Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 October	23 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hartman

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

Delete: non-notable, completely promotional, unsourced article. Quis separabit? 00:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to meet notability standards.Aytea (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kashmir. MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir - the most dangerous place in the world

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

This page seems to be about a quote from a Bill Clinton, fails WP:GNG NickGibson3900 ^Talk 22:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sure, some people called Kashmir TMDPITW,[1][2] but you can find others who called Somalia that,[3][4] or Syria.[5] That Clinton quote had no lasting power. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kashmir, or whichever event(s) this sentiment is based on (PS. quoting the article, "nuclear war between India and Pakistan over the issue of Kashmir"), perhaps as "Some, including Bill Clinton, once considered Kashmir 'the most dangerous place in the world' (due to this incident)." This opinion would be notable (under that cause, not separately) if multiple notable people and/or reliable sources called on that in the wake of that cause. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 08:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited. While the dispute is quite notable, this quote can atmost get a mention in the dispute article (that too if requred in context of a descriptive section). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is just a journalistic headline. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is amply covered by the Kargil war page. People interested in the headline can add it there. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper where there are no indication of importance as well as it fails the criteria for general notable guidelines. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and salt the redirect. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This information satisfies the criteria as an independent topic.

Continuing threat of nuclear war between India and Pakistan is the strongest fact to support this topic.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide facts to general public.

The topic "Kashmir - the most dangerous place in the world" was the opinion of President Bill Clinton. However, his opinion was supported by the facts presented in a book, “Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb” by former US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott.

This book is praised by prestigious institutions such as Yale and Foreign Affairs (http://www.foreignaffairs.com). Maakhter (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

======================================

Which guidelines and policies were used to create following pages?

Cuban missile crisis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis

Cold War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

Nuclear arms race

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race

The nuclear arms race was a competition for supremacy in nuclear warfare between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies during the Cold War.

Soviet Union–United States relations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union%E2%80%93United_States_relations

Maakhter (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this duplicates the Kashmir conflict article Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One statement is not enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another statement. Need more statements?

US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage said, “there are a lot of other dangerous parts in the world. India and Pakistan over Kashmir comes to mind”Armitage also described Kashmir as “most dangerous place in the world” during his speech in Sydney in 2003.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kashmir-most-dangerous-place-Armitage/articleshow/131451.cms

Maakhter (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maakhter, all those references and statements combined together make point for a single statement in the Kashmir article pointing out that the region has been claimed to be dangerous. An article with such a title will not make something you will see in an encyclopedia. News and encyclopedic articles differ in their nature. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

32Group

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

Created with an article of the owner (at CSD), I don't see anything that supports notability at this time. Dennis 2¢ 22:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for sources and found a few non english sources. I attempted a Google Translate but they all seem rather promotional to me. I did find this link but I still don't believe it's enough to pass WP:ORG--Church ^Talk 06:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only think I could find is that they appear to have filed for bankruptcy almost a year ago [6], which doesn't make them notable. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. blatant advertising DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Martinez

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

BLP where I can't see a secondary indi RS fails GNG / BIO. What's subject notable for? The radio show linking here is unreferenced, but may be a claim. COI / SPAM creator / Ad - see allegation of paid editing ad centred on this article at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bert_Martinez Widefox; talk 19:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, though with a heavy heart. I was looking forward to creating a redirect for Spotty Lincoln. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B Janakiraman

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

Bringing this to AfD to save having to replace speedy tags. This appears to be a bio, but of whom I'm not sure. The English is bad, and possibly machine translated, although I can't see how some of the things there could result from even that at its worst. No indication of notability, and at time of posting, unreferenced. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no idea what is going on in the article. If not for structure it could be WP:G1'ed.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; you would think "one of the most influential figures in human history" would have an article already, and a coherent one at that. Trivialist (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"[Keep] He is a notable person in south india, article is about true and honesty social worker plus popular politician, please do not delete page." (statement copied from the talk page of the author and posted here as a 'keep' on his behalf by Peridon (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I've posted that for him as I think there are understanding and possibly competence problems. Peridon (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

Sooner, photos will be uploaded wherein the group photo members are all alredy available in wiki, will be great evidence as a noted person.

please do not delete a true social worker photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhony.bhaktha (talk • contribs) 14:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy heck, delete this wreck: I agree with Loriendrew, it's damn near a G1 speedy. No evidence this guy - presuming this isn't a hoax article - passes WP:BIO or the GNG at any level. A WP:COMPETENCE and a WP:BULLSHIT issue, too, I figure. Nha Trang 22:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No sources, even assuming that the subject is notable. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Peridon article says he was Youth Wing Secretary in AIADMK Party even if that is correct he fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a local leader of AIDMK. Not notable enough and Athachil (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article seems like it was put through a google translator. I wonder if this comes from somewhere else. This has quickly become my favorite wikipedia article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a store of hoaxes, but not one for things with the delightful turn of phrase found here. I suppose that if it were written in a highly idiomatic style, things like 'raised as a silver tail' might be word for word translations. I can't see how the 'Spotty Lincoln' arises, however. I am also puzzled as to the connection between the title (and intro), and the Jhony person. Are they one and the same or not? Peridon (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holy crap Batman! Per WP:ANYBIO. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment Is there no chance of keeping it as an essay?! -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't disagree with the points made above. I am One of Many (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

He is not a local leader, he was a good social worker. i do not know the reason in deleting it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhony.bhaktha (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Steven Willey

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

Dr. Wiley's page has one reference from a reliable source that is not selfpublished or Resume like. This one reference does not establish notability. Spent some time looking him up in search engines and did not find anything beyond what you would find for any Medical Doctor. VViking_TalkEdits 17:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because this article about Dr. Willey's Exertion scale produces zero hits on a google search.

Delete both. As a physician and author, the individual fails all the relevant notability guidelines at WP:BIO due to lack of coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of the subject. His scale also fails WP:GNG for the same reason. This all seems highly promotional. (Disclosure: I am responding due to a notice placed in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard.) - Location (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing encyclopedic about this entry. It almost reads like an WP:ADVERT.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are soapboxes. jps (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Júnior Padilla

