Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:53, 2 May 2015

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 May	3 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy no consensus. I know this is probably in violation of all sorts of rules, but WP:IAR. Look, this obviously isn't going anywhere and there is no point to dragging out the discussion for a week. Therefore, I am closing this so we can move on quicker. If TortoiseWrath wants to renominate the articles on an individual basis, that would be fine. (non-admin closure) Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Morse

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

Player has not been signed by any NFL team. Notability was not clearly established in college, and WP:NGRIDIRON is not applicable as the player has not yet (and certainly may never) appear in an NFL game. — TORTOISE WRATH 17:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Nominating additional articles for same reasons:[reply]

— TORTOISE WRATH 18:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you even bother to check if he passes WP:GNG? He would probably pass even if he wasn't drafted.--Yankees10 17:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This may certainly be the case for Morse (hence him being a second-round pick), but asserting the same for someone like Jon Feliciano is highly questionable. — TORTOISE WRATH 18:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Undrafted players may have tons of coverage. Round drafted means nothing with notability.--Yankees10 18:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also a lot of these players get coverage after they were drafted. Like this with Feliciano.--Yankees10 18:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From my talk page: "There's a reason we have further notability guidelines, such as WP:NGRIDIRON, for various topics. They exist to elaborate on WP:GNG and provide clearer criteria for notability. There has to come a point where football players are not notable, and while I can confirm that the vast majority of these players will become notable in the future, there is no way to tell which ones at this point. We have no articles for Tavon Rooks (drafted 202nd overall, 2014), James Taylor (drafted 33rd overall, 1978), or the majority of other football players who have not in fact played in the NFL. Why do you believe this is so?"

Also worth noting that User:Yankees10 is the creator of these articles. — TORTOISE WRATH 18:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleting all of these wouldn't really accomplish much. Only two players from the 2014 NFL Draft don't have articles. Most of these people play in at least one game their first season. Also, the 1978 NFL draftees didn't get as much widely available coverage as now and the draft had 80 more picks. Other users might just start making articles about these draftees if Yankees10 doesn't. These articles probably wouldn't be nominated right now if they weren't short. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, if someone had a decent article before the draft that was not deleted than their notability would have been established in college. Those two people left from the 2014 draft are those whose notability did not end up being established in college or in any professional league. Calling people notable simply because they are drafted in the NFL, which seems to be what has happened here, seems to invoke WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTWHOSWHO (the draft is indeed a notable event, but the coverage of these individuals in the article 2015 NFL draft should often be all that is necessary, particularly before Week 1), particularly when the current wording of WP:NGRIDIRON (which I have noticed does change fairly frequently, and may have been different at the times of previous drafts, causing more articles to be created) is in place. — TORTOISE WRATH 18:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this AFD fails there is something seriously wrong with WP:NGRIDIRON which will require discussion. — TORTOISE WRATH 18:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is disruptive to nominate them all at once. As others have noted, almost all players drafted last year now have articles. Deleting them at this point would just make someone do the work again. Calidum T|C 20:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Calidum's reasoning. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 22:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 22:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Calidum. If these players don't meet WP:NGRIDIRON six months from now, we can then reevaluate their individual notability claims under WP:GNG at that time. Putting them all together in a giant list like this is totally pointless. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They shouldn't be nominated all at once, but we don't create articles on people who will "probably" be notable in the future. That's not, not has it ever been, how this works. Granted, Wikipedia's coverage on American football as it is is horribly done; articles are swiftly created when drafted, abandoned, and atrophied much more so than any other subject. Wizardman 23:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh look another user that decided to do zero research on whether these guys pass GNG or not and voted delete based on their own agenda. Guess what, they all do. Your reasoning is terrible.--Yankees10 23:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure the "abandoned" thing is correct but if so it is because there are way more gridiron football players than other sport (50+ player teams). WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Close with no result nominating this whole batch of articles in one AfD is not especially helpful. These would be best evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Having said that, I personally think that anyone who gets drafted by an NFL team is probably notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (some) per WP:NCOLLATH #1, keep: Rob Havenstein (all-america), Shaquille Mason (all-america), Chaz Green (Freshman All american), No comment on others. ― Padenton|✉ 01:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them all for the time being. The real-world, practical custom has been to allow pages for drafted NFL rookies, because the coverage exists: football fans are insatiable in their desire for this stuff. Deletion may come later, if drafted rookie doesn't make a team, but it's just not helpful to fight over these pages during the period between the draft and the beginning of the season. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do agree that these pass GNG, but they are being created too quickly. If you're going to make a page, make the effort to put an infobox, a sentence or two about recruiting, college, and the combine. Maybe add measureables and combine stats. I disagree on making the page to add one line (see Tyeler Davison, Shaquille Riddick, others, etc.). I will work on adding infoboxes and stuff later, but don't make the page just with one line expecting others to add stuff later. There's four months until the season starts. Mpejkrm (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Theres no issue with the way I do it (or at least there shouldn't be). I've been doing it this way for years now, and I always add categories, infoboxes, more sources, etc within a week or so after the draft.--Yankees10 05:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand what the rush is to create all the pages so quickly. Why not take the time and effort to add all the information at once? Bland one line pages look bad. Mpejkrm (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because theres better something instead of a redlink. Like I said they don't stay like that for long.--Yankees10 05:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't care if they're kept or not (I don't see any great damage in keeping them), but I think we need a new guideline against having multiple AfD's in one -- I'm sick of being asked to spend my precious time in rummaging through a big fat list of candidates especially when some are more likely notable than others (like mixed nuts, heh), or when there's only one I care about due to a project I belong to. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Foothills FC

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

Non-notable association football team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same playing level as other Canadian PDL clubs Thunder Bay Chill, |Forest City London, KW United FC, WSA Winnipeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean clarke7 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not in a fully professional league -- the majority of the players don't even get paid. Tavix | Talk 20:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the standard for keeping articles for teams are not whether they are fully professional or not. (in the UK for example, the 5th tier isn't fully professional, but team articles are almost universal down to the 10th tier, and sporadic after that for particularly notable teams). Teams that play in the Premier Development League have always been considered notable previously. Nfitz (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hear a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in this rationale. England has a completely different system than Canada/USA and a direct comparison isn't fair. If this team is notable, it should be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, per WP:ORGDEPTH. Tavix | Talk 03:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it wouldn't meet WP:GNG given the references in the article. When EVERY other team of the same criteria has an article, than there's nothing wrong with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because teams in this league get significant media coverage. Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added the following references to the points made in the article:
- MacKinnon, Jeff (December 4, 2014). "Foothills join upper level soccer league; USL development loop welcomes Calgary squad beginning in 2015". Calgary Herald. p. B14.
- "Foothills FC joins Under-23 soccer league". Calgary Sun. December 3, 2014. Retrieved May 4, 2015.
- Weismiller, Bryan (March 17, 2014). "Canadian Soccer Association OKs pro-calibre Calgary team". Metro Calgary. Retrieved May 4, 2015.
- MacKinnon, Jeff (June 9, 2014). "Foothills edge Whitecaps in U23 match". Calgary Herald. p. C2.
- MacKinnon, Jeff (April 18, 2014). "New U23 franchise to kick off exhibition season". Calgary Herald. p. D2.
- MacKinnon, Jeff (April 26, 2015). "Foothills FC cites fitness concerns in exhibition loss to Edmonton". Calgary Herald. Retrieved May 4, 2015. —maclean (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why neither User:Sean clarke7 nor User:Maclean25 have expressed an opinion on whether or not this page should be kept, as they both seem to have opinions. Nfitz (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Content provided by User:Maclean25 contains multiple secondary sources providing coverage in local media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean clarke7 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - playing in the PDL is sufficient. Giant Snowman 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Davies (photographer)

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

I'm pretty sure this was deleted before-a non notable person that also comes across as a advertisement in a way. Wgolf (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references. No apparent WP:CREATIVE notability. Perhaps WP:SELFPROMOTION.--Rpclod (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article WP:NRV. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. Jbh ^Talk 16:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears to be promotional, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced BLPs are contrary to policy. An article that says Ian Davies is represented by the Fouzia Madani Agency in italics for emphasis is promotional. If anyone can furnish the independent coverage needed to establish notability, I will reconsider. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced BLP to establish subject as notable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability and seems to be an ad. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Lousy article, but he does have some long-standing notability back into the late 1980s, as the "house photographer" of the Madchester scene. I can't judge if this passes the bar for WP:N, but this is more than simply non-notable spam. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've deleted material that was pasted in from www.fouziamadani.com/artist/ian_davies/artist_profile/ (for which I didn't even have to google; Reddogsix alerted us to it within User talk:Lxndxn). I've also done some other minor work on the (non-) article. (Again without actually bothering to do any googling. Somebody more interested in celebs, fashion, etc than I am will have to do this.) If Davies was the "house photographer" of a "scene", then I expect that somebody (perhaps SPA Lxndxn?) will be able to add disinterested, credible sources for this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. As noted immediately above, I removed stuff copied from elsewhere and pasted in (because I had no clear reason to think that its presence didn't violate copyright). I also made other, minor changes that I think were improvements. (I'm not convinced that the article should survive, but also not convinced that it shouldn't: I thought I'd nudge the article in a salvagable direction.) Rather surprisingly (since it's already up for AfD), Comatmebro then prodded the article. Then Wgolf undid all my work (as well as Comatmebro's), with the edit summary "restoring afd". (The AfD template hadn't been removed, and Wgolf neither reinstated nor duplicated it.) So Wgolf has reintroduced material that must be presumed to violate copyright, re-redlinked the names of the biographee's (not-obviously-encyclopedic) kids, readded blather such as "leading cutting edge", etc. I find this mystifying. If the article is bad, it needn't be as bad as it now is: I slightly improved it; now it is degraded. -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about removing your work-the AFD was removed so I was trying to revert and went to far. Wgolf (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wgolf. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Nomination withdrawn and article merged. No outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University College London Union Yetis

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

University sports clubs are only rarely notable. This has been around for some time according to the notability tag (August 2014) although this version seems to have been created today. Possible re-creation of a deleted article. This version has no refs to support any claim to notability. Fails WP:CLUB Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to merge with another UCL/UCLU page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojk9 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merged as suggested by author. AfD now Withdrawn Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dyanna

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

Promo article for non-notable spa by an indef-blocked editor. Sources 2-6 are either self-published or published via PR-agencies and press releases. Source 1 seems to be OK, but is only a very short review - doesn't establish any significant notability. Google hits show massive PR activity, but no apparent independent coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No advertisements.--Rpclod (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -As per WP:PROMO _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Delete. But not because the editor was blocked: That is irrelevant. No reliable sources. Not notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable business. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (though blocked editor does not factor in here). The topic does not meet WP:GNG--unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Shanata (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European Prison Education Association

