the light of the unclear criteria to delete EucA now despite some (admittedly lower level) sources and large reach (many students deal with it and participate in its activities), just because the article has been brought under closer scrutiny. I think there are many articles (excluding spam or advertising), especially on local phenomena which would not meet the bar now set. Malus Catulus (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About my COI accusation against FS, it seems she wrote the text here, so I assumed she is related to EucA, but I may be mistaken in which case I apologize for my hasty conclusion.

The notability criteria are more clear than you seem to think. I agree that many articles on Wikipedia, if not the majority, do not fullfill those criteria but that is an invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Finally, if not enough sources are found, the default decision is to delete per WP:BURDEN (which does not mean that "deleters" should not search sources, or that a lack of consensus about the reliability of some sources is equivalent to the absence of such sources). Tigraan (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Malus Catulus: Just to be clear: language of the source is irrelevant. If you find an in-depth coverage in a major French, Italian or Vietnamese journal, it holds the same weight as NYT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 07:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Nakamura[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. This is a resume, and given the creators username, it seems likely that it was created by the person themselves. ― Padenton|✉ 18:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't judge the significance of the prizes listed in the article, but from his Google scholar profile I think he passes WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. The article is therefore nothing more than a resume - and probably autobiographical too. --DAJF (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with David Eppstein that PROF C1 is met. As to whether this is WP:TNTable, I'm neutral. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:PROF#C1. Even with the usual caveats his h-index is also plenty high enough to support notability. The article badly needs expanding to include some substantial prose but that is an editorial matter outwith this AFD. Just Chilling (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a lot of awards (non of which show a wikilink , sigh...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawahitech (talk • contribs) 03:29, 15 April 2015‎

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin and the World of Hergé[edit]

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

This stub article is devoted to a book that simply fails to meet any of the criteria laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Many different books have been written about The Adventures of Tintin over the years, and while this one has been translated into several languages, it seems to have no notability. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although of course it has notability, I'm surprised at you, Midnightblueowl; it's an informative book from a notable author. However, in 1988 when this book was published, there were very few English-language books about Tintin, but there are several now, including one by the same author that better covers le monde d'Tintin. We don't have articles for any of those books; this is the only article about a Tintin reference book, and it hardly says anything. This book is out of print now; I purchased it recently but it was very difficult to find. There is no need to draw attention to one of the older Tintin reference books. And the most important reason to delete: There is no chance either of the regular editors of the Tintin articles are going to expand this article. Prhartcom (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; there seems to be little or nothing with which it could be expanded to start with, and that is why it lacks "notability" under the Wikipedia meaning of the term. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources and unlikely to have ever been reviewed in enough other places (newspapers, journals etc.) to have "substantial" coverage in WP:RS. Redirect to the author? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; redirect to author Benoit Peeters. Prhartcom (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author seems like the proper outcome. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - You're kidding, right? Deleting "...an informative book from a notable author."? Is it that no one bothered to look for references, or just that they didn't look for them in french - you know, the author's native language, and the language the book was originally published in? This, for example, from Radio France... - jc37 18:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jc37, WP:SOFIXIT. Prhartcom (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not convinced that equals serious cover of the book itself either I'm afraid. The H-France article cited deals with a different book and saying that it features on reading lists is not really helpful - no-one doubts its existence after all! For it to merit an article, you'd expect dedicated and lengthy reviews in newspapers or journals which it doesn't seem to have.

As a side note, the H-France article describes it as "reasonably informative" and compares it unfavorably with others - not exactly a massive complement! —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Entertainment Weekly article (which is the sort of thing we should be looking for) - less than two sentences of the tiny article actually refer to the book in question. Ditto for the Radio France one. I think calling them a reviews would be rather over-charitable... —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, have included a 'reception' section in the article and included words with lots of refs(although most of them may be deemed trivial as they don't review the book, they do show that the book is an important 'herge/tintin' book having been included in so many 'further reading' lists), an editor with French language skills could probably find a lot more:) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple, can you provide evidence to support your assertion that it has been the "subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself" (criteria #1 of WP:NBOOK)? I assume you don't argue that it meets one of the other 4 ~ note that including a book in a "further reading" section of a published work doesn't make it "subject of instruction" at a university, school etc (possible to be confused with #4). —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple, I am sorry, I had to delete the rest of your contribution to this doomed article. See my edit summary. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment oops, sorry 1 of the 'reception' books i included was for another 'tintin' book (where are my trouts?), but the other is arguably ok, and the other words/refs although apparently 'trivial' as i did allude to above, shouldn't just be deleted ie. WP:NNC "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" - (also applies to this book not being notable just because its cited 4 times in FA Tintin in the Congo); i look forward to reinstating them when this afd is finished

Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bering-Jensen, Helle (1992-08-02). "Tintin: Winning hearts and minds - Comic endures after 60 years". The Washington Times.
  The article notes:
  
  With Benoit Peeters' book "Tintin and the World of Herge," Tintin fans are in for a treat. Without succumbing to the temptation of over-intellectualizing the comic strip, Mr. Peeters provides an overview of the series, a detailed background of each of the many Tintin comic books and a lavish set of illustrations. In the process, he tells not just the story of Tintin and his creator, George Remi (who worked under the pseudonym, Herge), but also of how they reflect the course of 20th-century European history.
  Tintin came into the world at an interesting time, to say the least - Jan. 10, 1929. George Remi was 25 years old and newly employed as an illustrator and draftsman for the Catholic newspaper Le XXs Siecle in Brussels. At the time, the editor, an ebullient priest, the Rev. Norbert Wallez, wanted to publish a youth supplement and he assigned young Remi to the task. It wasn't Remi's first cartoon. He had been an eager Boy Scout and had earlier created "Totor, Patrol Leader of the Hannetons" for the magazine "Le Boy-Scout."
  ...
  TINTIN AND THE WORLD OF HERGE: AN ILLUSTRATED HISTORY
  By Benoit Peeters
  Little, Brown, $40
  161 pages, illus.
  REVIEWED BY HELLE BERING-JENSEN
2. Spence, Martin (1989-10-28). "Drunk and orderly - Books". The Times.
  The article notes:
  
  TINTIN AND THE WORLD OF HERGE By Benoit Peeters, Methuen, Pounds 12.95
  Captain Haddock, according to an authority quoted here, has a repertoire of more than 200 expletives. 217, to be precise, as the Thompson Twins would say. British readers never knew Tintin without Haddock, meeting him first drunk and orderly below decks in charge of a cargo of opium. That was in 1957 in the pages of Eagle. Created more than a dozen years after Tintin and Snowy, Herge gave him everything they lacked: subtlety of character, graphic complexity, and foul language.
  ...
  Tintin and the World of Herge is a translation-cum-adaptation of the authoritative survey by Benoit Peeters that appeared in French six years ago. It gives an abbreviated account of Herge's life, a miscellany of his other work, and a leisurely chunter through all of the 24 albums.
  There are some useful additional illustrations, including a splendid sepia of King Feisal's little boy, the original of Emir Ben Kalish's delinquent son, Abdullah. But the pages are cramped in comparison, the paper thin, and someone, somewhere has cut out the unforgettable anthology of Haddock's apostrophizing. There are only 217 words for that kind of person. Cannibal! Child-snatcher! Carpet-slipper! Cretin! Fancy-dress Martian in buttercup juice! Baboon! Bashi-bazouk! Fatima from Prisunic! Mustard plaster! Death-dodger! Vegetarian! Nougat-nutter! Laxative! Guano-merchant!
3. "New Hardbacks". The Commercial Appeal. 1992-08-09.
  The article notes:
  
