Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 January	10 January >

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 keep. Bbb23 (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liana K

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

This is a vanity article about a non-noteworthy person whose only claim to fame or notability is her husband's accomplishments. Most pf the previously listed BLP sources are her own Twitter and blog-based posts. Much of the BLP is unsourced, and most of the references are too close to the subject or have been self-published by the subject for their own blatant self-promotion. MBPLY (talk) 23:39, 9 January 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 January 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & please close because of this. (Note: Liana Kerzner has some pretty obsessive haters, including a certain ex-friend who even owns/owned a blog that seemed to be dedicated solely to hating her.) The article might use of some additional sources, though (which is not unlike just about every article), on things like the radio show. --302ET (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and speaking of that hate-blog, and the nominator: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Liana_K&diff=prev&oldid=641796211 (please delete that edit, for the obvious reasons). --302ET (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in question was created in 2006, and having been constantly improved since then, is a decent, but not spectacular article. Liana is a well know Canadian TV celebrity, having been co-host, as "Red" of Ed & Red's Night Party on Canadian Superstation CITY-TV and Canada's response to MTV, MuchMusic for at least a dozen years. The attempts to delete her entry seem to have little to do with the quality of the entry, but more about retaliation for her views on Gamergate controversy and problems with at least one persistent stalker has caused her entry here to be vandalized a number of times. (see article rev. history). farrellj (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Liana K is clearly an established media personality in Canada, and certainly, there are plenty of existing articles on local radio and television personalities, who are generally considered to rise to the level of WP:NOTABLE. Article could use better sourcing, but as other commenters have noted, this is an endemic problem on Wikipedia. And please note: User:MBPLY, who has created this AFD, is a new and likely single-purpose account (note Special:Contributions/MBPLY) who has vandalized this article in several of their edits and left a link to an attack site. WP:BLP is pretty clear about this kind of thing. Concur with nixing this AFD per 302ET's recommendation. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the policies already mentioned. The OP is an WP:SPA who seems to be trying to WP:RGW which is not a valid reason for this AFD. MarnetteD|Talk 02:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article doesn't even mention that she's married. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator is clearly WP:NOTHERE and asking for deletion solely due to the views of the subject they disagree with. Hosting multiple shows on national television clearly bestows notability on the subject. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep Any statement I could make has already been covered. This was pretty clearly done out of spite.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:10, 11 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam (band)

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

I'm not particularly sure how to check this, but others have expressed concern over whether this band meets WP:NBAND. The other claim to notability - their orgasm music video - is no more notable than other small-scale viral videos, most of which have been deleted per WP:NOTNEWS: the coverage is short and confined to the week or two after the video. See [1], [2], and [3], the last of which had much more widespread coverage because of Jameis Winston and is actually still being talked about. Lastly, though not too important, the article was created (perhaps intentionally poorly) to make a WP:POINT; the point was made and rebutted, and it's probably time for this to go. ansh666 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBAND -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 20:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Fails WP:NBAND. --–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Along with the policies mentioned it does not meet WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 21:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Lots of coverage but of the event, not the band, and mostly trivial, lightweight, click-baitish coverage as sites know a headline with some combination of 'orgasm', 'video', 'NSFW' will attract lots of clicks. No in depth coverage, little on the band itself. That's WP:GNG; apart from that no evidence they come close to any of the criteria in WP:NMUSIC. Non-notable whichever way you look at it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with all of you, it probably fails WP:NOTABLE Snowager (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -My search for sources just brought up some "Hey guys, come watch this sexy video" Buzzfeed type articles that largely consists of them linking to the video. No sort of significant coverage that the WP:GNG requires. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a chronicle of every lame publicity stunt that bands have made in an effort to grab the brass ring. Carrite (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even approach WP:BAND. Miniapolis 22:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hilarious. Lighten up people. Worth it for the Backpackers parody alone. Encyclopedic: future generations, pondering the collapse of our civilization, will likely seize upon this in wonderment and say "This... this is where they went completely off the rails". What could be of more scholarly interest than that? Herostratus (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bands can become notorious and achieve extensive independent coverage for their actions rather than their music (e.g. Pussy Riot), but the coverage here all seems to be channelling Beavis and Butthead and doesn't rise above the level of trivial. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NBAND is moot if it satisfies the general notability guide. Buisiness Insider, HuffPo, and Gizmodo are sufficient. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. We got so much more shit that is so much less notable. Keep it. Once we accepted HuffPo we opened up the floodgates, and we'll just have to suck it up. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 12 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theoria and Praxis