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

Fails WP:ORG. Created by a single edit user. I could find no indepth coverage, only that they once held a conference in Malta. LibStar (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only live references are subject's own site.--Rpclod (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary sources to establish notability. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has some passing mentions, in future if there are some more of them, then it may qualify for a redirect. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a recreation of the article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Blaney. No prejudice against recreation in October if she wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel A. Blaney

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

biography does not meet WP:NPOL notability standards. FUNgus guy (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This page reads like a political brochure. She does not yet meet WP:NPOL criteria, as she is a political candidate. Her other work such as former Exec. Director of an NGO is impressive, but does not meet notability standards. FUNgus guy (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like an essay. Most likely Self promotion. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not going to say self-promotion, as we don't know that she is personally behind this, but it is clear that somebody with a conflict of interests is as it is clearly intended to be promotional. Could it legitimately be cut down to a more neutral stub? Not based on the Google News hits. I don't see notability to support it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a case of WP:COI to me. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As always, an as yet unelected candidate in a future election does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate. If you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before she became a candidate, then she must win the election, not merely run in it, to become notable enough. I would note, as well, that another article about the same person was deleted in April at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Blaney — which means that the middle initial being present in the title this time is an apparent attempt to sidestep that discussion, and that this qualifies for speedy deletion as a recreation of a previously deleted article. Accordingly, I am speedy deleting it right now. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerad Noel

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

The article is of a non-notable individual and it contains no sources or references (apart from a link to a Facebook page). None of the films or awards included in the article are notable - and there is no indication as to whether those films or awards exist. The article is the work of a sole editor, who has repeatedly removed improvement tags from the article without attempting to address the identified issues. Dan arndt (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lankan-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Facebook and YouTube are generally not reliable sources. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15 Years Of Atomic Kitten - Tour

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

Does not appear to be a notable tour. Lacks reliable coverage in reliable sources, while the references given in the article are either unreliable or non-independent. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, belongs into Atomic Kitten when there is something to report. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my prev comment in the last AFD - Essentially still a CRYSTALBALL, Suggest recreating once something more concrete comes up - The sources so far aren't brilliant at all. –Davey2010^Talk 17:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTALBALL. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aitmad TV

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

No evidence that the future TV station meets WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable reference. The article could be created later. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete for now - Multiple searches found nothing to suggest this TV station has received good third-party sources, I can't speak for Urdu sources though. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Heymann

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

Notability has not been established with reliable sources--instead we have a sort of press release-resume hybrid. I templated and prodded this as an IP, and am signing in to AFD. JNW (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tricky one this. There was also an artist by the name of Pierre Heymann (see [1]) who died in 1982 and who did some quite distinguished painting in the 1950s (e.g. [2]). I couldn't find any material on the presently-living Heymann. The French wikipedia article has some inline sources but they didn't establish WP:GNG. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really tricky--if there's no material on the subject of this article, it's ripe for deletion. Another artist of the same name, coincidental though it may be, isn't relevant to this discussion. JNW (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I will happily reconsider if good sources are found. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:- Sadly no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Progress India

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

Local version of a pageants of which the international version is not even notable enough to write an article about. fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 14:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LOCALFAME. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. 00:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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) 08:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Pageants

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

advertising The Banner talk 12:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources. No apparent notability.--Rpclod (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NCORP. All I find online are links to Facebook, Linkedin and its Wikipedia Article. Likely promotional. Jbh ^Talk 18:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr United Nations India

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

Fails WP:GNG and promo The Banner talk 12:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - own website and a press release are not reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 14:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Program management professional (US)

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

The subject of the article is a qualification, but it is solely based on a program offered by the Project Management Institute and sourced entirely from its website and is therefore a promotional piece advertising the Project Management Institute and sourced entirely from its website.

The subject fails WP:GNG with no depth of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Flat Out talk to me 06:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject's own website and a page of a party with a financial interest are not independent, unbiased, reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Albu

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Only one top tier fight so definitely does not meet WP:NMMA and actually has only 2 professional bouts. Not nearly enough history to suggest anything lasting. Does not meet WP:GNG either. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but very promising that she was accepted into the UFC and won her first match with such a short professional career. I imagine she will meet WP:NMMA soon so re-creation at the time and WP:REFUND should be indiscriminately available. Mkdw ^talk 22:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't have put her up for AfD yet. It's true she doesn't meet WP:NMMA, but having won her first UFC fight she's very likely to get at least two more which would allow her to meet NMMA. At this time, her coverage falls under routine sports reporting, so if I had to vote it would be for delete or userfy. Papaursa (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sat on this for awhile trying to decide whether or not I wanted/should bring this to AfD. You should be able to avoid AfD with two top tier fights if one is win on the assumption that the third is probably on its way - but signing with the UFC or having a single fight means that meeting the conditions is just too far in the future. Still what decided this was the almost total lack of professional fights (2) which does not demonstrate the staying power to make three fights certain. There is also the lack of coverage which is what really determines notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on observing the UFC's actions, they seem to always keep a fighter who wins one of their first 2 fights, and sometimes even if they lose both. That said, fighters do get injured or quit so it's certainly not guaranteed she'll get 3 top tier fights. That's why I wouldn't vote to keep this article at this time and have elected to sit this one out. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We can't crystal ball her career and it's not a guarantee, no matter how likely, that she will shortly meet the criteria. We have WP:REFUND available in this scenario. If exceptions are made now then it sets a precedent. Mkdw ^talk 02:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that setting a precedence is a consideration for me also.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought WP:REFUND had to do with articles that were PRODed.Mdtemp (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and the coverage is just routine sports reporting, which isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. No objections to recreating this as soon as she meets WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Mdtemp Doublefrog (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Perry (mixed martial artist)

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Does not meet either WP:NMMA (or WP:MMANOT) or WP:GNG. Rings Australia is not Top Tier and even so the number of fights and performance is not impressive. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Peter Rehse (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of them meet WP:NMMA and all of the sources for the 3 fighters are merely links to their fight records. Those records are also unimpressive, showing that the 3 of them combined won a total of 3 matches. Papaursa (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 3 The previous comments say it all. None of them meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Not notable as MMA fighters and coverage consists of links to their records on various MMA websites. That's not significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wine n' about

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

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

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

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

Clearly an advertisement. An editor disagreed with CSD, and asked for XfD instead. Cahk (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contains legit source. --Phil Copperman (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legit source? The only ref was the website of the subject matter. --Cahk (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Beautifully written, evidently not a WP:HOAX. Strong keep. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's not a hoax, does not mean it's not an advertisement that should be deleted.--Cahk (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides no reliable sources and otherwise does not indicate WP:ORG notability.--Rpclod (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. I don't like spam. Spam, spam, spam, spam ... Come back when you've gotten some media attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Clearly promotional too. GermanJoe (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I recommend Hash Tag 444 visits his nearest opticians as this is anything but beautifully written, As for the "Legit source" .... Well a link to there official site homepage is hardly "legit source", Clearly promotional & No evidence of notability, Fails ORG & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. Pishcal — ♣ 18:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 and a bit of WP:IAR (as a WP:ADMASQ): fails WP:WEB and WP:ORG: no reliable sourcing at all. Article, although not unambiguously promotional, was very likely created for promotion. Esquivalience ^t 19:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (disambiguation)

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

This isn't a reasonable disambiguation page. I see no particular reason why we should list all the second children of Dukes of Cambridge. I find it hard to believe that anybody is searching for any of the others. In any case, as far as I can tell, we have no comparable disambiguation pages - Fifth child of the King of France, Fourth child of the Earl of Essex, Seventh child of the Tsar of Russia, etc. St Anselm (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page won't be that for long, and the main will be redirected to the baby's first name anyway so may as well delete as it will be redundant. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stunningly ridiculous. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Talk:Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (disambiguation), this page should be moved (with a redirect) to Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
- We cannot delete Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge because it is widely linked to from outside Wikipedia.
- Given that Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge exists and is a disambiguation page it is standard procedure that a redirect exists from Talk:Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (disambiguation).
- Note this is the procedure was followed in the case of the widely linked to (and widely referred to) First child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC).

Either Delete, or Redirect to whatever the child's article name turns out to be. Still a ridiculous page name. Please can we stop making these? -- The Anome (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolutely pointless!. –Davey2010^Talk 15:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nobody in their right mind would search any article in such a way '''tAD''' (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm puzzled this was created in the first place. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Anka

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG: only one source (Toronto Sun). The rest of the references don't establish notability, just establish that he is active in the world of psychic mediums etc.

Can't see any evidence of wider notability after checking Google, GNews etc. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of WP:FRIND sources indicate the person has no notability outside the fringe bubble. Could merge any usable material to List of modern channelled texts - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only semi-reliable source on which to build an article is the Toronto Sun, and most would consider that insufficient for notability purposes. I have no strong objection to redirecting to List of modern channelled texts, where the subject is already mentioned, but my impression is that reliable sourcing is needed for anyone in that list. There is not even enough for a redirect and one sentence blurb in Paul Anka. - Location (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I enjoy the in-universe claims ("Darryl Anka.. is a medium who channels an enlightened extraterrestrial", etc), there is just no notability. Bishonen | talk 20:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except He seems to be having a moment. An Indian rock band Motherjane has cut a single based on Anka's Basher character. It's being covered [3] and [4] in The Hindu, one of the world's largest English-language newspapers, and other Indian papers [5], [6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Those say pretty much nothing about Anka himself - they just note that Motherjane liked him enough to crib from him. Might be good for an "In popular culture" section, but isn't enough to swing a BLP on - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except It's been covered also at the 2012 International Conference of the CESNUR (Center for Studies on New Religions) [7].--Nessie Cult (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — Nessie Cult (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Do you mean "keep"? Not sure what "Except" is supposed to mean. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I do mean "keep". I think there is enough evidence of notability --Nessie Cult (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is one paper, "Darryl Anka and "Bashar": Modern Channeling between Alien Narrative and Ancient Esotericism - Francesco BARONI (Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici, Naples)" Is Baroni noteworthy at all? - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - very little in the way of non-fringe RSes, sadly - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darryl Anka has worked in Hollywood with films such as Startrek, he has an imdb entry. His cousin is the singer Paul Anka. WIKI entry should stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.171.231 (talk • contribs) — 90.213.171.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Neither having an IMDb entry or being the cousin of a notable person confers notability - this reason is not in accordance with policy - David Gerard (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the number of notable movies he's worked on has no bearing? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0030138/?ref_=nmbio_bio_nm I'd personally say that this long list of credits more than makes him notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.171.231 (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being the visual effects guy isn't quite same as being the director or lead actor. And it doesn't give him any notability as a channeller of alien spirits. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 05:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, no - if he wasn't noteworthy enough to get actual third-party sources writing about his work, then it's possible the work isn't itself noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- having read further on this man, I agree (for what its worth) to remove. His career choices are bizarre at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.171.231 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether this is a deliberately-entered second career in charlatanism or a once-hard-working professional sadly succumbing to Alzheimer's we can't tell. Another reason to err on the side of caution over a BLP with just shy of sufficient RS. Pax 06:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus against deletion is clear. As for the redirecting, there is No Consensus. Feel free to start discussion whether the article should be redirected on the article talk page. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1316 Kasan