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ - both articles per WP:NFOOTBALL - The Honduran Liga Nacional is not listed as a fully professional league. Both players have not played in senior international matches. No other reasons are mentioned in the articles why the subjects are relevant. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep. Pharaoh provides a link below to a senior international match Padilla had played in. Also, I believe the second article should be posted seperately since it does not get enough attention like this and it gets very confusing. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Nfitz (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Nfitz points to a number of articles dealing with the players, but bar one interview, the remainder are very brief notes of no more than a few paragraphs. Not really seeing anything substantial. Fenix down (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Nfitz and further has played in the CONCACAF Champions League the regional equivalent of the UEFA Champions League in 2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League Group Stage for Motagua as per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional de Honduras would appear (by its name) to be a professional league. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues needs to be updated and not this article deleted. Op47 (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name of a league does not necessarily reflect reality. Just as an example, the fourth division of French football is semi-pro despite being called Championnat de France amateur. Without reliable sources confirming that the Liga Nacional is in fact fully pro, the claim that it is carries no weight. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the claim in the name that it is professional then I would suppose the league to be professional unless proof otherwise could be shown. Above, fully professional league was quoted as evidence despite the list itself stating that it is incomplete. Anyway, all of this is moot because, putting the league's article title into google revealed a claim that the league is in fact professional. I admit it is the leagues own website and it is in Spanish (I think), but it clearly states that the league is professional. So the objection that this person has not played in a professional football league no longer stands, unless you can show evidence to the contrary. Op47 (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of issues with this. First, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and by extension on the editor wishing to show notability via the criteria of WP:NFOOTY as a matter of textual interpretation, regardless of the particular naming conventions of any league. The name of a league is essentially treated as an unreliable source. The incompleteness of WP:FPL is not relevant for these same reasons. It does not matter whether the absence of a league from the list is due to an absence of professionalism or an absence of sources; both are required to demonstrate notability under WP:NFOOTY. The other issue is that unqualified the word professional to describe a league is not sufficiently precise to demonstrate that WP:NFOOTY is met, as the guideline requires that a footballer have played in a fully professional league (emphasis mine). While there is no doubt that the there is some degree of professionalism in the Liga Nacional, there is nothing to indicate that the league is in fact fully professional. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qlink

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

Non-notable neologism, and the term "qlink" doesn't even appear in any of the sources cited Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All though I don't doubt the authors good intentions, this article is just made up by them with no references to sources not based on their own opinion.

QLink is an invented term by the author
As all the references are just about the articles authors opinion this is basically a single source article.
The text may mislead people to think this is actually related to quantum security - rather than just 'inspired' by the ideas of quantum theory.
The article makes it sound like this is a new idea but its been about for a while: for instance www.destructingmessage.com (copyright date says 2006).
The article makes it sound way more safe than it is failing to mention:

No detection mechanisms for Man-in-the-middle attacks
The message could be just intercepted and read by anyone else
The 'QLink' server could be compromised or maliciously run

The articles suggests this would be suitable for sending "credit card information, passwords, confidential information", and also for national security. I would doubt you would find any security professional who would say this was (as described) suitable for any of these. In fact I would hope they would all say it should never be used for such things.

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NFT. Nha Trang 22:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notableOp47 (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dinning (journalist)

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

Declined AfD, but I see no credible claim of notability: just a journalist doing his job. TheLongTone (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on its Talkpage, I tried finding what the minimum notability needed for editors-in-chief of big magazine was and couldn't find really a guideline. I was working on a related article and thought it was pretty strange that the top position holder of a magazine did not have an article, being as how he served for 6 years in this position, was a judge on a few world-wide film competitions and got famous directors such as Steven Spielberg to guest-edit. Previous editors-in-cheif of the same magazine have an article, and other magazine's have articles for their top ranking holders. Having said that, as I don't know enough about notability of people in this position, I'm not going to argue a position either way. Edit: noticed he was by named editor of the year (2008 and 2009) by the British Society of Magazine Editors--Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: due to WP:GNG. Nothing with which he is most closely affiliated, including the magazine he edits, is particularly notable. Quis separabit? 02:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for making nobody somebody. Op47 (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Haberkern

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

Not notable. This is more a cotrack to advertise his inventions than it is a biography. Haberkern lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. the large amount of reference do not contain any depth of independent coverage about him. Most are misused, not verifying the text they follow. A shill has written their preferred text and then thrown in partly related references to fake verification and make him look good. Haberkern did not win the award claimed. This award (which is not major and one of a plethora the professional development program give out) was won by someone else, as was second and third. Haberkern got an also-ran "Award of Excellence". Deceptively source promotional biographies have no place on Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The individual definitely has substantial press coverage, such as this significant article about him in the LA Times. Should the article be rewritten? Perhaps. However, Haberkern does pass GNG. Goliathiest (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC) — Goliathiest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That article is mostly by Haberkern, not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Duffbeerforme that the LA Times interview does not help satisfy GNG. In addition to SPA Goliathiest popping in to opine here, the article itself was mainly written by other SPAs and editors who are obviously here for promotional purposes. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please don't make me waste any more words on this coatrack. None of these inventions are world changing (compared to say sewing machines or televisions) Op47 (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you remove all of the non-reliable sources, this page has no, absolutely no, acceptable references. As noted already in the article, many of the "references" do not even mention him. Take this away! LaMona (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MadEdit

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

Non notable software. A Google search turned up nothing but download sites and message boards. Development has been discontinued and none of its forks are notable. SmileBlueJay97 talk 09:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have two discussion pages for the same item? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify your issue? I only see 1 discussion page. Perhaps it has been fixed.Dialectric (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The refs and links provided are not RS. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Lacking references in reliable sources. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clearly erroneous nomination. All listed citations are to print sources; the dead links were merely to online copies. postdlf (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Up North (book)

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

Non-notable book. All provided references are dead links; new ones aren't forthcoming. Notability isn't temporary. Mikeblas (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I a Woman

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

Not a notable film Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 13:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Film was briefly reviewed by The New York Times here. I suspect that additional sources may not be readily available online. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable film. In addition to The New York Times above, Roger Ebert has reviewed the film as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a review by TV Guide here. It should also be noted that one should search for "I, A Woman" as opposed to "I A Woman" for better results. There are more relevant results in Google Books searching for the title with the comma included. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need not depend on only English sources, as this non-English / non-American film had multiple international releases, as well as multiple re-releases in Denmark itself:

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

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

Finland 1:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Finland 2:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STRONG Keep (possible speedy keep) Sorry nominator, but sending a brand new stub article to AFD only 21 minutes after it was contributed seems to be show a lack of due diligence... and AFD is not for forcing others to improve the improvable. I'll continue work, but others are most welcome to join. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: the 17 word stub that was (IMHO) prematurely sent to AFD, is now a 626 word C-Class article that informs our readers... an easy 36x expansion. I would ask that the nominator consider a withdrawal so we can close this and move on. Now to think up another DYK. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original poster here

Schmidt above has pulled together a lot of new information (well, new to me) about the film and done lots of stuff with templates (or whatever they're called). The film's page is now thoroughly up to the standards of most film articles and the "Deletion" flag should be lifted.

Re OddBodz belief that it was not a notable film - since it came to my attention while watching a TV documentary titled "Sex and the Silver Screen", which spent about 5 of 55 minutes on the film, I don't think Oddbodz's opinion is universally shared.