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

Previous AfD 10 months ago was closed as "no consensus". No improvements since then. Journal apparently still not listed in any selective databases. No independent sources. Main contents are basically a list of all issues published. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No evidence of notability, as all sources are not independent of the subject itself, and an internet search turns up nothing more. BenLinus 1214^talk 21:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The journal doesn't appear to be particularly notable and doesn't have adequate references or much relevant content, but as a principle, a journal certainly doesn't have to be included in a bunch of commercial databases on the Internet to be notable, which appears to be mainly a tradition within natural sciences and far less common among eg. humanities (particularly in non-English speaking countries, such as Germany, although this doesn't apply in this particular case). Bjerrebæk (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are selective databases in any field, including humanities and social sciences, although there are indeed more in the natural sciences and medicine. and, of course, we need to have some indication of notability beyond the journal having a homepage... --Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm a little fuzzy on a threshold for library holdings (re: WP:NJOURNALS#Notes and examples #6). There appear to be ~60 here. However, the publication is only a couple years old and didn't pop up on any of the humanities-related indexes I searched (nor sufficient sources about the subject for GNG). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:21, 10 January 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 Deleted per WP:CSD#G5 Mjroots (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AirAsia Zest Flight 2272

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

Non-notable incident, aircraft slide of runway in bad weather, passengers get out and really just a bad day at the office. It would not be notable to mention on the airline, airport or aircraft article so hardly going to meet the grade for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article is almost certainly created by banned user Ryan kirkpatrick. A new editor first ever work is an aviation article. That's a quacking duck to me. Incident is not notable too....William 20:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Definitely a duck. And let's hope it doesn't crash land or he'll be back writing about it. Peridon (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked under WP:CSD#G5. Mjroots (talk) 23:39, 9 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester City F.C. strip

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

Topic has not been covered in significant detail by reliable, third-party sources - fails WP:GNG. Vast majority of content is WP:ROUTINE e.g. "this was the colour in this year" or "the kit was supplied by X" etc. Previous consensus at this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD. Giant Snowman 19:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication this club's strip has achieved any significant coverage as a subject matter. Current consensus is that strips are inherently non-notable in themselves. Fenix down (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Significant precedent that a club's strip is non-notable unless there is something REALLY special about it, in which case it would likely receive the widespread coverage which would meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. IJA (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That's some pretty convincing precedent. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:10, 13 January 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 Kundalini. Consensus is that this isn't suitable for inclusion as an article topic. The question is whether some content should be merged to Kundalini, as some propose. I'll handle this as a suspended "delete" outcome: this is now closed as a redirect, but if after a few months no content has been merged from the history (and has by consensus remained in the target article), the outcome of this discussion is "delete" and the redirect can be nominated for speedy deletion with reference to this discussion. Otherwise the outcome remains "redirect and merge". Sandstein 11:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kundalini syndrome

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

Only attested to by true believers and therefore fails our notability policy per WP:FRIND. There has been absolutely NO notice of this "syndrome" outside of the community of true-believers in the existence of the kundalini. jps (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and WP:GNG as well - so little notice outside the ranks of the believers I can't even find a debunking. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Logos - Concept has been appropriately described in many reliable citations.(e.g. [4]-[5]-[6]-[7]-[8]) Bladesmulti (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought it could be saved and turned into a very small article that basically explains what it purports to be and then how it's viewed in independent RS's but there are no independent RS's I can find. A simple Google search and I got 10 pages of nonsense and gave up. A Google scholar search just brought up books and papers by true believers from the dodgiest journals imaginable. Capeo (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.