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~List of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non admin closure note - I originally closed most on this log (2 May) as redirect to List of minor planets 1000-2000 .... Yeah problem is it doesn't exist so I've had to rollback every single closure I made - I assumed the nom had checked this before adding it above but clearly not .... So not wise to redirect these unless ofcourse you have time to waste!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, I'm really sorry about that, all at AfD now being amended, will all be correct within 15 mins. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There are a large number of nominations like this, all with the same cookie-cutter text. Let's consider this one as a test case. Firstly, the nomination claims that the subject doesn't pass WP:NASTRO. This claim seems to be false, because the Google Scholar link indicates that there have been specific detailed studies of this object such as this and that in which the spectrum of this object has been analysed in detail. This is given as a specific example in WP:DWMP and so indicates that the object actually passes WP:NASTRO. Nothing is said about this in the nomination which therefore fails WP:BEFORE. The generic nature of the nomination is further apparent in its vague suggestion that we "delete / redirect". Which is it then? Deletion is a severe and specific process which removes the edit history, attribution, talk page and all related detail. Redirection is a comparatively benign process which preserves all this and may be done by ordinary editing. If redirection is a good idea, why has the nominator not tried this first, per WP:ATD? And why do we have to go through this in dozens of separate discussions. Why is the WP:MULTIAFD process not being followed when the nomination is exactly the same in every case? The deletion process is being abused and so these nominations should be speedily terminated to avoid wasting the community's time. Andrew D. (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Andrew Davidson, there have been ongoing discussions about these asteroids since 2012, particularly insisting on discussions (not unilateral redirects) for those numbered below 2000 (as this one is). This doesn't indicate that all below 2000 are notable, but that they should be looked at carefully. Because of the extensive discussions about this, the ATD is not to just unilaterally redirect. There was an AfD on multiple asteroids recently, which was withdrawn because they are different and need to be assessed individually, especially as this is an area not many people have knowledge of - hence them sitting in CAT:NN for over 3 years and the numerous discussions on the Wikiproject and other venues. The nomination may be the same, but the asteroids aren't. Delete / redirect is not intended in any way to be generic, just that I would be happy with either option. NASTRO and ATD would suggest redirect. Hopefully these AfDs will save editors' time - the different editors starting discussions in different Wikiprojects etc., and allow us to resolve the 3 year issue finally. Boleyn (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Boleyn, you seem to be trying to make a wp:point without doing any kind of background check yourself. NASTRO makes it clear that re-direct or keep are the only options. AFD is not cleanup. You are more interested in CAT:NN then improving astronomical content. -- Kheider (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inclusion in Wikipedia requires notability. Just because the object is listed among other objects on a document does not mean it is notable, much less meet astronomical object notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not an option per NASTRO. -- Kheider (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO (specifically WP:NASTCRIT) and WP:GNG. Also, @Andrew Davidson:, please follow WP:AGF. Votes in AfDs should be based on the merits of the subject of the article, not opinions on the validity of the nomination. While in this case bold change to redirect was considered, it does not hurt Wikipedia to allow for a formal discussion at AfD. While I too would like if these were all together, I am certain that if they were, editors would not check every single one and would only look at a few randomly in determining their notability (which is understandable given there are thousands, I suppose). At least one of the individual noms resulted in keep, and that is the goal here. Weed out the unimportant ones, keep the few that are notable. WP:NASTCRIT says "A single paper is not enough to establish notability for most objects. Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage; the paper needs to have significant commentary on the object." ― Padenton|✉ 15:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. I would add that it would be good if you could limit these to, say, ten per day. The number is getting decidedly unwieldy at this point. Praemonitus (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing broken ping for Boleyn, details here: (Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering_events) Here ya go: Andrew Davidson, see response above from Boleyn. ― Padenton|✉ 23:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a LARGE Mars-crossing asteroid and not one of the thousands of meaningless main-belt asteroid stubs created by a bot. -- Kheider (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does it being a Mars-crossing asteroid mean it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG? Boleyn (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a Mars crosser, the asteroid is notable for its ~10km diameter alone. -- Kheider (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Being only the 20th discovered Mars crosser asteroid, it deserves a redirect only as much as 20 Massalia. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 2001–3000. Sandstein 10:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2617 Jiangxi

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; delete / redirect to ~~List of minor planets 2000-3000~~ List of minor planets: 2001–3000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 2001–3000 per WP:NASTRO (specifically WP:NASTCRIT) and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 15:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2617 Jiangxi is more than 50km in diameter. When it comes to asteroids, the two most important things are SIZE and ORBIT. Any main-belt asteroid more than 50km in diameter deserves an article. Asteroids 20+ meters in diameter with a better than 1:10000 chance of impacting Earth also deserve an article. It is lame to delete/re-direct 50km main-belt asteroids when Wikipedia still has numerous computer-generated stubs about main-belt asteroids that are much less than ~10km in diameter. Boleyn, please quit nominating asteroids more than 50km in diameter. 2617 Jiangxi also has light-curve studies. I am one of the NASTRO authors. The guideline was written in part to prevent bots from creating 100,000+ articles about every known asteroid. NASTRO should NOT be used to recklessly re-direct better known main-belt asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Padenton - fails NASTRO, fails GNG. Kheider's notability criteria above does not appear to reflect NASTRO, and to me at least, appears to have been made up by them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the NASTRO authors. The guideline was written in part to prevent bots from creating 100,000+ articles about every known asteroid. NASTRO should NOT be used to recklessly re-direct better known main-belt asteroids. I am not even sure if Boleyn is actively involved in astronomy topics. -- Kheider (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, you are making up your own standards for notability, when they aren't reflected anywhere in Wikipedia. Thanks for admitting that. (and if you're just going to copy-paste the exact same comment across two or more places, then so will I.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As one of Wikipedia's asteroid expert's I will have to have a review of NASTRO to hopefully prevent excessive re-directs from people that are more interesting in AfDs that may harm the project than cleaning up the main-belt asteroid problem. Luke, you are aware that Boleyn is just copy-pasting the same argument to 100s of MBA stubs he looks at? -- Kheider (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kheider, while all of that may be true, we aren't recklessly re-directing here, it's at AfD where interested parties can discuss, and I believe there have been ones that were kept once someone brought up the sources that met NASTRO's criteria. Is there any reason that this particular article subject meets the NASTRO criteria?― Padenton|✉ 16:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fairly large main-belt asteroid as most asteroids are not 50+ km in diameter. It also has light-curve studies. The size alone should be notable enough. There are 612752 main-belt asteroids that are physically smaller and I agree most of them should be re-directed. There are over 400000 main belt asteroids known that are less than 5km in diameter. -- Kheider (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say there are "light-curve studies" (plural), what studies specifically are you referring to? Because I only see a single one [8] in which it appears as part of a group of 22 asteroids in the study. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 21001–22000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21022 Ike

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 21000-22000~~ List of minor planets: 21001–22000. Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1454 Kalevala

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Kampala

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1387 Kama

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1519 Kajaani

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1587 Kahrstedt

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1874 Kacivelia

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; this one appears as data entries in several scholarly articles, but most are positional reports and are insufficient to demonstrate notability. There is one photometry study.[9] Praemonitus (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1676 Kariba

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; one photometric study found Praemonitus (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1678 Hveen

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1878 Hughes

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1285 Julietta

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. A 1937 study of its orbital elements [10] isn't enough, and that's all I found. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1423 Jose

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: this one appears in several scholarly articles. Praemonitus (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The subject of multiple studies in the 1930s-1950s by C. Lombardi. Curiously, this source says its diameter is 32km but this one says 15km (the JPL Small-Body Database Browser is in the middle at 26km). The 15km source also says it is unclassified, but this later source puts it in the Koronis family, and (going by the JPL diameter) it should be listed there as one of the larger objects in the family. So I think there's definitely enough material for an actual article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Several sources have been found, and I believe the article just meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1699 Honkasalo

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. One photometric study.[11] Praemonitus (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1662 Hoffmann

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Redirect per WP:DWMP; it appears briefly in a few studies, but the net total appear insufficient. Praemonitus (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1642 Hill

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1495 Helsinki

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure about this one. There is a light curve study and it looks like it is in a study of the Eunomia family, but I don't have access to Icarus.[12] Praemonitus (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Re Praemonitus's link: this object is, literally, a line in several tables, listed along with many other asteroids. There is no actual article text about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I can also confirm that 1495 Helsinki only gets listed in a few tables without any substantial text. There does not appear to be enough information available to create a substantial article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1885 Herero

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1273 Helma

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP; it gets a few mentions in scholarly articles, but probably not enough. Praemonitus (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Apparently it's a fragment of Vesta but I don't think that's a sufficiently unusual property in the absence of anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1934 Jeffers

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1959 Karbyshev

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO (specifically WP:NASTCRIT) and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 15:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1987 Kaplan

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 15:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. This one was more difficult to check because it matches a widely referenced source in a different field. Praemonitus (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 17001–18000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17509 Ikumadan

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 17001–18000. Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Just one light curve study.[13] Praemonitus (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we redirect, can we move all the infobox information into the list? Can that be done in an automated process for all in the 1000 range? I am thinking of how to best compile information for readers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. slakr^\ talk / 02:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Baltimore Neighborhoods