I was very surprised that a film of such prominence did not have a Wikipedia page. Aidan Karley (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciations, Aidan. There are lots of topics that do not (yet) have Wikipedia entries... but then it is self-admittedly an unfinished work in progress. Unless the nominator chooses to withdraw, or unless it is so obvious that the topic will not be deleted and the discussion then closed by an uninvolved editor per WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES, an AFD discussion usually runs for 7 days. If your comment is intended (likely) as a "keep", you can simply head it with that word emboldened. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: After the expected keep, this article should be moved to the more properly sourcable I, A Woman per WP:NCF and WP:ENGLISH. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, doesn't the "A" need to be lowercase "a"? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: Well, to be fair, I, a woman would be best (see English film poster). But as we're Anglifying a non-English title, I felt this would look most proper per WP:NCF and WP:ENGLISH. Of course, the original Jeg - en kvinde is far more searchable than the English. I just wished to have whatever here be most searchable and with fewer false positives that the current title. We DO need that coma though. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Well done on the expansion, MichaelQSchmidt! 97198 (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Along with the sources found by Schmidt above, I also found multiple mentions in books like this one and this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources found by MichaelQSchmidt and Tokyogirl79.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a search on Newspapers.com and there are thousands of hits. Apparently this was quite a controversial film in the US [14] I am One of Many (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Care (EP)

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

Procedural nomination as a contested WP:PROD with reason "Non-notable." Euryalus (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article moved from PROD to AfD because of an edit by Purplefate (talk) who has only edited on the three related pages The Whereabouts, I Don't Care (EP), and TwentyThirtyThree. This record is non-notable and it's refs are self sourced. Bogger (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate the article about the band separately from the record. A few sources do exist for the band, and I've seen other passing mentions in Irish press that suggest that they just might sneak in as notable. Whereas the EP is much more doubtful. Thank you. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok Bogger (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the band itself may be on the borderline of notability, maybe, but I have been unable to find substantial coverage warranting an article about this EP. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and possible conflict of interest. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Solution Group

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG HUJUMA (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep with edit. Some section sounds like product selling page. But the information may be valuable to local people.nirmal (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatantly promotional and obviously created by a marketer. Deb (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo piece. User spamublocked. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional piece, badly written, doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spammy and non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Stalwart111 st170e^talk 16:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This probably should be SPEEDY DELETEd. Promotional and fails WP:N. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above not notable and Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena Sujan

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

Don't believe she meets WP:NACTOR. According to IMDB (Yes, not a reliable source) all the films she has been in have been short films Gbawden (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't understand what's her achievement to have an article in Wikipedia. Now its a trend among celebrities to get a Wikipedia article on their name which is very bad for Wikipedia's quality and standards. Fails WP:NMODEL/WP:NACTOR. Athachil (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment - While I concur, after having done searches, that this person is not notable and pretty much looks to fail notability criteria, it is possibly just a bit off to compare her to a topless model (ie a Page 3 person) as I'm not seeing she's done this kind of softcore porn modelling. (Of course, the term may mean something different to its British meaning.) Mabalu (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I used term "page 3" to refer the metropolitan celebrities. In India the meaning of "Page 3 is" different Page 3 culture. I have updated my comment accordingly.Athachil (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies for the misunderstanding, User:Athachil! Language barrier strikes! Mabalu (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Smith (football)

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

Not sure if she is notable ito WP:NGRIDIRON - no other Boston Militia player merits an article. Claims to be an actress as well - no WP:RS Gbawden (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG, as would be normal of an individual player in a fringe sport league.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no specific notability guideline for women's football; subject clearly fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG -- no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not come near being adequate by any measure. One is literally a roster listing that tells us very little. The other is her facebook page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cabana

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

Is not presumed notable according to WP:N and WP:NHOCKEY. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet NHOCKEY and I can find nothing that satisfies GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. He played in the EIHL for a season - but classifying that as a 'top professional league' is probably pushing it. GLG GLG (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We don't classify the EIHL as a lower minor league, and it's light years away from "top professional"; its stars are folks who were second- and third-liners in the juniors, the ECHL and NCAA hockey. Ravenswing 20:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The ECHL is a lower-level league per WP:NHOCKEY/LA. This means that merely playing in the ECHL does not make him notable. If he achieved preeminent honours in the ECHL or college he could be notable per WP:NHOCKEY #4, but I can't find any evidence of such honours. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:BIO and WP:NHOCKEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Ellington

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

Is not presumed notable according to WP:N and WP:NHOCKEY. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing has changed from previous AfD. played in the minors on this side of the pond and is now playing in a semipro league. The only media mentions are of his minor league career, and those are passing mentions, mostly of his being demoted. John from Idegon (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply does not pass the notability guidelines or GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI don't see how anything has changed from the last time. Still fails WP:NHOCKEY--Church ^Talk 06:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of chemical weapons in Sri Lankan civil war

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

Article fails WP:GNG & WP:V with no reliable sources. -- Shehanw (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 05:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The article is fairly new, and there are quite a number of secondary sources regarding the topic, more of which will be incorporated in sometime. It is to be remembered that NewsX is one of the popular news channels which had broadcast the documentary and there was an official response offered by the Sri Lankan government regarding the matter. So coverage wasn't exactly non-existent as per the initiator.--CuCl₂ ^(chat ^spy ^acquaint) 11:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be secondary sources showing this is a notable topic. I'm sure there is a lot of work ahead to make sure the article is neutral, but don't delete. Borock (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Incorrect assertion. The article meets both the criteria. --Ekabhishek^talk 16:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Use of chemical weapons in a modern conflict is pretty much always going to be notable, and there are several sources in the article which settles verifiability.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has balance problems as the denial of these reports by the Sri Lankan government is given far less space than material arguing that they occurred (and I suspect that the name of the article should be changed to something less certain), but it appears to cover a notable topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:N(E) & WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a news blog to keep these kind of hoaxes. The article, Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War already covers the issues & allegations related to the Sri Lankan War.- LahiruG^talk 05:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both reasons given for deletion are invalid - the article has several WP:RS and therefore passes WP:V and WP:GNG.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article clearly passes both WP:V and WP:GNG and has Reliable sources the neutrality issues if any can resolved through editing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Qualifies notability and it is not a news, but collection of researches and reports about the usage of chemical weapon during the civil war. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs some work on NPOV and possibly a move to something like "Alleged use of chemical weapons in Sri Lankan civil war", but definitely meets WP:GNG IMO. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is a bit complicated. At first glance, "keep" votes outnumber "delete" votes 8 to 4 (counting the IPs obvious intent to say "keep"), but the delete votes do present solid rationales (on average stronger than the keep votes), some which were addressed and others that were not. This forces me to close a qualified "No consensus". I would recommend shoring up the article's sourcing, as another AFD in 6 months is a real possibility. Dennis - 2¢ 14:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Energy-Safety and Energy-Economy (journal)