Keep - May need some more cleaning though, but subject is notable with over 700 searches on Google books and over 35,000 in Bing. Delibzr (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Haven't read all those lines, but seems like WP:REDUNDANTFORK, to me. Kundalini article mentions the "syndrome" as well. Anything useful/valuable can be merged to Kundalini. Logos (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that notability is highly due to Kundalini - the main concept and this kind of syndrome has multiple meanings. Of course it is because of Kundalini that these terms have been invented. Merging is a good suggestion and I must include it as my vote. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That article is a credulous mess too and again treats Kundalini energy as though it's a real thing. And it's even more reason to delete the one under discussion. Capeo (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A fringe theory not clearly identified as such is sure to mislead the readers. The cited articles masquerading as reliable sources are not reliable at all. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not for cleanup or re-write. From where you have confirmed it? Including those,[9]-[10] are all reliable. Read RS and deletion policy more carefully. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability. Junk. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kundalini. No concerns about its notability, much of its content is taken from Kundalini. Instead Kundalini can be expanded. Noteswork (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the articles talk page under the heading: Considerations for using the term "Kundalini Syndrome". The notability issue has been discussed earlier.--Hawol (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawol: You are talking about this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kundalini_syndrome#Considerations_for_using_the_term_.22Kundalini_Syndrome.22. ? You can still expand Kundalini. Noteswork (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability and credibility. Since there is debate about the credibility of the concept of "kundalini syndrome", and its notability, I will provide an overview which shows where the concept is coming from. The terminology is, in fact, represented in the PubMed database, however sparsely. A search for the term "Physio-Kundalini syndrome" produces 1 result (PMID 24271550 [PubMed]). A search for the term "Kundalini" produces 26 results. The summary below does not make any specifications regarding the authors ontological position towards the subject, it only locates where the discussion is taking place. For other considerations regarding the credibility, notability and ontology of the topic, see the articles Talk-page (Talk:Kundalini_syndrome) under the heading: "Considerations for using the term "Kundalini Syndrome". The concept of "Physio-Kundalini syndrome", "Kundalini syndrome" or the understanding of Kundalini phenomena as a "syndrome", is discussed in a number of publications. Many of these publications are situated within the fields of Transpersonal psychology and Near-death studies, while the rest are situated within the fields of psychology, mental health, religious studies and parapsychology. (Please follow the wiki-links to get a source-critical feel for the publications orientation). They include: International Journal of Culture and Mental Health (Paradkar & Chaturvedi, 2010), Journal of Near-death studies (Ring & Rosing, 1990; Prosnick & Evans, 2003), Journal of Religion and Health (Greyson, 1993), Journal of Transpersonal Psychology (Greyson, 1993; Greyson, 2000), Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research (Thalbourne & Fox, 1999), Mental Health, Religion & Culture (Valanciute & Thampy, 2011) and Psychological Reports (Thalbourne, 2001). There is also a very brief mention of the concept in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (Le Fanu, 2002) where the author discusses medical mystery syndromes. Transpersonal writers Grof and Grof (Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc./Perigee, 1989: page 15) and Sovatsky (State University of New York Press, 1998: page 180) also use the term "syndrome", but usually prefer other terminology. The concept of Kundalini-problems, or kundalini-phenomena in a clinical context, is mentioned in the following publications: Journal of Humanistic Psychology (Johnson & Friedman, 2008), Journal of Transpersonal Psychology (Waldman, 1992; Ossoff, 1993; Jerry, 2003), Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (Turner, Lukoff, Barnhouse & Lu, 1995), Psychiatric Clinics of North America (Lukoff, Lu & Turner, 1995), The Humanistic Psychologist (Bynum, 1996; Elmer, MacDonald & Friedman, 2003) and Transpersonal Psychology review (Sanchez and Daniels, 2008). Clinical issues are also discussed in books by transpersonal authors Kason (Harper Collins, 1994) and Scotton (Basic Books, 1996). Vernon-Johnson (2004), representing the field of psychotherapy, discusses the issue in a doctoral dissertation from Pennsylvania State University Graduate School. One of the most recent publications to mention kundalini in a clinical context is the book Spirituality and Psychiatry (see chapter 11: Read and Crowley, 2009), published by RCPsych Publications, an imprint of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. There is also a brief mention in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (Grabovac & Ganesan, 2003) where the authors present a proposal for an academic lecture series on religion and spirituality in Canadian Psychiatric Residency Training (see Table 3). I guess some of these publications are considered to be less mainstream, while others are considered to be more mainstream. Anyway, all the journals listed are (as far as I know) peer-reviewed journals. I do not consider any of the less mainstream publications to be fringe-publications (see Fringe science), but other editors may of course disagree with me on this. It is beyond the scope of this comment to discuss the credibility of Transpersonal psychology, Near-death studies and Parapsychology. I leave that to the individual wiki-articles on those fields. I agree that the terminology of "syndrome" seems to be less pronounced than other terminologies, such as "awakening" or "experience", in the literature. The question is wether to keep the terminology of "syndrome" or if the topic should be merged into the main kundalini-article with the emphasis on another terminology, such as "kundalini awakening" or "kundalini experience". I leave that decision to the continuing debate.