  Tintin and the World of Herge: An Illustrated History, Benoit Peeters (Bulfinch Press, $40) - Here's an admirable account of Tintin that preserves all the mysteries of the little hero. The creation of Georges Remi, alias Herge, a Belgian artist born in Brussels in 1907, Tintin is ageless and sexless, conservative and progressive. He has neither family origins nor emotional connections. In this, as in many other ways, as Peeters reveals, Tintin resembles the opaque Herge himself. A splendid compilation of fact and illustration.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tintin and the World of Hergé to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Sufficient notability, though it does need to be referenced soon. And anything Tintin is extremely popular pretty much everywhere (in the Occident) but the US. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 11:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Reviews apparently exist, but my access to my databases just went down. And four translations is significant in and of itself. Will follow up. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 12:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Ginn, Sr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite the outcome of the previous AFD, this article does not meet GNG for significant coverage. This is supposedly a BLP article about Ted Ginn, not an article about the school he "started" (where the funding was not his either, and I would posit nobody took seriously until Junior got famous, so I think there's a notability inheritance question around the school, too). WP guidelines indicate that high school coaches generally are not notable, and we already don't do notability by inheritance. Of the eight sources, two are used to establish his parentage of Junior, and the other six are about the school, not about Ginn's career or personal life. So I'm not seeing the GNG coverage of the subject that is required by the guideline. I am seeing a guy who rose to prominence because of his son, as there is nothing in this coverage of Senior that predates Junior's NFL career, and as such was able to start a school with other people's money. Other than that, I know nothing about him as a person, which is the point of a biographical article. Therefore, this article needs to go, and the merits of a standalone article on the school need to be considered under the relevant guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagree: the article should be kept. Ginn has produced several notable college and professional football players besides his son, at both Glenville High School and at the Ginn Academy. He is not an infrequent interviewee on national television during football seasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.163.52.37 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Keep !vote added by me to match intent of the unsigned comment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to overturn the previous AFD. I disagree with the assessment of the sources made by the nominator. For example, the article titled "Ted Ginn Sr. is Changing Lives by the Dozens. And He's Just Getting Warmed Up" is an article featuring the individual's accomplishments, which is one of the key measures used to determine notability. So far as I can tell, the previous AFD and all the arguments contained within it are sound for keeping the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that it's collateral coverage derived from his well-known son, there are references from several reliable second and third party sources about Ginn Sr. Meets WP:N and WP:RS. Tapered (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the first AfD and Paul McDonald's evaluation above.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Gleich[edit]

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

Does not appear to successfully pass WP:GNG (nor WP:ARTIST). Perhaps others can/will prove me wrong (yay!). Thanks! Missvain (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is one reference, the artist's own website. No second or third party coverage. Ergo fails WP:N convincingly. Tapered (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFT Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zamalek SC (volleyball)[edit]

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

The article is a skeleton created over a year ago. It looks to be a draft and shows that the original author intended to place information, but never did. Perhaps a redirect to a related page about Zamalek SC is best so that the skeleton is available in the page's history? Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of newspapers in South Carolina. redirect looks sensible Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charleston City Paper[edit]

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

Subject is a small strictly local weekly paper that fails WP:GNG and WP:NNEWSPAPER. Sole cited source is self published. A Google did not yield anything that rings the N Bell. Article has been tagged for improvement for seven years. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this passes WP:NMEDIA as a significant paper in its market, and cited by other reliable sources. We have many articles about alternative weeklies and I think this is a positive for the encyclopedia, for the reasons discussed at WP:NMEDIA. Some examples that suggest notability to me include [13][14][15][16][17][18][19] --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Let's look at each of these sources in order...

[1] A trivial mention of the CCP in reference to a lawsuit. [2] Another trivial reference to to the CCP again in reference to a lawsuit. [3] The CCP mentioned in two paragraphs of a story about a bunch of papers declining paid political advertising. Basically an "and they were there too" reference. [4] A report about a state politician who falsified his credentials with credit given to the CCP for breaking the story. This source is one that might count towards establishing notability. [5] A more detailed story about the lawsuit against the CCP [6] A two paragraph - five sentence blurb in a story about a far right neo-Confederate noting that he once worked for the CCP and asked to have some of his writings removed from its website. [7] A reference consisting of a single run on sentence (embarrassing for the NY Times) in an article listing stories being followed in 21 different publications. In summary we have one reference that might count towards establishing notability, several references, mostly trivial, to various legal issues the paper has had, a passing mention that the CCP used to employ a far right nut job, and a single sentence in the New York Times. With respect to the various references to lawsuits I will simply note that newspapers and lawyers go together like presidents and Hail to the Chief. File the references to legal issues under run of the mill. Conceding the one reference (#4) is solid, you may otherwise color me unimpressed. If this is enough to establish notability there is likely not a paper in the country that would not be notable. I do not believe this meets the in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources required by GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

07:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, coverage but not adding up to WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of newspapers in South Carolina. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yo La Tengo discography#Compilation albums. in the absence of more contribution we have to go with what discussion we have Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mishmoshi-Moshi[edit]

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

Does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep - Prefer to merge with Yo La Tengo discography#Compilation albums or Yo La Tengo, following the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums because this article has little more than a track listing. If the destination of the merge has size concerns, keep this article, but use Template:Subarticle to explicitly indicate a spin-out. ~ scribble · ink _chat\^contrib 07:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yo La Tengo discography#Compilation albums. Detail already there is sufficient. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

07:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014. in the absence of further discussion we have to go with what we have and the only keep vote was not policy based Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sympho-Nick[edit]