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources, only one minor (and also non-notable) award. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the places where Randykitty and I disagree. The West-European/US oriented selective databases are irrelevant for Russian titles. It's included in its own nation citation index, and that is sufficient. There's no other practical way for us to avoid cultural bias in this field. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I strongly agreed with DGG on this note. Inclusion in its country citation index is enough. Wikicology (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, essentially per rationale of Wikicology, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editor. Not sure if adding my comment here is correct, sorry about that. I am one of the editors of this journal and I wonder if you could give us a chance and keep the Energy-Safety and Energy-Economy article. I do not agree that the journal is “Not indexed in any selective databases.” Global Impact Factor, SHERPA, Higher Attestation Commission (the Russian leading periodicals database) are selective databases. Published papers are included in the largest bibliographical catalog worldcat.org. Members of the journal’s editorial board are doing all their best to improve the publication and are making it an open access bilingual journal. The managing editor became the Editor of the Month http://gaudeamusacademia.com/forum/topics/editor-of-the-month-april-2014-svetlana-zernes?xg_source=activity. Thank you for your understanding.73.43.243.35 (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. James500 (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, clearly notable. Zambelo; talk 11:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Hi Zambelo, I'm glad to see that your recent topic ban at ANI has motivated you to go outside of your usual haunts. We can use more editors working on academic journals! --Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Randykitty! Glad to see you back hard at work ensuring other people's misguided efforts to collaborate on a Worldwide Encyclopedia Project are managed to within your scrupulous guidelines - I'm just (pleasantly) surprised you haven't brought more conscientious editors along to force the issue this time - we can use productive editors who can stick to due process without pushing a POV. Zambelo; talk 17:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zambelo is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely-blocked editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I strongly disagree with all of the above "keep" !votes, none of which, in my opinion, is even slightly based in policy. The "West-European/US oriented selective databases" certainly do not exclude journals in other languages and contain journals publishing in Japanese, Chinese, and, indeed, also Russian. The own national citation index (Russian Science Citation Index) is not selective at all. Accepting indexing of journals in the RSCI would actually create a cultural bias: English-language journals need to be included in a selective database, but Russian-language journals only need to be included in the RSCI. The journal under discussion here has no impact whatsoever. Searching Google Scholar (not using the above link containing the dab) under its English title gives a grand total of 3 cites. Searching for its Russian title lists a few hundred articles published in this journal (showing, by the way, that GS indexed journals in Russian), none of which has been cited, not even in Russian journals. In short, we have no sources discussing this journal (and for those claiming there is a cultural bias at work here, I would like to remind everybody here that sources in Russian are perfectly acceptable), we have no inclusion in databases that are even remotely selective, and we have no evidence that this journal has any significant impact. I fail to see how anybody can argue that this journal is notable. --Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It meets notability. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 00:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Karlhard, not even any of the above editors have dared argue that this meets no less than GNG. Could you perhaps be so kind to explain which sources discussing this journal in-depth comply with GNG? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, what do you think of the idea of AfD nominators confining themselves to their nomination statement and responding to questions asked? Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a bad idea. An AfD is supposed to be a discussion, which could hardly be done if the nom would be barred from further participation. I have seen many an AfD where the discussion led to the nom withdrawing the nomination or to other participants changing their opinions. Not dicussing would be detrimental to the process and eventually to the project. --Randykitty (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this section in WP:NJournals; "Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia, without exception (see Wikipedia:Verifiability: 'If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.')." Origamite^ⓣⓒ 12:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that policy, which is entirely correct, is about verifiability, not notability, and requires only reliable sourcing, not reliable sourcing sufficiently substantial to establish notability under the GNG. We have never relied on the GNG for academic journals. Verifiability is met by Ulrich's. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if the claims in the article cannot be verified through reliable sources (not just one lady's "Editor of the month" bio) it doesn't meet notability. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 22:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note: It would have been easy to close this keep, but the potential bias issues with inclusion and/or exclusion based on RSCI are signficant, and I would prefer to see more discussion on that point, as the answer to that question may have some signficant value as precedent. My apologies to participants irritated by the relist, but I really think this is a question worth getting right. Thanks for understanding. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can explain why they believe the Russian Science Citation Index is a selective database.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From editor. Global Impact Factor, SHERPA, Higher Attestation Commission List (the Russian leading periodicals database) are selective databases.184.188.97.130 (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Glonal Impact Factor is on Jeffrey Beall's list of fake impact factors. It is not selective. Nor are any of the others, which strive to cover all Russian journals. --Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From editor. Any Russian scientist or scientific journal editor knows that Higher Attestation Commission's List has plenty of strict requirements and is selective.66.56.43.231 (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but as far as I can see from the VAK website, the strict criteria consist of being peer-reviewed, having a website and editorial board, having an address, etc. There's nothing that indicates any stricter than that. Could you perhaps provide a link that shows there is more selectivity? --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From editor. The link with VAK's rules is [15]. Editors of Russian journals dream of including their publication in the VAK's list but meeting criteria doesn't mean that they will be included. VAK has its own selection policy based on commission experts' opinions. The selection process is not clear enough but it is a selection process. The total number of Russian scientific publications is 10028 while the VAK's list contains only 2269.66.56.43.231 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had already seen that document, but unfortunately my Russian is not good enough to read it and it is not in a form acceptable by Google Translate. However, over 2000 journals from Russia alone does not strike me as very restrictive, comparing that with WoS or even (the much less selective) Scopus, which both cover the whole world. --Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DGG has it spot on, I concur with his opinion. --Rotten regard 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: We need to come to a conclusion here.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DrDevilFX (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is my breakdown. DGG, Wikicology, Cirt, James500 and Rotten Regard think that the RSCI is enough. Karlhard asserts that it meets the GNG. 73.43.243.35, 184.188.97.130, and 66.56.43.231 say that the other journals are selective, which Randykitty directly disagrees with. Zambelo was trolling and wikistalking Randykitty. Randykitty and AioftheStorm say that the RSCI is not selective, and that no reliable sources mention this journal. I agree with Randykitty, and say that without sources, notability can't be established. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 01:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets Notability and the journal is reliable, as well as generating ~23,900,000 results on Google, (using query "Energy-Safety and Energy-Economy") — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDgeek1729 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It really is not enough to just say "meets Notability", you will also need to explain how it meets that. What sources do you consider sufficiently in-depth here? Strangely, I get just 35 Ghits (and only 13.9 million without the ""), but, in any case, numbers of Ghits are really no measure of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single claim made in the article on this non-notable journal is backed by a reliable source and it's evident that the reason for that is the absence of reliable sources that we could use. It's too soon for Energy-Safety and Energy-Economy to have an article on the English Wikipedia. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The discussion about what kind of database inclusion is required is irrelevant and misleading. Per WP:GNG, what we require for inclusion is substantial coverage in reliable sources, because otherwise we have nothing to base our article on, and such coverage is not attested here. Sandstein 10:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Bogdanović (footballer born 1990)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Europa League and captained the Macedonian U-21 national team. However, WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notability, and since his Europa League caps were in the qualifying rounds they do not confer notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~(Speedy)~~ Keep. ~~Can we get a minimum due diligence before nominating?~~ Bogdanović is now 24, therefore a senior by now. He played for FK Rabotnički until 2012, who are champions of Macedonian First League, and now plays for Serbian FK Rad, a professional Serbian football club based in Belgrade... Serbian SuperLiga. And both First Macedonian Football League and Serbian SuperLiga first leagues are fully professional, since about forever. And all of this properly referenced, at least since March [16]. No such user (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assumption of good faith... The Macedonian top flight is in fact not fully professional (see WP:FPL) and during his stint for FK Rad (which is now over by the way) he did not play even a single match for them. WP:NSPORT explicitly says that it only applies to those footballers who have played actual matches in fully pro leagues. He has not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, as I didn't notice that he hasn't played any caps for Rad, and you didn't mention that in the nom, so I'm striking the offending parts of my comment. However, Rabotnički is a fully pro club and FK Metalurg Skopje ended 2nd and 3rd in the league while Bogdanović played for them. I suppose that makes him borderline notable, along with his youth record and Euro league qualifiers. (Judging from [17]. he now plays for FK Teteks Tetovo). No such user (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fully Pro CLUB is not relevant, the player must have played in a fully pro LEAGUE per NFOOTY or in a non-qualifying round cup competition match between two clubs from fully pro leagues. Fenix down (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Brierley