--Hawol (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google hit counts are irrelevant, of course. It lacks independent sources; it is a POV fork promoting notions that haven't a chance of being retained in the main article. bobrayner (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly userfy or move to draft space. Some of the journals mentioned above look like they might be sufficient for notability, but they may also be biased toward the woo side and without outside non-woo coverage the article would be unbalanced by default. If it were to be moved to userspace or draftspace though, I do think that there would be no reason not to merge any possible reasonable content into the existing Kundalini article, which apparently is a bit of a mess in the short term, and revisit deletion of the draft/userspace page in a few months if a reasonable article can't be cobbled together in that time. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect. Reported by some journals and books, it is hardly very large to be written especially in balance. After it is already noted on existing Kundalini, just a redirect would be enough. VandVictory (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are valid references as already presented. It is not promotional or copyvio, does not require to be purged entirely. Unique content should be merged into Kundalini. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just one more observation that might help put the matter more into focus, and maybe make it a little less suspect. Before I make the comment I would like to emphasize that my framework here is phenomenology, not ontology. There is a lot that can be said about the phenomenology of "kundalini syndrome" without invoking ontological viewpoints. I would also like to emphasize that Kundalini, first of all, is a cultural/spiritual concept, not a psychiatric category. However, in this particular context, via the language of syndrome, a small part of the concept of Kundalini becomes linked to psychiatry. I agree that "Kundalini syndrome" is a marginal phenomenon, on the borders of culture and science, but the lesson from Cross-cultural psychiatry and Medical Anthropology has taught us that mainstream medicine, in some instances, observes these syndromes with a new kind of sensitivity. In 1994 the American Psychiatric Association published the the fourth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-IV. In the manual they included a "Glossary of Culture-Bound Syndromes" and an "Outline for Cultural Formulation". The glossary listed several cultural syndromes. A few of the syndromes even bear some resemblance to our subject matter at hand. The "Kundalini syndrome" is not included in the glossary. However, the DSM-IV did include a new diagnostic category named "Religious or Spiritual Problem (V-Code 62.89). The proposal for this new category was initiated by clinicians associated with Transpersonal psychology who suggested the term "Psychoreligious or Psychospiritual Problem". It was submitted to the Task Force on DSM-IV in 1991, and approved in 1993 after changing its title to "Religious or Spiritual Problem". The particular spiritual problems of the 62.89-code are not identified by the DSM-text. However, in 1995 the authors published an elaboration of their work in the psychiatric journals Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (Turner, Lukoff, Barnhouse, Lu, 1995), and The Psychiatric Clinics of North America (Lukoff, Lu, Turner; 1995). In these articles they describe "kundalini awakening" in a clinical language, and as a phenomena that (in some instances... I guess) can be conceptualized as a spiritual problem. Therefore, we see that the language of "kundalini" was part of psychiatric discourse already in 1995, however brief and marginally. --Hawol (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Complete and utter lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources with no verifiable existence whatsoever in the real world. Written entirely using unreliable fringe sources, it can be deleted in its entirety. Nothing worth merging or saving. It's all basically non-encyclopedic blither of the worst sort. If anything, redirect to main article, but do not merge content. Better yet, salt. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This articles fails the general notability guideline and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. At this point, if the article does not qualify as a separate article, I would have to say merge. My suggestion is to integrate the terminology of "syndrome" under the existing heading called Psychiatry (in the main Kundalini-article). I believe that is where it belongs. Several of the clinical references can also be integrated under that heading. That said, I believe that the main Kundalini-article does need quite a bit of rehabilitation. It still includes a lot of "cut and paste"-editing, relying too much on direct quotes. This material could be rewritten as sourced original prose, giving the article a more fluent style. The article could also benefit from a source-critical rehabilitation. It needs more academic references.--Hawol (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in independent reliable sources, thus nothing reliably sourced to merge. No evidence for notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, needs more reliable sources to meet our WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Article is somewhat inaccurate and the references are not even linked. Should be redirected to Kundalini, the term "Kundalini syndrome" seems circulated enough for that. SamuelDay1 (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. and salt KTC (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Kaiser