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

Not notable contest participant - fails WP:MUSIC; no significant coverage, releases or tours. Underage performers. Karst (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ukraine in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014. Article has clearly been made in haste without taking into account WP:GNG. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 08:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Placed in the top six of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014. The article is sufficient. I believe that this would make them notable enough. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mastamind. merge what's useful Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Themindzi[edit]

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

Non-notable album. WP:N, WP:NALBUMS. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mastamind. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to the band. Wgolf (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this falls under the same boat, I just looked at the debut album and put a prod-here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lickkuiddrano Wgolf (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to DWKC-FM. without further discussion we go with what we have Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darling Yumi[edit]

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

No independent sources found for this person. Previously BLPPRODded by myself and removed by article creator, where an inaccessible page from the radio station's website is provided. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DWKC-FM as a likely search term. Subject does not appear independently notable based on available coverage. - Dravecky (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Unable to find any reliable, independent coverage whatsoever. Levdr1lp / talk 11:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied by author and redir deleted by me. Peridon (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom+Chee[edit]

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

local references only. not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm just going to go ahead and Userfy it as mine, @DGG: can you delete the redirect please? Kharkiv07 ^Talk 04:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Goldstein, Hill & West Architects. WP:SNOW. Anyone who thinks this close is inappropriate may revert it. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehall Interiors NYC[edit]

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

This has been deleted and restored several times, so I think it advisable to get a community decision. My own opinion is that it is not sufficiently distinct from the parent company to have a separate article, as shown by the fact hat almost all the coverage of their work ascribes the work to the architectural firm, not to them. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Goldstein, Hill & West Architects. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goldstein, Hill & West Architects BMK (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Goldstein, Hill & West Architects. –Davey2010^Talk 17:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above - a sample source shows that one broader article will be more appropriate than two shallower ones. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, yes. --IJBall (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Goldstein, Hill & West Architects. Epic Genius (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN GamePlan season-by-season schedules[edit]

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

Just trivia? ViperSnake151 Talk 03:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not TV Guide. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not TV Guide, not a stats book, and not an indiscriminate collection of information. This isn't even good trivia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dagom Rinpoche[edit]

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

Wholly unreferenced promotional article. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nominator.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious Delete - A cursory search using Wikipedia's tools (see above) leads to zero scholarly mentions outside of single-name mentions in two books with no further information on him (the other books are based on Wikipedia articles). The article has been asking for any reliable cite since 2013 and received none. Google tells me he appears to be affiliated with a branch of the Dorje Shugden movement, but literally nothing else. If we cannot verify any information about this individual outside of propaganda works, that's very problematic. He's only mentioned as a single name in The Dalai Lama and the King Demon, which is startling if he is in fact Wiki-notable. Ogress _smash! 19:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a circular reference - mirrors of wiki verifying notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Fresh[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST. Sources are either dead, don't mention him, or are self-published, with the exception of this one article. One write-up in a local paper does not establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do we have a word for a wall o' worthless citations? I'm not seeing any sources meeting the criteria of being reliable, independent, and providing significant coverage of the subject. We need multiple sources meeting all those criteria. Honestly, this looks very much like an article written by someone associated with the topic; the author has written articles on the record label founded by the subject as well as another artist under the same label. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:BOMBARD, FYI. And yes, I'm noticing that a number of the articles related to this. (The group, the person, and the album) have a lot of deadlinks, suspeciously whenever it something about them charting it seems... Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like the band fails WP:NBAND, and their album fails WP:NALBUMS, so I can't imagine this individual who was a part of these two things would be meeting the WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting MUSICBIO or even GNG. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was tagged for A9 speedy deletion per band article's deletion (Non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh City: Bottles Up[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the band isn't notable (and it doesn't appear to meet any WP:BAND criteria), then neither is any album by the band. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find coverage to establish notability for this album (WP:NALBUMS). Gongshow talk 17:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS, non-notable artist. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A9. Band article was recently A7-speedied. --Finngall ^talk 20:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tub (unit)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY -War wizard90 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This unit was a statutory measure in the UK - see Robinson, Crabb or Mortimer, for example. Weights and measures are almanac material and so are valid content per WP:5. Andrew D. (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article now that I've rewritten it with a couple of Andrew D's sources (I think Mortimer might have a typo re firkin, by the way). And I've added it to the dab page at Tub. Will also tidy up Firkin (unit) while I've got those refs to hand.Pam D 14:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done so - please chip in to help. PamD 14:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANd have expanded Tub (unit) to show what a variable/ill-defined thing it was. PamD 15:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on the article Pam, I think in it's current state this is no longer a dictionary definition, so I am ok with keeping it. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PamD's expansion of history, context, and sourcing in the article. Nice work. --Mark viking (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G3/A11) by Melanie. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matsubayashi no shima[edit]