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

I find this article really confusing, and couldn't establish that it meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He lived, worked, had a mysterious headstone made, and died. No indication of notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a bit confusing and could use a better distribution of references throughout the text. If the original author has more, it would be good for them to be added. The section on Freemasonry comes a bit abruptly in the story, and more should probably be said about the person who is subject of the article prior to introducing a general statement on Freemasonry. Other than that, you cannotLaMona (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC) expect many more references about something that took place in 1854. The fact that there are any at all is notable. I'm game to do some editing, but have no access to the resources, so would need the help of the original author.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gomerblog

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

Dubious notability -No.Altenmann >t 03:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll be kind and just say WP:TOOSOON. One mention in Medscape does not notability make. The rest seem to be limited to social media, LinkinIn and the like. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any reliable coverage. Sam Walton (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roshanda Duncan

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just the CEO of a non notable business. Not notable as an actor. Her claimed role on The Wire was not major. Appearances in adverts are not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My news sweeps of US news, entertainment-related, music-related, international news, NY City news did not come up with anything; no reliable sources currently in the article. Subject does not meet WP:GNG as best as I can determine.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jiwa Financials

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

one primary source fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP. (2 SPA editors incl creator, looks like COI spam) . Even if passed GNG, what's this notable for? Widefox; talk 01:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article has been moved to Jiwa (Software).Dialectric (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a highly inappropriate move as there's an open move request, and this AfD. I objected to the move (by one of the two COI editors) and reverted it. Widefox; talk 10:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found one piece of brief coverage from 2004 of another software item integrating with this package, and it is mentioned in a sector list in Bookkeeping for Dummies. These provide independent basic verification, but do not indicate attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wrote the article initially and took care to be factual to avoid COI issues. The lack of notability issue I contest as the article is about a product no less notable than competing products which do have wikipedia articles. Informing the public is an objective of Wikipedia, yes? I think it appropriate then that informing the public of alternate products in the Accounting Software and ERP categories includes the product Jiwa and the publisher, Jiwa Financials.Mikesheen (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)— Mikesheen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a strong argument. As you have a COI, I'm not even going to ask which ones and delete them. Widefox; talk 10:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:PRODUCT Numerous independent references around the web including software catalogues and independent forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottpearce1976 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) — Scottpearce1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Product catalogues and forum postings fall short of being reliable sources to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? Do you have two that meet WP:RS ? Widefox; talk 10:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two COI editors - please be aware of WP:MEAT. This is not a vote here, and having two COI / SPA !voters should be taken into account in closing. Widefox; talk 10:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've found no mention of the software when doing a search for the words Jiwa and accounting in Trove's archived Australian websites, The Internet Archive, and Google News. I found one potential newspaper article] from The Australian in 1998, but that just says that it exists... Unless the original author(s) can demonstrate independent reliable sources it should be deleted. Witty lama 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW as there's clearly no consensus to delete this and that position seems well-grounded in current policy. Andrew (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of doughnut shops

AfDs for this article:

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

Guess what? This list was deleted once before in 2006, and was re-created earlier this year. While it has a slightly longer lead than the deleted versions, I feel the 2006 deletion nomination language still applies:

I cannot see the point of this list. It duplicates the category. It has no added value and doesn't even specify the country in which these shops operate. BlueValour 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That the nominator "can't see the point" is not a reason for deletion, nor is the complaint that the list could be improved through better organization (e.g. by country). Doughnut shops, and specifically lists of doughnut shops, have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [18][19][20][21][22]. Pburka (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I think the list would be of far more value if it was in an expanded table form with proper referencing for each list item - location, date of establishment, etc. Of course those things are available in each article and each article is in the category so the suggestion the category is duplicated is true to an extent. But as an aid to readers I think it has some value. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Founding dates and locations would take it above the category level. That way readers could find the articles that interested them. BTW the background info in the introduction doesn't really help. Anyone reading the list probably already knows what a doughnut and a doughnut shop are. Borock (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that's the case with a lot of lists. You wouldn't be looking at a List of counties in Wisconsin unless you knew what a county was in that context and you were trying to find one in Wisconsin. I'm all for the "AFD isn't clean-up" mantra but I'm kinda glad this was nominated - hopefully it will get the fixin' it needs and the nominator's concerns will be resolved. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the time of the first deletion (before my time here) WP policy seemed to be that if a list and a category provided the same information the list was not needed. This is still the case here, but policy has changed so that now articles like this are kept. I agree with the original policy, but that is not a reason to delete this list. It is in accord with current policy, regardless of the fact that by clicking on the category you get the exact same thing. Borock (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Doughnut shops. WP:NOTDUP states, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." The list also has a functional purpose per WP:LISTPURP as a useful and functional navigational aid. Another matter is that descriptions can be added to the entries to expand the article, which cannot be performed with categories. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per sound analysis above, and thanks to User:Northamerica1000 for his impressive article expansion ([23]). Cavarrone 08:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000, Pburka, and others above. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 01:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dale L. Gifford

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

Couldn't find any sources to show subject meets WP:GNG. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of New Mexico Retiree Association

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

Non-notable organization Orange Mike | Talk 00:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no indication of any significant coverage by any third party reliable sources. fails WP:GNG-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't seem to be any indication of notability. The references don't help. Six of seven are to the University of New Mexico site. The seventh is a retirement association, which doesn't appear to even mention UNMRA. My own searching didn't go any better. The closest newspaper hits were to AARP and New Mexico; only a couple of press releasees for UNMRA. A general search also failed (searching on "UNMRA" returns many more hits, but most are spurious). I guess it's possible a brief note about UNMRA could be made in the University of New Mexico article, but it might be too much detail to even mention it. It surely would be too much detail to propose a merge. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Larry/Traveling_Man and Fails WP:ORG and lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keep rationales was mostly weak and doesn't address the fact he fails WP:GNG Secret ^account 04:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