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

Biography of an author who does not appear to be notable. New sources have appeared since the previous AfD, but none of them actually indicates notability. The two that come closest are the Portland Tribune ones, but this is clearly based on a press release and this doesn't cut it on its own - in addition, although it is an independent source, it is a piece in a local paper about a local author. The article is apparently written as an autobiography, and it is kind of promotional as well. But the real issue with it is lack of notability. bonadea contributions talk 17:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. For full disclosure, I was made aware of this AfD on my usertalk since I took part in the last AfD. That said, not much has changed since the last AfD. Despite the claims in the article, Kaiser hasn't really gained any true coverage for herself. She's written and been published and she's been brought on to various media outlets in order to talk about various different things but during all of this she's never really been the focus of any in-depth coverage. Her appearances on various news shows has been the type of "today we're going to talk about ________ and here today to talk about ___________ we have an expert, Shannon Kaiser". In other words, she was brought on to be a living reference to whatever the news outlet was discussing at that point in time (usually better living type stuff), but at no point were those news spots actually about her, which is what we'd need to show notability. Being a reliable source for something doesn't mean that the person is automatically notable, nor does publishing in notable outlets. This makes it more likely that someone will gain coverage and thus notability, but it isn't a guarantee - which is what we're seeing here. You'd think that with the huge amount of effort Kaiser has put in to making herself visible on various shows that she'd have garnered more attention than what she has, but she hasn't. Now given that this is the second time that the article has been created and that it was created by (presumably) the author herself, I'd recommend salting this to discourage re-creation before the notability threshold has been reached. Ms Kaiser, I do sympathize with you but notability guidelines on here are very, very strict and most wouldn't pass GNG, including many multi-million dollar business people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as per Tokyogirl79. My sweeps did not yield anything that suggests she meets the WP:GNG, current article full of dubious sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per Tokyogirl79. BlueSalix (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Moore