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

Fails WP:N as it has no sources and searches find no evidence of the existence of the place. Possibly a hoax. Appable (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is a hoax. I can find no indication this exists in Japanese sources, which is impossible if this was really a city. Michitaro (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax article. --DAJF (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coert Van Voorhees[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Aside from having existed there is no indication this person meets WP:BIO in any way, and notability is not inherited. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like the article was created by a descendant but Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Sorry Matt, if it was for your school project. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, per nomination. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and let's try not to be snide to new users. True enough that WP:NOTINHERITED. It is measured by how many reliable, secondary sources cover a topic. Type Coert Van Vorhees into a search of books or of journals of genealogy or of the history of New York and New Amsterdam. There is very significant coverage of his life, immigration, career, and progenitive prowess.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless to the fact that I am a descendant, Coert Van Voorhees was significant in the founding of Flatlands, New York. Deleting this page would be a mistake- Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, Coert Van Voorhees deserves to be on this website as much as anyone else. MattVoorhees15 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment article needs improvement. but merely because it was written as a kind of fan page by a descendant (rookie editor) it would be wrong to ignore the large number of WP:RS (books, articles) covering this and other early Dutch settlers in considerable detail. Coverage confers notability. as per WP:GNG E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added a 2014 newspaper genealogy column in which he appears, a handful of the 19th and 20th century biographical compendia, historical compendia and genealogy books in which biographies of him were published(sometimes with lists of descendents, other times with details of documents, land deeds he signed, colonial assemblies in which he was a representative, and a 2006 history of Brooklyn, New York University Press, in which he appears for having left his name on a place in modern Brooklyn. In sum, he lived in the 17th century and every scrap of data about his life was searched out and published during a period of intense interest in colonial history and in genealogy in the 19th and early 20th century. Today these details are sought out, published and republished on multiple genealogy websites , at least some of which can be considered reliable. He passes WP:GNG. We need to be careful to remember that 19th books have weight in conferring notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ordinarily, an article on an obscure figure written by a descendant would not merit inclusion, but van Voorhees' participation in the Landtdag of 10 April 1664 would almost certainly have made him a notable figure then and, in my mind, is what keeps him notable today. schetm (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming that is true, then I would change my opinion; however, it must be included. We don't keep unencyclopedic entries without sources. If the source is included before a decision is made, then that works. If it isn't, then his notability is neither asserted nor established in the article, which is a requirement to maintain the entry. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is most certainly asserted in the very claim of participation in the assembly, and is backed up on page 379 of this source, which was already included in the article. I have added an additional citation of pages 10-11 of this book. schetm (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my comment above and User:Schetm.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Obie Ferguson[edit]

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

This article is about a chef and, predominantly, about the pub/restaurant he works at and jointly owns (and its menu). It is overly promotional and fails to establish notability - references are to routine local coverage and at least one is a sponsored listing. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:BIO, with no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note WP:RS does not bring up significant results because "Chef" is in the title of the page. Consider removing from title.Atsatsa (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Menu items have been removed to avoid promotional bias. Three of the references are not local as Our State magazine has readers in 50 countries per their Wikipedia page and the other two sources (The Charlotte Post and West NC Magazine) are from major cities in North Carolina outside of the local area in question. I was unable to locate the sponsered listing mentioned by RichardOSmith in his statement. Atsatsa (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the head of the Our State reference it says that the feature is sponsored. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*I do see that, however it indicates the piece was sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield which is not a conflict of interest. Atsatsa (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look and this suggests that sponsorship does not affect editorial content but does give the article greater prominence (as a means of promoting the sponsor) which gives some reason to question the significance of the article section (which, at less than 100 words and little more than a directory entry, is anyway virtually negligible - even a full restaurant review is not generally considered notable). Even if we discount any concern about sponsorship, too many others remain: Just about all "local" publications have a web presence and thus global reach but they do not have global coverage. Local newspapers around the world routinely feature local restaurants from time to time. Even without the menu the article remains heavily promotional and imparts very little information about the subject of the article but even if that was fixed, notability would still be the sticking point. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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