André Diedericks

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, the only source used is the man's autobiography. Also falls short of WP:SOLDIER due to rank and highest valour award being third level. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - Thousands of veterans knew this legend of a man. He was a hero in all respects, and I seriously question the motivations of the one who proposed deletion. Why can this not be a stub asking for further citation, as I have seen on many many other WP pages? .. Lt. Sorrel Jakins 66414111BT South African Artillery Sorreljakins (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)— Sorreljakins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- On what basis would you be questioning my motivation, chief? You might like to try to assume good faith, given your account was apparently created purely to defend this article. Earlier, some IP troll suggested I was a "chef", which obviously would automatically mean I wouldn't have any respect for a special forces officer, and would seek to delete any article's about "real" warriors... FFS. I nominate articles for deletion on a regular basis when I am doing initial assessments of Milhist articles, usually shortly after they are created. On the basis of WP policy and Milhist guidelines, and certainly never because I "knew" somebody (or not). An apology is in order. For other editors, WP:NOTMEMORIAL may be relevant here as well as GNG (which requires "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, not a mention of the fellow's name here or there) and SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - Obviously I disagree as I created the article. I would suggest that the combination of the TWO valour awards should carry some weight. Also, the contribution of the man himself to the development of Small Team tactics is a unique one and makes him notable in it's own right. The secretive nature of the tasks that he was involved with means that there are VERY FEW sources of information. His biography is in fact widely referenced here on Wikipedia as a reliable source for a variety of things, so I don't see why it cannot count as such for an article on the man himself? BoonDock (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly diasagree! Does Peacemaker67 know ANYTHING about the subject matter whatsoever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.156.107 (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two points
- The book itself has been endorsed by the Special Forces Brigade, who don't do things like that lightly. It has also been checked for factual accuracy by Defence Intelligence. Many of the people mentioned in the book have read it and confirmed it's accuracy. I know that doesn't meet the criteria of being mentioned in newspaper articles or other sources, but that shouldn't reduce the authority of the book itself as a reference.
- The theoretical higher awards were either never awarded. HCD for example. In reality, the HCS was the highest award at the time especially considering that the HC had just been restructured and the criteria for the award level hadn't been cast in stone. BoonDock (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements to meet notability include that the sources are independent of the subject. Neither the Brigade nor Defence Intelligence would count as independent. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, considering that they are SANDF and Diedies was SADF they could be considered as independent. BoonDock (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the same manner as the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Royal Ulster Constabulary? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. The SANDF is made up of nine former entities, seven of them former statutary defence forces and two former so-called freedom fighter terrorist organisations. There is no comparison. Not anywhere, ever. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We're supposed to take his autobiography as an unbiased source? His deeds are so secret they aren't mentioned in the press? Seriously? As for his award being the highest actually bestowed, then how come Honoris Crux Gold lists people with awards in the same time period ('70s and '80s)? Clarityfiend (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you know anything about the topic then you must know that there was nothing in the press about Special Forces operations. Now thirty years and more later the information is slowly becoming available. I have copies if the citations for the HCS and HC but I was concerned that would be considered own research. He is mentioned in the Uys book which I will cite once I locate my copy as well as in two others. I'll update the references with those later. BoonDock (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, Clarityfiend, seriously! The Honoris Crux, on any level, was not awarded lightly and as an ex SAAF officer with nearly 33 years service, I am personally aware of several members who should have received the HC, HCS, HCG or even HCD but never did because their commanders never bothered to submit a citation - they were soldiers, not writers. Those who were awarded any of the HC or other decorations for valour twice are rare and are all notable as far as I'm concerned. In fact, as far as I know there were only three such double awards in a bush war that lasted 23 years: Arthur Walker HCG and Bar, André Diedericks HCS HC, and J.L. Conradie HC VRM. And yes, the press were not made aware of all actions, most especially not those of the Special Forces and most definitely not about the small team operators. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 16:07k, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"Keep" reference to this insident/topic also on web www.warinangola.com and insident described in a book called "point of the dagger" written by Peet Coetzee

I fail to see how or why warinangola.com would be a reliable source. It looks more like a "fanboi" website. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. No significant coverages to reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Wikicology (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep With only a web search as my research I found only a few sources that weren't forums or book sellers: 1. Two academics who were also both in the military (one retired as a Brigadier General) call Andre Diedericks' autobiography "an important primary source on Special Forces history by a leading participant". 2. In this academic article (in the Afrikaans language which I only understand a bit) Andre Diedericks is mentioned twice, even though the article states that it focusses on books by others. 3. In "BOSBEFOK: Constructed Images and the Memory of the South African Border War" by C M W Doherty, a thesis on literature, Diedericks' autobiography is mentioned as a typical example of "heroic first-person accounts produced by members of units such as Reconnaissance Commando and 32 Battalion" ... "by men who were regarded superhuman warriors at that time." 4. Diedericks apparently also figures as a character in the book "Point of the Dagger" by Peet Coetzee and 5. he is also named in passing in the book "Borderstrike!: South Africa Into Angola 1975-1980" by Willem Steenkamp. - Takeaway (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your ignorance about Andre into perspective it can be seen why you don't quiet grasp the magnitude of what the man achieved in his career. His two medals for bravery the HC, and HCS says a lot only a couple of HCG where ever awarded and no HCD where awarded.

Then his SM and MMM speak of the work ethics of the man. So fo the idiots who say he does not meet any requirements climb back in you box keep quiet and when you know the facts about what he did and achieved come deliver comments again. Yes no one knew of Special Forces Operations because that is what they are, only the Americans publish their Seal results and make films to justify the military presence in countries. You don't hear about the SAS or our Special Forces doing anything because we can keep quiet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew van Vuuren (talk • contribs) 05:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC) — Andrew van Vuuren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You just don't get it. To qualify as a bio in Wikipedia, his accomplishments have to be verifiable by reliable sources, per WP:GNG. According to you, they're all so secret, they can't be. And while you're at it, try reading WP:CIVIL. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above newly registered editor (Andrew van Vuuren) is the second to appear here whose only edits are on this page. Smells like WP:MEAT to me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The odour of the WP:MEAT is too obvious to ignore. What do you suggest? Wikicology (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have brought my concerns to Boondock's attention. Hopefully it, and the incivility here and on my talk page, will cease. Let's see. I'd advise the closing admin to ignore the IPs and the two new accounts. Not that this is a vote, of course. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern is noted. I did no recruiting but solicited assistance in finding references that would help to establish notability in a FB forum. That this has had the unintended effect of bringing people here who might not otherwise have come, is unfortunate, but not my fault. BoonDock (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might be losing focus a bit here. The article was nominated for deletion based on a number of factors. One of those was the references. I think we have established that there are more references than were initially in the article. What else? BoonDock (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You call that "losing focus", do you, pal? What it is, is meatpuppetry, and frankly, it's transparent, and you are sailing pretty close to the wind. Put your feral mates on a leash. But let's put that to one side for now, shall we, because I don't think I'll be getting an apology for their ignorant behaviour. What GNG requires is "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That is what the issue with this article was, and is, as far as I am concerned. I haven't seen anyone claiming significant coverage except in his autobiography (and that obviously isn't independent of the subject, apparently it is a "heroic first-person account"). Where is there significant coverage of this fellow? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that he does meet WP:SOLDIER by virtue of his medals. For some reason our Defence Force split our highest bravery award into 4. (Ignoring the Castle of Good Hope and the HCD which was never awarded) the HCG was the highest awarded and only to a handful. The HCS was thus the second level. He also won the HC - quite an achievement. I will add ref's to the book that lists his medal achievements Gbawden (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm not buying into the special-interest pleading about the way the SADF honours system was constructed or operated. Apply that to the Australian situation between 1969 and 1996, and you'd be telling me that the Medal for Gallantry awarded to SASR WO2 Rodrick Scott was actually the highest honour because no-one had ever been awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia or Star of Gallantry at that time. Of course, since that time, there have been seven CGs and three VCs awarded. Even if your characterisation of the medals was right, SOLDIER says multiple awards of the second highest, doesn't it? The way I'm reading it (if we take what you say as valid) he got one of the second highest, plus one of the next one down. That doesn't meet SOLDIER, so I'm not sure how you're putting that together. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are no less than 4 books that detail that he won the medal and his actions. Surely that means he passes GNG at the very least. I make no special interest pleadings - just stating it as I see it. Gbawden (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Diedericks as an author also mentioned in Beyond the border war: new perspective on Southern Africa's Late Cold War Conflicts by Baines & Vale. (see online excerpt)