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO as the UK Adult Film and Television Awards are not 'a well-known and significant industry award'. In addition, fails WP:GNG. Finnegas (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO for starring in and winning an internationally recognised award for her work in an iconic feature 'Hug a Hoodie' that built on a speech made by British Prime Minister David Cameron on a theme that was of significant cultural importance in the UK. For further information see Anna Span Graemp (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to suggest that UK Adult Film and Television Awards is 'internationally recognised award'. Moreover, you cannot claim that 'Hug a Hoodie' is iconic and 'of significant cultural importance in the UK' without producing reliable sources. Finnegas (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to suggest that the UK Adult Film and Television Awards are not 'internationally recognised awards'. WP:PORNBIO 1. says "Has won a well-known and significant industry award." and deliberately does not specify any one or group of awards. However wikipedia has deemed the awards significant enough to maintain a dedicated page to them. The question of providing reliable sources is a matter for an article not a matter for a deletion discussion. I took the trouble to provide you with a suitable link to encourage you to read around your subject. Graemp (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Well-known and significant" has been well-established as a higher standard than Wikipedia notability. Just because an award meets the minimum WP standards for notability does not establish that it is well-known and significant -- indeed, the majority of Wikipedia subjects would fail the "well-known" test alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the Award has an aricle does not automatically mean it is "well-known and significant industry award". For instance, the Eroticline Awards were deemed not to be "well-known and significant" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renee Pornero in August 2013. Finnegas (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important not to get side-tracked too much into other discussions, however, since you raised the issue of the Renee Pornero discussion, it should be addressed. You state that "the Eroticline Awards were deemed not to be well-known and significant" based upon the conclusion that Pornero was deleted. However, if one reads that discussion, the only person to specifically state that they believed the Eroticline Awards failed WP:PORNBIO was yourself and nowhere in the summation is this point directly referred to.Graemp (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion ought to focus mainly around the UKAFTA status in 2007, the year when Carmel Moore won Best Female Actress. To assess the significance of the UKAFTAs you first need to assess the significance of those awards to the UK adult film industry. Wikipedia only carries information on two sets of awards for this period, the UKAFTAs and the Erotic Awards. The latter awards to me don't seem to qualify as pornographic industry awards as they seem to cover a far more broader area of interest. So I would conclude that the UKAFTAs seem to have been not just the most significant industry award in the UK but the only industry award in the UK. Having assessed the significance of the UKAFTAs to the UK porn industry, the only thing left is to assess if there was a bona fida UK porn industry in 2007. Pornography in Europe section on the UK sources a 2006 article on the UK porn industry that estimated its worth at about £1 billion, which seems to suggest that in 2007 the UK porn industry did indeed exist. So in conclusion, we know from a wikipedia article that the UK porn industry was a bona fide porn industry and also from wikipedia articles that the UKAFTAs were apparently its main if not its only set of industry specific awards. We also know that wikipedia has maintained a page specifically on these awards for over five years. We also know that Carmel Moore won it's most significant award in 2007. So Carmel Moore clearly Passes WP:PORNBIO#1 and arguably #2 for starring in an iconic feature as mentioned above. Graemp (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject in question here passes PORNBIO as she has "won a well-known" (UK Adult Film and Television Awards) "and significant" (Best Female Actress) "industry award." As is documented on the UKAFTA's Wikipedia page, those awards were well-known within Great Britian, and it's been well-established here at AfD in the past that Best Actress awards meet the "significant" award standard. I'm not intimately's familiar with the movie (Hug a Hoodie) that Ms. Moore won her award for, but the movie appears to have been related to a speech given by David Cameron, when he "famously urged the nation to 'hug a hoodie'."

The old Renee Pornero AfD is irrelevant to this article here, and there was, in fact, no determination made at that AfD that "the Eroticline Awards were deemed not to be 'well-known and significant'". That AfD occurred before the PORNBIO standard was tightened late last year to remove award nominations entirely, and, quite frankly, I don't remember if Ms. Pornero even won any awards or was just nominated for a bunch of them. Again, not that it matters here, but the Erotic Awards are in fact, at least in part, a pornographic film award. Guy1890 (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs better references if it's to avoid deletion.

Internet Adult Film Database is not a reliable source as it's a user generated database, and fails for the same reasons as references to IMDb and other similar sites. The lack of editorial oversight is the major issue with this source.
Carmel's own website isn't independent, nor does it contain sufficient information to really be considered a reliable source, indeed it is questionable whether it's really her official site at all, but the claim that she's a pornographic actress is unlikely to be particularly controversial so it's not really being used to reference something in a particularly problematic way
Private YouTube videos are very rarely if ever considered reliable sources because they can be updated and changed by the original creator and as with all user created work, not subject to editorial oversight.
Iran Politics Club is a 404 and looking at the home page, I wouldn't say it's a particularly reliable source either but I'm happy for others to correct me if they know more about it.
British Girls Adult Film Database is arguably not a reliable source given it's yet another user generated film database not subject to editorial oversight, but there's certainly an argument it's more reliable given it's not wide open to every user to go ahead and edit.
IMDb is never a reliable source - fine as an external link, not as a source for claims made within it, as yet again it's a user generated film and TV database not subject to editorial oversight. There's also a lot of circular referencing going on between WP and IMDb, claims made on Wikipedia end up on IMDb and the content on IMDb is used to verify the claim on Wikipedia.