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

This article contains a list of "South Baltimore Neighborhoods" that are not located in Baltimore, stating that they are the "most suburban part of the Baltimore region". That statement is inaccurate and confusing, because the Southern District of Baltimore contains several high density urban neighborhoods. See South Baltimore, Baltimore and South Baltimore. Unless the article is significantly revised, and possibly renamed, it will not be verifiable. Folklore1 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note This is a failed AfD nomination that has been sitting in limbo for months. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in a daily AfD Log. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, whereas the material may merit its own article, this new article will be written from scratch anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a forgotten OR project. A tagged stub sitting around for eight years. Should have been tossed ages ago. Pax 06:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, probably to List of Baltimore neighborhoods#South, hopefully to be done by a Baltimore-knowledgeable editor after checking whether any material can be saved/merged. Offhand I don't know if those apartment complexes should be named...perhaps they should. If closer is not knowledgeable about the particulars, then copy/paste the content to a Talk-page section of the target article, instead, asking for a local to address it. --do ncr am 18:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if Folklore1 (the nom)'s point is that the areas described may go outside of city of Baltimore into surrounding Baltimore County area (n.b. the county does not include the city, which is independent), then that issue should be put to the good people who have developed the List of Baltimore neighborhoods article. Maybe that list-article's scope should be expanded to clearly cover neighborhoods outside the city, or ones that overlap. --do ncr am 18:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Lyons

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. A handful of minor roles. No significant coverage to merit WP:GNG. Is a WP:BLP and I suspect a WP:COI. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note This is a failed AfD nomination that has been sitting in limbo for months. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in a daily AfD Log. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A film and television extra with a minor part in Star Wars fandom. He doesn't have any significant coverage in reliable sources, just mentions on Star Wars websites and forums and merchandise sites. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. This guy has an impressive pedigree and to be honest, I kind of wish that there'd been coverage of him out there somewhere. That he'd be an uncredited extra in so many popular films and shows is pretty interesting, so I imagine that he'd have some fun stories to tell. Unfortunately that just hasn't been the case here and none of his roles have ever been major enough to where he would attract notice. Sometimes people who routinely play as an extra will gain coverage enough to where they'd warrant an article, but this just doesn't seem to be one of those times. It's really, really unfortunate but Wikipedia just can't make up the difference when there's no coverage. He's not even really that big of a person in the film about the SW extras since I can't find anything out there about his specific role in this upcoming film. I have no problem with anyone wanting to userfy the data in case any sources do emerge, although I will admit that it's probably going to take some serious letter writing campaigns to get any of the mainstream media outlets to notice and write about him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Guacolda

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing at all found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: Nothing found. Nothing at all. I had to double-check with the JPL SBDB to see if the name was correct. Praemonitus (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) Not mentioned by a single paper on google scholar. ― Padenton|✉ 20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1674 Groeneveld

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: non-notable object. Praemonitus (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4451 Grieve

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to list of minor planets 4000-5000. Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's a pair of photometric studies as well as mentions in other journal articles, some of which I can't access. Praemonitus (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with the photometric studies [14] [15] it's mentioned as having an unusual spectrum [16], enough I think to distinguish it from other asteroids. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Huge Mars-crosser. -- Kheider (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per all the good arguments above. Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of minor planets: 30001–31000. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30785 Greeley

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 30001–31000. Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing at all found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT). No papers with even a mention at google scholar. ― Padenton|✉ 21:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of minor planets: 3001–4000. --MelanieN (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3541 Graham

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 3001–4000. Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Mentioned in two group studies [17] [18] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 23001–24000. Davewild (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23776 Gosset

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 23001–24000. Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing at all found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) Not a single paper on google scholar. ― Padenton|✉ 20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1562 Gondolatsch

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1823 Gliese

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetics departments at universities

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

I explained briefly on the Talk page of this article why the article in its present form should be deleted. Its title implies that it lists universities with a Phonetics Department, but the universities on the list do not have departments with the name 'Department of Phonetics', though they do do teaching and research in phonetics. There are very few Departments of Phonetics left in the world, most having been absorbed into larger academic units. If the article were to be changed to list all places where phonetics is taught, researched and studied, it would be useful, but this article is so far short of being comprehensive that I believe it to be very misleading. RoachPeter (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note This is a failed AfD nomination that has been sitting in limbo for months. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in a daily AfD Log. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear. Besides what the nomination says it is quite possible that the word "phonetics" means different things in different languages, at least as it relates to a topic of study. Borock (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Rpclod (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1891 Gondola

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. ― Padenton|✉ 21:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1687 Glarona

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1845 Helewalda

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: three photometric studies. Praemonitus (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Maybe three is enough? But they're all group studies rather than being dedicated specifically to this object. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 - After being up 3 weeks and the keep !voter not really expanding on his reasons for keeping it seems the best outcome here is to redirect like the rest of these. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1614 Goldschmidt

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three photometric studies. Praemonitus (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect. I only see two studies [19] [20] and another Google scholar hit that turns out to be a paper that shares a page with one of those two studies. But one of those studies is solely about this object, which is why the "weak". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. –Davey2010^Talk 15:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Browser

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

Non-notable product, sources do not sufficiently establish notability. Article creator has an obvious WP:COI. Drm310 (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update User:Jimfbleak speedied the page per an earlier WP:G11 nomination. --Drm310 (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1599 Giomus

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two photometric studies. Praemonitus (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think inclusion in two group studies [21] [22] is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1812 Gilgamesh

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1612 Hirose

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1756 Giacobini

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3854 George

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 3001–4000. Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three light curve studies and a paper on the Cybele and Hungaria groups. Praemonitus (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not convinced the lightcurve studies amount to much, but this conference abstract seems to be claiming that this is the main object in its asteroid family. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a reasonable number of sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2093 Genichesk

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to list of minor planets 2000-3000. Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least three papers found on Google scholar. Praemonitus (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with a couple of lightcurve studies that I wouldn't think of as enough by themselves [23] [24] there are several papers on its unusual chemical composition as part of the Baptistina family and suggestions that it may be related to the K/T impactor [25] [26] [27]. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per comments above. Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1385 Gelria

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One lightcurve study [28] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Could use some more eyes on this one ― Padenton|✉ 17:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉ 17:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient sources; non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. ― Padenton|✉ 22:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 2001–3000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2504 Gaviola

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 2001–3000. Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉ 17:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: concur with D. Eppstein. Praemonitus (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1668 Hanna

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Laurie

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

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

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

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

Blatant advertising. Brief 1-2 sentence "interviews" and sitting through various talkshows does not establish notability. Created and expanded almost entirely by SPA accounts. GermanJoe (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick Google search of his name reveals his association and/or employment with CNN Airport Network as a travel expert, WFLA-TV in Tampa as a travel correspondent, a published and on the market publication through Amazon and notes he's a blogger for the Huffington Post. Also he produced and hosted a television travel show on Discovery Networks. 72.189.86.140 (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those occupations automatically establishes encyclopedic notability (see WP:GNG and WP:BIO), unless significant coverage from reliable independent sources can be shown - that typically excludes self-published information, short mentions, annoucements and other PR-activities by himself or connected organisations. GermanJoe (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bobby Laurie co-hosts TAKE OFF! with the Savvy Stews though Discovery network, writes for The Huffington Post, has a weekly travel segment on The Daily Buzz, and many other television programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4476 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC) — Wiki4476 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

TNT The subject probably is notable, but this current article is just a blatant promotion. Get rid of it and make a better, neutral article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BASIC, many passing mentions but no actual coverage from reliable sources. If found to be notable, then stubify because the article is in a very poor state, and I suspect COI or paid editing due to the highly promotional nature of the article. Esquivalience ^t 00:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I was tempted to close it as delete, but lest us give one more week to increase the participation--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some articles peripherally quote the subject as a "flight attendant" but do not discuss the subject. There is no indication of notability. This seems like WP:SELFPROMOTION.--Rpclod (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not yet been widely discussed. I found this article, but other that he has not been the subject of an articles, just gives quotes. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2335 James

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 2001–3000. Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple papers found covering secular resonances. Praemonitus (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of its unusual orbit — see [29] and eight papers that cite it among others (also [30], an earlier paper that also mentions its resonances). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mars-crossing Asteroid, so not one of 616000+ known main-belt asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 22001–23000. Davewild (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22732 Jakpor

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 22001–23000. Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing at all found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No results at Google Scholar ― Padenton|✉ 17:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1942 Jablunka

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Sandstein 10:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1200 Imperatrix

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One lightcurve study [31] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 22001–23000. Davewild (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22706 Ganguly

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 22001–23000. Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing at all found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) Not a single result at Google Scholar ― Padenton|✉ 17:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1893 Jakoba

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing at all found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) Not a single search result at google scholar. Not a good sign. ― Padenton|✉ 17:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1363 Herberta

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1843 Jarmila

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1777 Gehrels

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two light curve studies. Praemonitus (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I only see one study [32] repeated several times on Google scholar in part because it overlaps in pages with a different unrelated paper. Anyway, I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉ 17:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a slightly clearer consensus. Esquivalience ^t 00:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 00:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 4001–5000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4080 Galinskij

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 4001–5000. Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect. Two light curve studies: [33] +correction [34] but they don't say anything that would distinguish this object from others. Is it enough? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉ 17:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: one paper is dedicated to the topic; the other has a paragraph. Not much of substance though. Praemonitus (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. Letter to the editor is not a WP:RS. ― Padenton|✉ 22:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1320 Impala

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. There's a lot more mentions of this minor planet than the others, but still, all I'm seeing on Google scholar is part of a list in a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTRO as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1872 Helenos

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Mentioned a few times in papers about Trojans but being a Trojan is not in itself interesting. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTRO as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1932 Jansky

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Used as an example in a paper about how to compute the orbital elements of asteroids with highly inclined orbits [35] but it's really only a line in a table there and I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is about lists of several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTRO as not meeting notability). Inconveniently, it appears a lot of the results relate to its namesake, Jansky, who had publications in 1932. ― Padenton|✉ 17:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1435 Garlena

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is about lists of several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTRO as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1813 Imhotep

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is about lists of several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTRO as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1596 Itzigsohn

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. ― Padenton|✉ 17:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1358 Gaika

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. ― Padenton|✉ 22:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 2001–3000. Davewild (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2968 Iliya

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 2001–3000. Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Apparently one of the preliminary flight plans for NEAR Shoemaker involved a fly-by of this one, and there's a fair amount of pre-flight media mentioning this, but instead it actually flew by 253 Mathilde. So it could have been notable but I don't think it actually is. Nothing else of interest found. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16524 Hausmann

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 16001–17000. Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect. Nothing at all found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT). As David Eppstein said, nothing at all on Google scholar. ― Padenton|✉ 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ham Kinsey

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

Not sure if this passes notability or not. He was mainly just Stan Laurel's body double it appears. (so I guess if this is kept a merge to Stan would be the best) Wgolf (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge - News and newspapers archive found nothing but Books found some results so maybe a small merge can be supported. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMDb is not authoritative and otherwise WP:ENTERTAINER criteria is not met.--Rpclod (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable extra from the Silent era. Pax 06:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1479 Inkeri