I'd describe that as mentioned in a review of Beyond the border war: new perspective on Southern Africa's Late Cold War Conflicts. It does say "[referring to categories of published works] Contributions related to specialist forces and elite units...In this regard authors such as Els, Botha and Diedericks and Korff catch the eye. The majority of the latter works dealt to a lesser extent with politics and focused more on the experience of the participants, tactics, units and people involved. Most of these contributions are valuable historical sources" GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep. I think the combination of his coverage in the sources, his decorations and his senior rank within special forces (although neither of the latter two on their own meet WP:SOLDIER) do just about (and it's still very close) scrape him past the notability bar. However, I would like to add that the attacks on the nominator for what was a perfectly sensible nomination at the time it was made have been unacceptable. It is also inaccurate to suggest that because the HC is split into four grades all those grades constitute the highest level. Rubbish. The Order of the British Empire is split into six grades, yet we only consider the top three to confer inherent notability. Same with the French Légion d'honneur. Different grades of a multi-grade honour are effectively different awards. There should be no special pleading for countries that choose to have a split award instead of separate awards, nor for countries that choose not to award their top awards, as long as those awards exist on paper. Even discounting the latter (and there's no real reason why we should), Diedericks effectively held a second-level and a third-level bravery award, which is not generally sufficient for notability under WP:SOLDIER (there are thousands of British (and WWI and WWII South African!) servicemen, for instance, with the DSO and MC, DCM and MM etc who do not and should not have articles). He also held two merit decorations which appear to be pretty far down the list. As I said, it's a very weak keep! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm familiar with the reputation of Andre Diedericks, but admittedly that's due to my sojourn in South Africa and increasing contact with the military veterans or researchers there. I don't think the medals/service record by themselves make him notable - it's how he obtained them via exceptional ops which obviously causes many vets to hold him in high regard (the 1985 Aeroflot Antonov An-12 shoot-down, for instance). The claim that he pioneered small team maneuvers in Angola, an integral part of South African special forces doctrine then and even now, also needs expansion to provide further proof of notability. --Katangais (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down

This article is a stub that is, today, only nine days old. There are articles on Wikipedia that have been in existence as unreferenced one-liners for years, undisturbed. The fervour with which this deletion campaign has been waged in these nine days is rather astonishing and is creating the impression of an undisclosed agenda. Please slow down and give the article creator and other contributors some breathing space to expand on the article and include more flesh and additional references - it is out there and will be found. Being blinded by guidelines and treating them as rules cast in concrete is, in the SADF vernacular, being gatvas and, without exception, counter-productive. Stop doing that and give the contributors time to complete the article. There's no rush, is there? -- André Kritzinger (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, with respect, you haven't been on the receiving end of this. I've never got this sort of response in dozens of AfD nominations of Milhist articles. My track record shows I'm always happy to have a sensible discussion about deletion, admit when I'm wrong, and probably support keeping as many as I don't. The ferocity of the response to the AfD is what looks like a hidden agenda, not the AfD itself. The number of South Africans baring their teeth in defence of their comrade isn't a good look either, especially with the meatpuppetry, incivility and personal attacks. Strangely enough, I don't like getting attacked for trying to guide inclusion/exclusion of articles. We can't have articles on everyone who writes a book about himself and got a gong, however much some SADF people might idolise him. I haven't seen enough yet to show he meets GNG, so I'm not withdrawing the nomination. If enough appears, I will. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 4 published books cited in the article - Die Roem en Die Rou, Cross of Honour, Border Strike and We fear naught from above. The first three have been around for years (Border Strike since 1983). I believe that these books show GNG Gbawden (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. First let me remind interested editors in the subject of this article of WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA. Please do not make comments about fellow editors, and assume good faith. Attacking fellow editors does nothing to advance the shared purpose of improving this project/Wikipedia. That being said, I have not come across any significant coverage of the subject in tertiary sources provided in the article (which as mentioned above has been edited multiple times since this AfD began), to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG. As mentioned by other editors, since the highest medal for valour in South Africa during the subjects service period was divided into multiple grades, and as the subject was never awarded the highest of those grades, or the second highest of those grades multiple times, medals alone are insufficient for the subject to pass notability per WP:SOLDIER. Now the only reason why I am not saying strait delete, but weak delete, is because of the non-english language tertiary sources that might exist that give significant coverage of the subject. However, as I have not seen any presented that are readily available to other editors, I cannot support keeping this article at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'delete the principle here is NOT MEMORIAL. The autobio is found in only 7 worldcat libraries, so it is not evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is an element of WP:BIAS here. I have seen Majors and Lt Col's going to AfD only to be kept because they have an obit in the Daily Telegraph. Gbawden (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jive) @ 19:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Whether this should be delete or weak delete isn't that important; the reasoning is the key. It's always hard when dealing with someone who was heroic, or achieved great things -- but to be blunt about, that has no direct impact on whether the person will be included in Wikipedia. I tend to agree with RightCowLeftCoast. First, looking at general guidelines, I don't see independent, in-depth coverage. With respect to WP:SOLDIER, it may be unfortunate his country chose not to award him the highest award, but that's what happened. Could there be sources not in English? Possibly, be we need some proof. I've spent a little time searching, but without success. Lacking that proof, the article should be deleted. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ñu

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

The subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO - not references given and can't find reliable sources. Karlhard (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think that there are some facts which can avoid the article Deletion.