I'm less certain on actual notability, without any proper references it's unfortunately an unsourced BLP and deletion is the only option, but I'd be surprised if there's not some good reliable sources out there, given the girl's background and history, I'm sure there's likely to be proper sources out there for someone to prove notability, if they want to do so. Nick (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick's points need to be addressed.

Nick is wrong, IAFD is a reliable source as it is user initiated in conjunction with having editorial oversight.
Nick is right, Carmel's website is clearly not an Independent website but as Nick says, this is not a problem.
Nick talks generally without addressing the specific interview in question, so his points are irrelevant. Then again, as far as this discussion is concerned, that source is largely irrelevant.
Nick is probably right on this count but the source is irrelevant in relation to this discussion.
Nick is wrong, BGAFD is a reliable source as it is user initiated in conjunction with having editorial oversight.
Nick may be right for all I know, but even if he is, this point is very minor to this discussion.

Nick seems to assume that because a particular source invites/encourages editorially controlled user involvement it will by definition be less reliable while I believe that it makes the source more reliable. It seems to me that all the articles in wikipedia on those involved in the porn industry rely on sourcing IAFD and where relevant BGAFD. I believe this is because they are widely acknowledged as reliable sources. The logic of Nick's arguement therefore is that virtually all wikipedias articles on pornography should be deleted. As they say, Good luck with that.Graemp (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"IMDb is never a reliable source"...sure it is...sometimes...especially for filmographies, which is all that the IMDb reference in question here is being used for in the article in question. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Guy1890 (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, there is absolutely zero evidence that "Hug a Hoodie" is an "iconic", "blockbuster", or "groundbreaking release - or even a notable one. Simply lifting a well-known phrase for a title does not confer stature of any kind on a film, video, song, book, or even a toaster. The claim is ridiculous. Second, the UKAFTA is not a "well-known and significant" award. It was a short-lived effort - a for-profit award ceremony which achieved very limited notoriety through publicity stunts like nominating mainstream performers for porn awards and announcing invitations to high-profile celebrities who invariably declined or ignored them. Award recipients are documented mainly, and rather badly, by message board posts at a user generated database site, and as one director involved with an award-garnering project commented recently, the event seemed "amateurish and desperate" and "if it wasn't for Wikipedia, there would be no proof that it ever even happened."[11] The awards also had a reputation for giving awards to films/videos that had not yet been released [12][13] -- and, in some cases, would never be released -- try to find any reliable evidence that the film for which one Jamie Brooks "won" her award actually existed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Award recipients are documented mainly, and rather badly, by message board posts at a user generated database site"...not on the UKAFTA Wikipedia page they are not. "The awards also had a reputation for giving awards to films/videos that had not yet been released"...so we're going to use "evidence" (forum postings) here at AfD that one would never even think of using in an actual article as a citation to try & prove something? Please, the "blokely.com" posting mostly reads like a disappointed porn producer's sour grapes. Guy1890 (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the UKAFTAs only ran for three years I believe is irrelevant to their status. Things evolve and essentially the UKAFTAs evolved into the SHAFTAs. I don't think it helps to delve too much into what goes on behind the scenes at awards events as I'm sure there have been plenty of criticisms made against other porn industry awards and even mainstream awards. That said, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tries to undermine the UKAFTAs by saying they were "announcing invitations to high-profile celebrities who invariably declined" while ignoring information in his own source which reveals, in the case of Brad Pitt, when they do. I think that comments made on personal blogs and open forums lack credibility when gathering evidence and this includes all those given in evidence by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz such as comments from one individual who was disappointed not to recieve an award. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is happy to quote from a blog that "if it wasn't for Wikipedia, there would be no proof that it ever even happened." yet if we examine the article which is the subject of this discussion, the evidence actually comes from a reputable source, the British Girls Adult Film Database, which is directly linked in the article. So on this point Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and his source are indisputably wrong. Graemp (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Nick and Hullalloo Wolfowitz, no evidence of her meeting WP:GNG or the new criteria of WP:PORNBIO. The "major" award mentioned, UKAFTA doesn't seem of great significance. Secret ^account 01:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the central issue to this discussion is interpreting PORNBIO#1 "well-known and significant". A number of users including Secret have stated that they believe the UKAFTAs should not be regarded as "well-known and significant" whilst not presenting any information to back up their conclusion. Only one user who reached this conclusion has given any sort of assessment of the UKAFTAs but none of the points he/she made actually addressed the issue of "well-known and significant" apart from one point that was immediately dis-proved by two other users. On the other hand, I provided an assessment of how the UKAFTAs should be regarded as "well-known and significant" yet none of those who disagree have even tried to counter that assessment. Graemp (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Utter rubbish. Your argument is mostly that the award meets the "well-known and significant" standard simply because it is (en)Wikipedia-notable. That's invalid on its face. And, in this specific context, it was rejected by consensus and removed from PORNBIO several years ago, in conjunction with a similar tightening of ANYBIO. As to the nonsense you posted about Brad Pitt attending one of their award ceremonies, the source you allude to actually says "So anyone who tells you that Snoop Dog, Brad Pitt and Frank from Shameless blessed the UK porn industry with their awesome presence at the UKAFTAs in 2007 is either very gullible or just lying".[14]