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: two light curve studies, including one with an unusually long rotation period. Praemonitus (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not convinced that a light curve study or two would be enough by itself, but in this case one of them specifically calls out (in its title) the long period as being interesting. (Note that for instance 1689 Floris-Jan is called out in the literature as having an unusually long rotational period at six days; this one is over 27 days). Note however that the other lightcurve study ("Asteroid Lightcurve Analysis at the Via Capote Observatory: First Quarter 2008") appears to be totally wrong in its conclusions about this body (which it states very tentatively), so really we only have one good study. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is notable for having a 660 hour rotation period. -- Kheider (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus against deletion is clear. As for the redirecting, there is No Consensus. Feel free to start a discussion on whether the article should be redirected on the article talk page. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1374 Isora

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to list of minor planets 1000-2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 3 May

2015 (UTC)

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At ~10km in diameter, it is one of the largest Mars-crossing asteroids. Boleyn is simply on a crusade to clean-up Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability and has no interest in astronomy topics. Re-directing the largest asteroids of their type makes it more difficult for a newbie to expand an article as they will not know how to undo a re-direct. -- Kheider (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is wrong to make a personal comment - well, personal attack - like that, especially as it isn't true. Please comment on the notability of the topic under consideration rather than making wild accusations. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: You appear to be picking on every numbered asteroid listed at CAT:NN and have no regard for any borderline asteroids. Re-directing the largest asteroids of their type can be harmful to the project. -- Kheider (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT). My understanding is that NASTRO requires multiple publications, about the asteroid itself. I see 1 publication about this one asteroid and it does not appear to have any citations. I see no fault in attempting to clean up topics of unclear notability, and am unaware of a policy/guideline saying that discussions like these can only involve experts in the subject. It's a stub (as are the few mars-crossing asteroids with articles). I will happily reconsider if Kheider or another could explain more about how being a large mars-crossing asteroid would grant notability to 1374 Isora. ― Padenton|✉ 17:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DWMP is what you should probably be looking at as it deals more specifically with the asteroid problem created by bots generating articles from roughly 2004 to 2008. NASTRO requires notability, just like any Wikipedia article. Haphazardly re-directly borderline candidates probably does more harm than good to the project. Of the 13000+ Mars-crossing asteroids (MCAs) known, very few are known to be 10+km in diameter. So MCAs with an "absmag of (H) < 13.2" should probably be kept. -- Kheider (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The query you give for known 10+km Mars-crossers fails to list this object. The reason is that its diameter is not known, but can only be estimated very approximately from its brightness. So saying that it should be kept for its large diameter, and because a certain list (that it is not included in) happens to be small seems a bit disingenuous to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diameter can be reasonably estimated from the absmag. Yes, it should be kept for the abs mag alone. There are not that many Mars-crossers that are that bright (or approximately that large). -- Kheider (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Kheider. It would seem logical that if some Mars-crossing asteroids are not individually notable, a list article retaining this content via merger would be an appropriate organization scheme. However, AfD is not for cleanup, and I do not see anyone volunteering yet to take on this important work if reorganization is appropriate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The best thing to do with all of these poorly written asteroid articles is not to redirect them, but to clean them up. Of course redirecting them is much easier, but fixing the articles is much better for wikipedia. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Exoplanetaryscience:Have you actually looked at these articles? Their problem isn't that they need cleanup. It's their notability. ― Padenton|✉ 15:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I believe the current qualifications of notability for asteroids is quite specific compared to others, and people are deleting large asteroids that make close approaches to mars or are Jupiter Trojans, while leaving extremely minor articles on completely non-notable things in the rest of Wikipedia. Just look at Special:Random. Even the tiniest asteroids are more important than a music album by a minor band, because these asteroids have existed for billions of years, together playing a part in how the Earth and the entire solar system formed, and yet there are still articles on little towns in France and Germany that are considered notable simply because other people thought they were, enough so to write articles on them. Unfortunately, the topic of astronomy is so little cared about by today's populace that little study is done on even important asteroids, while people stalk celebrities, looking where they ate for lunch and what color of shirt they're wearing. It gets quite tiresome attempting to explain how each asteroid is notable in @Boleyn 's numerous article deletion discussions. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The solution to that is nominating more songs, not disingenuous keep votes for articles. ― Padenton|✉ 15:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proper solution is to clear out the very small completely unnoticeable main-belt asteroids before blindly attacking hundreds of asteroids just because they are listed at CAT:NN. -- Kheider (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd prefer a different order, perhaps you could help nominate some? We are discussing them individually, and the ones that are notable are being kept. I've seen several where editors (mostly Dr. Eppstein) have found publications that might support the notability of an asteroid. Actually, even when found non-notable, they're all being converted to redirects, so in the event they actually are notable (and just no one's presented the evidence yet) it can be undone fairly easily with a little discussion. I do believe WP:DELREV allows for those appeals (WP:DRVPURPOSE #3). Or maybe the correct venue is WP:RFD. Either way, a venue exists to easily undo any mistakes made in these AfDs if/when these asteroids actually have notability. ― Padenton|✉ 16:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient substantial references available to satisfy notability. Praemonitus (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1531 Hartmut

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself at google scholar. ― Padenton|✉ 16:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1914 Hartbeespoortdam

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Somewhat unusual as V-type but outside the Vesta family [36] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. ― Padenton|✉ 16:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1744 Harriet

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO No significant coverage found on this object itself. This one has a few more mentions than the rest, but nastro requires specific coverage of the single object. ― Padenton|✉ 16:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 15001–16000. Davewild (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15071 Hallerstein

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 15001–16000. Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Absolutely no mentions of this object found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO No significant coverage found on this object itself (not even a mention at google scholar). ― Padenton|✉ 16:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1483 Hakoila

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~list of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO No significant coverage found on this object itself. ― Padenton|✉ 16:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1894 Haffner

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO No significant coverage found on this object itself. ― Padenton|✉ 16:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Search and Rescue Indiana Task Force 1

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

there's nothing here! redirect to Indianapolis Fire Department, which had a fair amount of content on the subject. John from Idegon (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability indicated.--Rpclod (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I believe that the Task Force is notable and is made up of more than just the Indianapolis Fire Department. Unfortunately, there still seems to be very few sources of information about the Task Force aside from the fact that it exists and that it has been deployed a couple of times so I understand the justification to delete it. Epolk (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for a standalone article; only one source is provided and it is a dead link. I considered a merge/redirect to Indianapolis Fire Department#USAR Task Force 1, but this article contains almost no mergeable information beyond what is already there in the Indianapolis article. Also, the task force properly belongs to Marion County rather than Indianapolis, but the Marion County article contains nothing about emergency services. I concluded there is no good redirect target and nothing worth merging. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, off topic - Just an FYI, MelanieN. Indianapolis and Marion County are unigov. John from Idegon (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy TechZone

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

No substantive refs other than own web-site and a map. No notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why it it is marked as 'no notability'. Embassy TechVillage is a business park in Pune with over 17000 employees, and occupied by companies like IBM and Volkswagen. Added citations from reliable news sites like Times of India, Moneycontrol.com.

Weak Keep It has some decent sources, which show some notability. If possible some more good sources would be good. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references are either non-authoritative or only peripherally mention the subject. Nothing suggests this meets WP:ORG criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated links from authority websites.^[1] ^[2] ^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1245 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources are unsuitable passing-mentions. A common office building...most cities have dozens. Pax 06:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources cited do not meet WP:RS as they are passing mentions. This is a typical office building by sources provided. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tech park, not an OFFICE BUILDING. All citations added are from reliable news websites like thehindu.com, and the news are not just passing mentions, it's about the park only. Kindly go through the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshkajal (talk • contribs) 08:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Hoffman

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

Person only notable for founding a questionably-notable company. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing even in the slightest to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Borsuk, Alan J. (2002-12-31). "MPS spokesman writes books for children - Stories aim to build pride, self-esteem in kids as they grow up". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
  The article notes:
  
  You've seen him on billboards and the sides of buses, on McDonald's tray liners, on posters throughout the Milwaukee Public Schools system and, most definitely, on television. He even attracted attention last spring when he put a cappuccino machine in his office at the MPS Central Administration Building (it's gone now, by the way).
  Now, coming to bookshelves across America, it's Don Hoffman.
  Hoffman, a former television news reporter and current spokesman for MPS, has -- on his own time, he emphasizes -- written two children's books scheduled to go on sale in Wal-Marts, Targets and Kmarts, as well as in major chain bookstores, by mid-January.
  The books, "Billy Is a Big Boy" and "Abigail Is a Big Girl," aim to build the pride and self-esteem young children feel as they conquer challenges of growing up, such as moving out of diapers and cribs and learning to tie their shoes, Hoffman says.
  Hoffman and local illustrator Todd Dakins developed the books over the last several years. A hardcover version of the "Billy" book was published in 2000, but now paperback versions of both books are being published by Dalmatian Press, based in Nashville.
  ...
  Hoffman, 37, who is particularly visible as the host of the MPS television program called "Making the Grade" or "MTG," does not have children of his own. He said he began writing children's literature several years ago, drawing in part on memories of his teenage years, when his mother had a baby. His mother subsequently became ill and Hoffman became responsible for much of his little sister's care.
2. Schultze, Steve (2000-09-10). "Book for kids may help literacy project grow up, too - New publisher, TV reporter and Sam's Hope reading program join forces". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
  The article notes:
  
  With visions of national distribution and promotion for the children's book "Billy Is a Big Boy," the group gathered at the Borders bookstore in Fox Point in an upbeat celebration and book signing. The author, WDJT-TV (Channel 58) news reporter Don Hoffman, read the book to squeals of delight from a preschool audience.
  But he shared the praise with Susan Pittleman, his publisher, and Barbara Garner, the self-titled executive director of Sam's Hope, a literacy and book distribution program that began three years ago as a mitzvah project for Garner's now 14-year-old son Sam.
  The trio -- Hoffman, Pittleman and Barbara Garner -- agreed that it was the combination that has pushed "Billy" to the brink of a national audience. Hoffman, who has covered education and the arts at Channel 58 for the past five years, provided the story of a young boy mastering such accomplishments as moving from diapers to underwear, riding a two-wheel bike, tying shoelaces and learning the alphabet.
3. Schulhofer-Wohl, Sam (2002-01-18). "Recruiting has joined the three R's at MPS - Ubiquitous campaign for students even reaches McDonald's place mats". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
  The article notes:
  