The band was initially lead by José Carlos Molina and Rosendo Mercado. Rosendo is a pretty well-known musician in Spain. His following band Leño was included as the 13rd best Spanish rock band of all time according to Rolling Stone. Check: Top 50 Spanish rock bands of all time. Also he has achieved some gold records as a solo artist (and one with Leño). For example: Gold record for Veo, veo, mamoneo or Gold record Las Ventas (Gold record=disco de oro)
Ñu is the only predecessor ever found of folk metal. It is believed that Skyclad was the first folk metal ever as you can see in the folk metal article but that isn't actually true, you can check it on: A golpe de latigo on Rateyourmusic
I added some new references. The band has issued some albums in Japan and South Korea too as you can see on the issues on: Cuentos de ayer y de hoy on Rateyourmusic. Also this is the Spanish longest active rock band ever. This one is just in Spanish unfortunately: Rosendo, a Las Ventas con 'Vergüenza Torera'. --Batamamma (talk) 02:50 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Proper references from reputable sources like El País have been added after this AfD was started. Since the article is been reviewed, maybe they should have been included in this discussion before adding them to the article, but the fact is that the article no longer lacks references, and to me, it seems notable enough to keep.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 19:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.I don't believe there's enough discussion here to find a consensus. As a note to LaMona, no, there is no prohibition on articles created only from non-English sources, but of course, it is certainly more difficult to check such articles. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Järving

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

Unclear and unestablished notability, sources could be (much) better for a BLP. The whole article is basically a list of companies and positions where Andres Järving has been involved. Reads like a PR-company created vanity piece. Sander Säde 12:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can i improve aricle about Andres Järving? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maarja 123 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been updated and appropriate sources has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahvel (talk • contribs) 11:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 19:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The references are very weak, and do not establish notability. None that I can read (in English) are actual third-party references, and many simply list his name (directory-style). There may be significant resources about him in Estonian, but the ones here appear to be blog-like. If there are no English language significant resources, does it make sense to have an article in English wiki? I know that non-English resources are allowed, but is there any statement on articles with no English-language resources? LaMona (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cigital

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

Notability seems based on the single event of discovering a flaw in Visual C++. The actual notability is that of the Microsoft program. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a pretty well-known digital security and research company. I've added half a dozen sources or so to the article via HighBeam. Its extensively covered by The Washington Post and a number of other sources. It meets WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) @ 19:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Smosh. MBisanz ^talk 12:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Music Were Real

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

Has no third-party sources. It was tagged with this problem since 2012, but no improvement has been made. Delete. Otterathome (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Smosh. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 19:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 3). MBisanz ^talk 12:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krab Borg

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

WP:ALLPLOT and no established notability of this particular episode. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete, consider re-redirecting. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 3) as per WP:EPISODE. There is a little bit coverage of it. JJ98 (Talk) 06:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... All it needs is some reception... Well, the other Krab Borg articles are not as my one. More Wikipedia-like in style. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A 2007 discussion would discuss any episode notably about it. Some of the SpongeBob episodes like Karate Star which failed WP:N and redirected to season 7. JJ98 (Talk) 21:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 19:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 3): As far as Reception information goes, I've been able to find a short paragraph [24] about the episode on That Guy with the Glasses. A discussion was started about this website at the RSN here - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 167#Video review shows - and while no one ever replied, the OP made a decent argument for the site's reliability. I also found a couple paragraphs in this [25] article on geekbinge.com, which seems like a well-put-together website. They have pretty big "staff", editorial oversight, etc. - see here [26] Whether any of the people running the site are professionals though, is more than I could say. I'm leaning in favor of redirecting this for now. That way the history can be saved in case anyone wants to recreate it later. For the time being though, I don't feel like we have quite enough coverage of this episode. Then again, maybe I'm being too dismissive of the two sources that I found. Let me know what you all think about them. --Jpcase (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with kudos to User:Takeaway. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inder Singh Kudrat

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

I just put a blp prod up until I looked up the history of this (as well as the page creator) and how it seems some sock puppetry has gone on-this guy was linked to no articles until just now and it might be a copyright violation. Wgolf (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came across this article when I looked up his name in Hindi on Google. It says that he has won both state and national awards for his artistry. This article even states, if I correctly understand the Google translation, that he has won more than a dozen national and international awards. He is also mentioned in the "List of Craft Persons of Handicrafts for the year 2012" by the government of Haryana State here. Award in 2009 (name written as Shri Indersingh Kudrat. A 2012 award. Also mentioned as an award-winning artisan in this e-paper. And the text that accompanies this image mentions that he has "won 13 national and international awards including the National Award from Govt. of India in 2009". - Takeaway (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 19:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by Takeaway show that this jeweller has received enough media coverage and has won several awards. Looks like WP:BEFORE wasn't followed before nomination.--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Subjects meets the general notability guidelines and as well as the criteria for notability and verifiability. (Improvement is needed).— CutestPenguin^Hangout 04:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Water Insight SPectrometer with 3 radiometers

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

non notable variation on a common instrument DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Has been written about by 2 independent writers. However a merge to an appropriate article could also be possible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 19:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Koshta. without prejudice to merging any unduplicated content j⚛e decker ^talk 22:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koshti

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

The article Koshta is already existing on wiki and Koshti duplicates to the same and is poorly sourced.Either of the two be deleted Mahensingha 20:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 19:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : for the obvious reason given above. --Mahensingha 20:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)
Redirect or merge if they are two ways of spelling the name of the caste. No need to delete. Thincat (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : One of the articles Koshti or Koshta needs to be deleted as both have the similar contents that too without reliable references. the references on review reflects something else.--Mahensingha 18:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Deletion nominators don't get to "!vote" twice. —innotata 16:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the both spellings are used for the caste, there is no need for deletion, and one should be redirected to the other. —innotata 16:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Golbey

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

Not notable. Very minor music figure in UK. Does not fit any of the criteria listed under Wikipedia:Notability (Music) guidelines and much of information is self-published and/or trivial. Much read like an extended promotional blurb (less than 2000 fans on facebook) Tigerlilygirl (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 19:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am in doubt here. On one hand, there seems to be some notability evidenced by a couple of links, on the other hand, it seems to be borderline, for example, she was once interviewed as a support for a different group.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TCTS

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

Okay so he has a hit-but it appears to be his ONLY song. So this could be a too soon case (or a one hit wonder even). Wgolf (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just did put a redirect page from Sam O'Neill which appears to be his real name, but it is still a orphan either way. Wgolf (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (witter) @ 19:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Object - he's got plenty more songs, clearly the author just hasn't done their research! I'd be quite happy to do some renovation of this article and get it up to a better status. He's done some very notable remixes and is mentioned in several articles so I'll sort out that orphan now. --DJ UnBa lanced 12:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nine reliable sources and a lot of formatting later... have I changed your mind Wgolf? --DJ UnBa lanced 14:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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