  First, it was free chili dinners at Milwaukee Public Schools open houses. Then came ubiquitous radio ads. Soon, Don Hoffman's face on the paper place mats at a McDonald's near you.
  The public school system's promotional efforts are reaching newly feverish heights this winter. Although years of vouchers and other competition-based reforms mean it's no longer a novelty to see MPS promoting schools the way Procter & Gamble sells Tide, the district is pushing harder because it's starting to see real results, spokesman Hoffman said.
  ...
  "It's cool -- it's real -- it's back," the place mats proclaim. "MTG with Don Hoffman."
  The mats display the logos of "MTG" and its corporate sponsors, list the show's Web site and include a 2 1/2-inch-high picture of Hoffman.
  "MTG" airs at 10:30 a.m. and midnight Sundays on WISN-TV (Channel 12). Hosted by Hoffman, it features a panel of local teenagers discussing such issues as sex, tattoos and eating disorders, according to a postcard MPS mailed to every household in Milwaukee promoting the show.
  On the postcard, too, the only identifiable person depicted is Hoffman. He plays an increasingly large role in MPS' image -- showing up, for example, on bus shelter posters all over town when he hosted a public lecture series last summer -- even though the School Board has never confirmed him as chief spokesman.
  MPS promoted the former WDJT-TV (Channel 58) reporter to acting director of communications and public affairs when spokeswoman Karen Salzbrenner left in September.
  ...MPS promoted the former WDJT-TV (Channel 58) reporter to acting director of communications and public affairs when spokeswoman Karen Salzbrenner left in September.
  Hoffman said using his picture helps people recognize that MPS is sponsoring a program.
  "In the branding of any type of a show, there's got to be a reason of how people identify a show," he said.
4. According to http://donhoffmanauthor.com/documents/blurbspdfrev2.pdf^WebCite, his books have been reviewed by the Cleveland Daily Banner, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, School Library Journal, The Capital Times, The Port Arthur News, the News Chief, the Milwaukee Magazine, Midwest Book Review, Alan Caruba of Bookviews.com, and Metro Parent Publishing Group.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Don Hoffman to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article shows WP:AUTHOR criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." see WP:ARTN Coolabahapple (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the article suggests that the subject is notable pursuant to WP:AUTHOR.--Rpclod (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with Cunard, with over 1000000 sales records and multiple reviews for his books, found just by google search, the notability is clearly establsihed Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Arthistorian1977: could you please add (or link) some of these reviews you've found? So far, you've added a press-release, which is not a RS. Pax 06:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I find evidence that his books are in libraries [37]. However, I do not see any of his books listed in Booklist, which means that they haven't been reviewed by the main library recommender service. Most of his books come out of small presses, but the 2008 one was published by Scholastic Press, which is considered a major publisher in the juvenile field. Kirkus Reviews, however, did not give that book ("Sparky...") a good review, and he did not publish subsequent books with Scholastic. What I'm getting here is a non-notable author of mediocre children's books. LaMona (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found some review of his book here : [38] Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - best-selling author; books have been reviewed in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the sources provided by Cunard. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New England Interstate Route 19

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

This article is for a New England highway that was supposedly defined in a road plan in 1922 but apparently never publicly signed. It has remained unsourced for nine years. I don't believe this passes the general notability guideline in its current state, and even if it does, sources need to be found to confirm the claims made here. —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless some sources can be found to verify. - SimonP (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of individual New England interstate routes is notable so the article should not be deleted on that grounds. However, sources need to be found and some of these sources may not be online and readily available to most people. If someone can find the 1922 road plan and verify this route was planned that would help a lot. Dough4872 17:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is a road that was planned, but never deployed, really still notable in its own right? I'm honestly puzzled about this. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a notable road was planned but never built or assigned its number it is still notable for coverage. We have articles about Interstate Highways that were never built. Dough4872 15:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess the question I should be asking is: is a road notable if no reliable sources can be found? I think that ipso facto the answer is no. —Tim Pierce (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: Either the article should be kept, or all of the NEIR pages should be merged into a list(s). Either way, the appropriate sources must be found. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SimonP (find sources!) –Fredddie ™ 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced. --Rs chen 7754 13:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only source I know of is the list of New England routes, including the cities they pass through, on the inside back cover of the 1925 ALA Automobile Green Book (Vol. 1). I no longer have access to this source and am currently trying to get it through an interlibrary loan. In any case, this is such a minor road that it probably does not deserve its own article anyway. --Polaron | Talk 19:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I managed to temporarily get a copy of the book through interlibrary loan. The information on the New England Highway System is on pp. 28-30. The routing of Highway 19 is listed there. However, such pole marking (No. 19) is not used in any of the actual turn by turn guides the route supposedly goes through. These instead appear to be marked using a combination of Maine State Highway 116 and 122 for the non-overlapped portions of the route. The scanned pages are here (pp.28-29) and here (pp.30-31). I still think it does not deserve a stand-alone article though. --Polaron | Talk 23:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.kiwi

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

Non-notable, one of thousands of new TLDs, unsourced stub. Be..anyone (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 06:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 06:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)-gadfium 06:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Generic top-level domain. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not again, there are already two completely bogus sections .BUILDERS and .CAMP on this page, these two uppercase abominations and a .kiwi would turn the page into a domain junkyard. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – consensus at the .builders and .camp deletion discussions (linked) was to merge to Generic top-level domain. How are the sections in the article "bogus"? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are irrelevant (aka "not notable") unless something special can be reported. Wikipedia is no phone book for hundreds of domains, that's the job of ICANN+IANA. Wikipedia is also no free promotional platform for the purposes of "domainers", a lovely redirect barely missing cyber squatting. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be..anyone: Note the plethora of sources I have listed below that provide significant coverage about this topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable enough to stand on its own. NealeFamily (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NorthAmerica - you invited me to review my response in light of Justnotnotable. I have done so and also taken a look at your list of references below. My conclusion is that the article on Generic top-level domain contains sufficient discussion on new domain names and that this does not add to that discussion, nor does it meet the notability guidelines. Adding a reference to enable looking up the IANA list of top level domain names (IANA domain name list) would be sufficient. NealeFamily (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains#Oceania as a more appropriate target than the one suggested above.-gadfium 00:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:N. Source examples providing significant coverage include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12], ^[13], ^[14]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Dot kiwi domain name reservations set to begin". TVNZ.
^ "Trademark holders have a month to get .kiwi domain names". scoop.co.nz.
^ "Kiwi domain is almost ready to join the dots". Stuff.
^ Sathya Mithra Ashok. "All Kiwis can apply for a .kiwi domain name now". Computerworld New Zealand.
^ "Thousands switch to .kiwi domain". Stuff. 14 May 2014.
^ James Henderson. "12K and counting as Dot Kiwi captures NZ imagination". Computerworld New Zealand.
^ "Dot Kiwi Celebrates First Anniversary". scoop.co.nz.
^ "Real estate tops .kiwi domain". Stuff.
^ "Dot Kiwi fails to knock out .kiwi.nz". Stuff.
^ "NZ web users may get .kiwi domain". The New Zealand Herald.
^ James Henderson. ""Watershed day" as NZ domain name game hots up". Computerworld New Zealand.
^ "Dot Kiwi domain names in hot demand". TVNZ. May 15, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2015.
^ Field, Tony (December 2, 2013). "Dot kiwi enters internet domain names". 3 News. Retrieved May 5, 2015.
^ ".kiwi domain names go live after two years of planning". Scoop News. March 18, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2015.

– After performing this research, I have struck my initial !vote atop. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see no significant coverage, as in anything to improve upon the stub-like nature of this, as there is nothing interesting to say other than it is a new TLD for NZ, which the mention at List of Internet top-level domains covers adequately.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are some good/acceptable/interesting "Geo-TLD" articles, .paris, .saarland, .cat, .berlin, .nyc, .asia, etc., but so far only North America tried to find a story for .kiwi. OTOH all "sunrise"/"landrush" period stories are in essence always the same idea, not "interesting"/"notable"/relevant or whatver from my POV. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG: additional sources:

[39] (HighBeam subscription needed)
Richard, W. & Raphael, W. (2012). The new top-level domain names. Mondaq Business Briefing. [40] (HighBeam subscription needed).

- Esquivalience ^t 00:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NorthAmerica1000—thanks for putting the work into finding sources. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per NA1000's findings, As dumb as the name is notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 17:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000. I have struck my previous comment.-gadfium 23:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 04:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Brown (Ottawa politician)

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

Lack of notability. Ottawa City Council does not imply notability,and he hasn't been elected to Parliament yet. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ottawa city councillors have been deemed notable in the past. It is an internationally known city as it is the capital of a G8 country. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. To pass, a municipal-level politician would have to get significatn media coverage, but all I can find for Brown is routine, election-related coverage. Of course, his is a very common name. If there is coverage out there and someone finds, it, I am willing to reconsider. It would take stuff like profiles in major publications, or articles about his political leadership on some major issue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- His career on council was pre-internet, so of course you're not going to find major publications doing a basic Google search. Looks like Bearcat did find a lot of good sources from the Ottawa Citizen though. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that serving on a city council is not generally accepted as a notability claim in most cities, it is accepted as a notability claim, fully satisfying WP:NPOL, if the city is an internationally famous global city such as Toronto, New York City, Washington, D.C., San Francisco or London. And that class of cities does include Ottawa — whenever deletion has been attempted in the past on an Ottawa city councillor, consensus has always landed at a keep. The sourcing here definitely needed improvement over where it was at the time of nomination — but I've reffed it up significantly via ProQuest, further improvement is still possible (I added maybe 15 per cent of what I could have), and the basic notability claim is sufficient under both WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Earl Andrew and Bearcat. Councillors in a capital city of 900,000 by all means will "have received significant press coverage" to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. Hwy43 (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 04:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Cloutier

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

Lack of notability. Ottawa City Council does not imply notability,and he hasn't been elected to higher office. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has been decided previously that Ottawa was notable enough for its city councillors to have articles. It is an internationally known city as it is the capital of a G8 country. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Meets WP:POLITICIAN criteria as a city councilor of a national capital and well-known and large international city.--TM 10:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that serving on a city council is not generally accepted as a notability claim in most cities, it is accepted as a notability claim, fully satisfying WP:NPOL, if the city is an internationally famous global city such as Toronto, New York City, Washington, D.C., San Francisco or London. And that class of cities does include Ottawa — whenever deletion has been attempted in the past on an Ottawa city councillor, consensus has always landed at a keep, and there's absolutely no reason to believe that the consensus to permit articles about city councillors in internationally famous metropolitan global cities has deteriorated at all. The sourcing here definitely needs improvement, but improvement is possible and the basic notability claim is sufficient under both WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Keep and flag for refimprove. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Councillors in a capital city of 900,000 by all means will "have received significant press coverage" to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. Hwy43 (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Warn

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

The references provided do not establish this subject as notable. Most of the references are references to social media post, which generally are not reliable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Jesse Warn is an award winning director and cinematographer and more than deserves an article on Wikipedia. LLArrow (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LLArrow, than please establish him as notable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know not, to which you speak. Firstly, Jesse Warn is of the male persuasion. Secondly, I just established him as notable in my previous response. The article itself is a meta establishment of notability. LLArrow (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter and Instagram is most always not a reliable source. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the source is a verified account, it is perfectly acceptable. LLArrow (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken, LLArrow, social media are not sources to establish notability. They may be used, rarely, to establish facts, only. Kraxler (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that the sources given establish notability, I'm claiming that that they are reliable and verifiable. I'm done debating this idiotic attempt of deletion. I have seen numerous other articles on Wikipedia that are far less notable than Jesse Warn. Good day, LLArrow (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use the ~~OTHER CRAP EXIST~~ OTHER STUFF EXIST argument. Thanks. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop this vendetta you have against this director, and start pursuing something worthwhile. LLArrow (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although the use of "crap" seems to be somewhat harsh for an award-winning artist(usually this guideline is refered to as WP:OTHERSTUFF (there's also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), there's no vendetta going on here. To question the notability of anybody is run-of-the-mill routine procedure at AfD. Instead of insisting that Warn is notable because you know it, you should follow our guidelines and show that he is notable. See WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG and argue, please. Kraxler (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not devote one more second of my life to this frivolous debate. Good day. LLArrow (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is the main means of deciding how to proceed here at Wikipedia. To refuse to take part in discussions, especially because you know that you're right but it is beneath your dignity to tell us why, is an unhelpful and counterproductive attitude. You're not required to discuss further, but the closer of this debate isn't required to close it as "keep" either. Kraxler (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy a nice pile of passive aggressiveness, so I thank you for that. However I have a life that Wikipedia factors into in the most minimalistic of ways, which doesn't lend well to leading noble charges for every Tom, Dick and Harry that I happen to have ample respect and admiration for. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has won two and has been nominated for two other New Zealand Film and TV Awards. Satisfies WP:ANYBIO. — Yash! ^(Y) 04:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He won at the 2000 Nokia New Zealand Film Awards the award for Best Script, Short Film; and apparently another award in the short film categories in 1999. Was nominated twice, but did not win, at the 2003 New Zealand Film Awards for Best Direstor and Best Screenplay of Nemesis Game. Kraxler (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. The New Zealand Film Awards satisfies the requirement as a major award. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Jon Arbuckle and add indefinite full-protection. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Huge

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

While the article contains a lot of info, the sources are in no way reliable. Most of this is cited to a personal blog on Wordpress or a YouTube video, neither of which are reliable sources. The person in question is only passingly notable at best, with only one VA role and literally nothing else, so either delete outright or revert the article to a redirect, as was consensus in the last two AFDs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect) - article does not support WP:ENTERTAINER criteria nor provide reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jon Arbuckle and protection. 2 AfDs have resulted in a redirect consensus. Both were undone by IPs. ― Padenton|✉ 14:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this going back through the AfD process rather than correct it to the previous redirect status? Just wondering.--Rpclod (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: I think that it's probably because the article has more content and sourcing than it did at its 2008 and 2012 AfDs. I have no true opinion on the article's notability (although offhand I think that it'll likely end in another redirect), but a third and final AfD would probably be a good enough idea given the additional material and sources. From what I can see he's only done one voice (Jon). He's done some other work and I found some mention of him in Highbeam, but so far I don't really see anything overwhelmingly huge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: That is exactly why I re-sent it to AFD, since this version is significantly different from prior versions and I felt a new discussion was in order. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jon Arbuckle and protect I remember this from two years ago, seems odd we're back here for the second AfD since then. As I said then the actor is almost notable but their body of work is too insubstantial even with the better referencing (which is incredibly weak nonetheless). To prevent a fifth AfD I feel like it'll need to be protected because I doubt the vested interest wanting to make this article exist will stop. tutterMouse (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collegium Augustinianum

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

fails WP:ORG Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to say a bit more, from doing a lot of poking around on the web (see Talk:Collegium_Augustinianum#some_web_research and other sections on that page), this is a virtual academic institution (which is not a bad thing) but i have found no substantial sources discussing it. seems to be WP:PROMO - fwiw, was created by a user who only edited related topics - see Special:Contributions/Augustinestudent -- Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article and / or related articles have also been edited by a number of sockpuppets of the original editor. There appear to be other sockpuppets as well. Anglicanus (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this their website ? http://www.augustinianum.us/ --C E (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yep. please do review the article's talk page Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am surprised, but I could find no authoritative coverage of this subject. Further the article's references are either irrelevant, peripheral, or from the subject's own website. I could find no suggestion of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can tell, I found no secondary sources to establish Collegium Augustinianum as notable. Also delete per WP:ORGSIG. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The John R. Elliott HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers

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

Almost entirely plagiarized from various other sources while containing essentially no substance: an advertisement or news release created by the organization, overall badly formatted and has questionable significance. Outside of the fact that it's almost entirely copy-pasted from other webpages, it has glaring issues. The opening has pov problems, the information says little about it, the infobox is unnecessary, the first section is insignificant, the second is a restatement of part of the opening, the third is basically a press release and contains pointless information, the fourth is extremely statistically dubious and localized and basically an advertisement, the fifth contains absolutely no information besides documenting a celebration by them, the sixth is a single sentence that describes a single fundraiser, and the last has PoV issues and is again a press release. This article started as one chunk of text with Wikipedia edit and section bracketed areas, suggesting another article under some similar name may have existed and been deleted. Overall, horrible quality, extreme plagiarism and it's and ultimately irredeemable. MillenniumMeh (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam per WP:CSD#G11, and will tag as such. --Finngall ^talk 21:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak delete per Staszek Lem comment below. The spammy content has been removed, but campaigns such as this tend to get some initial short-term attention and then disappear--if deleted, there should be no prejudice against recreation if the campaign proves to have staying power and gains additional coverage in the future. --Finngall ^talk 18:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify(ing): Borderline notable ([41][42][43][44][45]- they all spend a few paragraphs on them), but the article is highly promotional. I have stubified the article. Esquivalience ^t 23:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - a personal grief but nonnotable campaign. Of course, since t6his is a campaign, it is advertised and will find a couple of newspater articles. But otherwise no significant cultural impact. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the stub. Government-recognition[46] otherwise confers notability. Also note: "The John R. Elliott HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers" as an exact phrase reveals only 969 / 12 web/news results on Google, but "HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers" as an exact phrase lists 243,000 / 12,000 web/news results, so searching with the longer term will inhibit acquiring more RS. Pax 07:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INHERITORG. Sad that their son died but Wikipedia is not a memorial website. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:There's also a NASCAR series named after him which has been in existence for fifteen years. Pax 04:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The linked event is a race, not a series, and NASCAR races frequently change official names from year to year based on sponsorship. The July NASCAR Xfinity Series race at Kentucky Speedway was only named after this campaign for last year's race. This sponsorship was apparently just a one-year deal, as this year's edition of the race is not currently being advertised under the same title, but merely as the "Kentucky 300", indicating that title sponsorship for the race has not yet been sold. --Finngall ^talk 18:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Jody Brown Indian Family

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to back up anything in this article. The group don't seem notable and fail WP:NMUSIC. Seems like a lot of Original Research was used. JMHamo (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend KEEP, while the article doesn't seem to pass WP:NMUSIC, the original author User:Sogospelman has a record for creating related articles (related, as in the same category, not the same group). It's very possible the only information he could find was on the label's webpage, which, unfortunately seems to have deleted their information on the group. I will note that the reason I'm commenting here is because I keep hearing one of their songs on the radio, and I finally figured out it was theirs after asking the radio station (WLJA-FM). A Google search brought me to the article, and I saw that it was recommended for deletion.Twilliams1755 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Twilliams1755: Read WP:ILIKEIT... JMHamo (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a considerable amount of significant and good sources despite multiple searches aside from one (supporting an award). SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Kay

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

He is a businessman with a factory and a retail store. He has one article about him from his local newspaper. He is not Notable at all. I attempted to clean up the article by removing all the puff, but when I did, there was nothing left. You can check the Edit summary. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - considering its presentation along with Lightology and Tech Lighting, this appears to be self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - between the three subjects (Lightology, Tech Lighting, and Gregory Kay) there does appear to be some notability, but not enough for three articles. Normally when we discount "local" sources, we are talking about small-town newspapers, not something like the Chicago Tribune. The reason is that such papers are indiscriminate - they literally cover all businesses within the town at some point. The Tribune (and other Chicago-based sources) is a different story entirely. It most certainly does not cover every business and in depth coverage by the publication of a Chicago business carries implication of notability as in depth coverage of any other subject would. Additionally, there are multiple trade publications covering some combination of Lightology/Tech Lighting/Gregory Kay in depth, and trade publications that meet the RS guidelines (e.g. have editorial control) are perfectly valid reliable, secondary sources. Thus, notability has been established by indepth coverage both locally and in trade publications. However 3 articles are overkill. The most natural place to cover all 3 subjects in one article is Gregory Kay. Thus, I am suggesting all three be merged together at that title and will volunteer to do so (and clean up promotional language) if the AfD consensus accepts the idea. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A small handful of trade publication piece plus a single profile in a regional paper does not constitute significant or in-depth coverage. Rather, it is routine coverage. Neutrality^talk 03:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 04:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gruban Malić

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

Delete: don't know what this is but it doesn't smell kosher. Quis separabit? 23:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I am not even sure where to start with this one.--Rpclod (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only hope that the excellent analysis listed below is added to the original article.--Rpclod (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Miodrag Bulatović. I can find some discussion of the character although most of it is in places that I can't entirely verify ([47], [48], [49]). I get the feeling that he would likely pass notability guidelines if we could access these and have someone look into the foreign language sources, but until then I have to say that this should be merged and redirected to the author's article with the article history intact. I've found enough evidence to suggest that the hoax incident is notable enough to at least include in the author's article and I also strongly get the impression that much of the coverage of the character and the hoax was in a foreign language, so it may not be easily accessed with an English language search (one source mentions a Hebrew language paper and Hebrew can't be easily searched with English)- especially since pre/early internet sources are not always on the web. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to a keep based on the additional sources found since I posted this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides the 1998 article linked in our article, this 2009 story carries the same story with more information than is in our article. The Boston Globe article about the vague wanted poster is apparently "A `Wanted' poster that leaves any pursuers wanting [City Edition] Boston Globe, Boston, Mass., Lakshmanan, Indira A R, Mar 10, 1996". I can only see the abstract as I am not a subscriber. This is a working link to the original indictment of GRUBAN while this shows the charges dropped. The ICTY does not identify him as Gruban Malic. Whether the hoax was in the indictment or the identification of him with the fictional character, his story is still significant as anti-Western (anti-American, anti-ICTY) and later anti-Richard Goldstone (Israel) propaganda. Rmhermen (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it makes little to no sense to the average reader/editor, and reads like a rambling conspiracy theory. If it is to stay (and I support deletion or merger) it needs to be clarified. Quis separabit? 05:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a hoax it is fairly straight forward - one person told a bad joke, another didn't realize it was a joke. Doesn't seem confusing as written to me. Rmhermen (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep, meets WP:GNG, at present 2 or 3 of the article's references are notable.

Of the ten references/footnotes presently cited in the article:

1. [50] is a review of the 1966 book Hero on a Donkey by Miodrag Bulatović in which Gruben first appeared.

2. [51] is a couple of sentences mentioning Bulatović's Gruban; the book is The Rackham Journal of the Arts and Humanities by Ann Arbor, published by Graduate Students at the University of Michigan in 1987.

3. [52] from The Eerie World of Miodrag Bulatović in The Slavic and East European Journal 12 (3) discusses the life and writings of Bulatović including Hero on a Donkey.

4. [53] When Goldstone Indicted a Fictional Character (and a Dead Man) Judge Goldstone, who said Israel committed war crimes in Gaza, once indicted a fictional Serbian character and a dead man for war crimes as well. By Nissan Ratzlav-Katz of Arutz Sheva, israelnationnews.com; discusses the Gruban hoax in depth and detail.

5. [54] Genocidalism by Aleksandar Jokic appearing in The Journal of Ethics Vol. 8, No. 3 (2004), pp.251-297 is only accessible by members.

1. [55] outsider paradigm and war appearing in REC-magazine for literature and culture and social issues by Tihomir Brajovic is a discussion of Serbian war literature has a paragraph on Bulatović's "donkey main hero Malic', there is no mention of Gruban.

2. [56] Deceit of the Century in the Book by Nebojsa Jevic Phantom on the Wanted Poster by Pavle PAVLOVIC for the Serbian Network is another discussing the hoax.

3. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia wikipedia article on the ICTA with no mention of Gruban The other link leads to general [57] ICTY site, Gruban search brings up nothing.

4. an op. cit.

5. similar to 3. although thanks to Rmhermen who has found 2 sites that show a ICTY indictment of a Gruban and that charges have been dropped but with no mention of the hoax.

Also, the three citations mentioned by Tokyogirl79, one of which includes a review of another book The War Was Better by Bulatović "The adventures of Gruban Malić", would bolster the article's notability.

Another notable online pages i have found in a google search:

[58] THE TYRANNY OF HUMAN RIGHTS by Kirsten Sellars of the Spectator writes of the various war crimes tribunals "war-crimes tribunals look less like paragons of justice and more like the political tools of Clinton and Blair." concludes her article talking of "The Gruban-as-rapist hoax" "It would be funny if it weren't so tragic." (I have tried to access the Spectator archive to see the actual newspaper article but it causes my computer to 'hang') Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep but perhaps rename to something else such as "Gruban Malić incident". It was a well-documented joke which resulted in a judge indicting a fictional character in a United Nations court, and then a book about the prank. Many articles in Serbian. But it could be called something else, as it is notable for the incident, and not the character himself. Elgatodegato (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Fechter

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

I've been looking over this page for a while. It says he won a award-but what award? And seems to just have that one credit listed also. Wgolf (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete superficial article about a non-notable writer. No reference for the 'award winning' claim and the Imdb entry (the only reference) contradicts the article because it says someone else wrote the screenplay for the film The Woodsman. Neiltonks (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, Fechter wrote the play, there was a screenwriter on the movie, but the work is notable and it was Fetcher who created it. This may just need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

probable keep sources seem to exist [59], [60] Broadway World says he co-wrote screenplay for Woodsman. I continue tho suspect that it just needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (voted probable keep above) It really is useful to search a guy with a short page making easily verified claims before iVoting. I have only taken a brief look, but he did co-write a major motion picture and co-win a screen-writing prize for doing so.Even a quick look shows that his plays are produced with some frequency, and I can see that reviews exist. I may or may not get back to working on his page. It still needs a list of his produced work. Links to reviews. And more info about him. But I can see that all of this exists. Articles like this make me wish more writers were willing to /capable of adding sourced information to their own pages, without making inflated, grandiose claims. I'm rambling. Point is, this flys past WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR (prize; writer of a well-known movie; writer of multiple plays that have had multiple productions covered that have been in multiple RS reviews over quite a few years. It is true that when User:Wgolf came to the page, there was no verification visible, and there was hype. But I don't thing this is in a grey area any more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some content based on one of E.M.Gregory's links. It could use some more solid references, but I think we've reached notability. LaMona (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others; it meets GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Local health department. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of health districts in the United States

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

List is almost entirely made up of red links, except for one article link and one link to another list. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redlinks don't determine anything one way or another. It could be that every entry merits an article, it could be that none do but there's still a point to listing them. More important, it's not even clear to me what a "health district" is; the term just redirects to the list. And the way the list is currently phrased makes it sound like this list gathers together things by shared name ("described as health districts") rather than by substance in common. So I don't know how to analyze the list without understanding that so as to judge the informational value of listing these together. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Local health department Like the myriad of titles for state departments of social services/children and families, jurisdictions for health departments vary by state; some divide into health districts, some by county, and many by city or metro region. Unfortunately outside of big city health departments none of these will probably be de-redlinked. Nate • (chatter) 02:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Local health department per Mrschimpf's comments. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, there is not a single reliable source in the article (direct links to the website and three derivatives of a press-release. No prejudice against recreation if independent reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Care-O-bot

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

No evidence of any notability. Reads like an advertisement. All refs are own refs. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but requires substantial rewrite to make it less like an ad. Notability is established by e.g. [61] and [62]. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsalvageable promo. I suggest using WP:TNT. The Banner talk 14:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify: Notable: [63][64][65][66], among many others, but the article is so promotional that it needs to be reduced to a stub and rewritten again. Esquivalience ^t 01:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only references are the subject's website and a press release. There is no reliable source.--Rpclod (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Weak Keep (see update) I was originally thinking about a weak keep (with a lot of trimming and cleanup), but on top of all mentioned problems the article contains directly copy/pasted sections from the company's website (i.e. from here; and history of version I and II is also copy/pasted from sub-pages; and probably other sections as well). Considering all mentioned issues the article should be deleted. The overall notability isn't completely clear either: a lot of the mentioned reviews merely repeat the company's own product information with a bit of own commentary. The amount of independent reliable coverage is relatively small. GermanJoe (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: after some more trimming of promotional elements and of copy/pasted history info the article could be kept. It's still not great, but the topic itself appears to be notable within our guidelines and the remaining info is not overly promotional. The current robot version is also just released, so additional independent sources and information are likely to be available soon and could be added over time. GermanJoe (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article clearly meets WP:GNG; as multiple people above have pointed out, several independent, reliable sources have covered various versions of Care-O-bot, including multiple reliable sources already in the article ([67] and [68] and additional sources found by Esquivalience). I re-wrote the paragraph that GermanJoe pointed out was copied from [69]. Much more work is needed, but I believe that this article can be salvaged. Shanata (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All references in the article which I checked are self published. I checked some of the sources presented here in this discussion and find them also to be self published. Both of the sources which TYelliot state that they are derived from press releases, which make them WP:SPS. Shanata similarly provides a Gizmag review which is also a press release derivative. Medical technology is a gimmicky sector which does a lot of SEO strange publishing, including having sketchy writers parrot reviews and press releases. These are not WP:RS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a hoax--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 World Judo Championships

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

This article is a hoax, because the World Judo Championships is never held in the same year as the Summer Olympics, in 2016. It does not have any information about editing this event on search pages, and also on the official website of the International Judo Federation, referring to 2016 event. After the end of 2015 World Judo Championships, the next event will only occur in 2017, in Budapest, Hungary. [70] [71] Link for consult: [72] Egtj (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Blackstone-Embassy-SPV-to-look-at-REIT-listing-in-Singapore/articleshow/16913100.cms

[2] ttp://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/private-equity-majors-bet-big-on-commercial-assets/1/195538.html

[3] ttp://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/trioz-opens-unit-at-sez/article760968.ece

[4] ttp://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/blackstone-embassy-jv-shelves-2-bn-reit-listing-115042400042_1.html

[5] ttp://www.livemint.com/Companies/TuDKe0Rb2I8flYbJNNQoEI/Embassy-Blackstone-to-buy-leased-office-asset-for-680-cr.html

[6] ttp://www.livemint.com/Companies/PkZLcm7JqQhHsdQyQ448IO/Realty-firms-funds-to-wait-and-watch-trajectory-of-REIT-lis.html

[7] ttp://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/blackstone-embassy-targets-rs-5k-cr-reit-listing-in-fy16/29740/

[8] ttp://www.dealcurry.com/20140825-Blackstone-May-Pick-Up-Stake-In-Embassy-Services.htm

[9] "Dot kiwi domain name reservations set to begin". TVNZ.

[10] "Trademark holders have a month to get .kiwi domain names". scoop.co.nz.

[11] "Kiwi domain is almost ready to join the dots". Stuff.

[12] Sathya Mithra Ashok. "All Kiwis can apply for a .kiwi domain name now". Computerworld New Zealand.

[13] "Thousands switch to .kiwi domain". Stuff. 14 May 2014.

[14] James Henderson. "12K and counting as Dot Kiwi captures NZ imagination". Computerworld New Zealand.

[15] "Dot Kiwi Celebrates First Anniversary". scoop.co.nz.

[16] "Real estate tops .kiwi domain". Stuff.

[17] "Dot Kiwi fails to knock out .kiwi.nz". Stuff.

[18] "NZ web users may get .kiwi domain". The New Zealand Herald.

[19] James Henderson. ""Watershed day" as NZ domain name game hots up". Computerworld New Zealand.

[TVNZ_2014-20] "Dot Kiwi domain names in hot demand". TVNZ. May 15, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2015.

[Field_2013-21] Field, Tony (December 2, 2013). "Dot kiwi enters internet domain names". 3 News. Retrieved May 5, 2015.

[Scoop_News_2014-22] ".kiwi domain names go live after two years of planning". Scoop News. March 18, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2015.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitch Morse}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calgary Foothills FC}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Davies (photographer)}}