"And, in this specific context, it was rejected by consensus and removed from PORNBIO several years ago"...where's the evidence for that? During the recent discussions around tightening the PORNBIO standard, it was never mentioned at all that a "well-known" adult "industry award" had to rise to the standard that you are implying here. The fact remains that the UKAFTA's were well-known awards within Great Britian, period. Guy1890 (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Anon - my argument above sourced Pornography in Europe and its sources which are helpful for anyone with an open mind. As regards Brad Pitt, the nonsense is not my nonsense but that of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who sourced it. The source you quote is contradictory because it also says "in 2007 .... Brad Pitt was more interested in pulling porn stars" which helps make the whole source unreliable in my view. Graemp (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't alter quoted material deceptively, Graemp. The cited source says that the UKAFTA organizers hired six celebrity look-a-likes to hang around the event and that "Brad Pitt" was more interested in pulling porn stars than actually behaving like Brad Pitt, plain as day referring to the hired lookalike's behavior at the event rather than the absent actor's. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 12:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has won a UK Adult Film and Television Award for Best Female Actress, which is a well-known and significant industry award and she therefore passes WP:PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability requirements that apply to this type of actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This commenter either doesn't know of WP:PORNBIO#1 or doesn't think that a 2007 sole industry specific award for a £1 billion industry should count. (see Pornography in Europe mentioned above.) The AfD stats above include a total of 5 users who have voted delete, including the aforementioned Johnpacklambert. Three of these, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Jeffrd10 and Finnegas have a track record of voting to delete any article in this category seemingly regardless of the merits of a specific case. Only one of these five Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has attempted to question the status of the UKAFTAs and only by drawing on a source of dubious authority. It seems unlikely that any form of consensus will be reached in this discussion about the UKAFTAs, when you consider the track record of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Finnegas. However, no one has disputed the fact that in 2007, they were the only UK awards and that the industry in the UK generated £1 billion out of a worldwide total of £20 billion. Graemp (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with no prejudice against recreation if/when he meets WP:NFOOTBALL#2 and WP:GNG. -- KTC (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrice Elysée Kouadio Kouakou

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with nom that the article needs improvement, but there seem to be enough WP:RS in other languages to fulfill our WP:GNG. His team FC Infonet plays in the Meistriliiga, Estonia's mayor league. It is not listed as fully professional league but it is listed in that article as a top level league. Currently he is the third player with most goals for that league this year. UEFA: Estonian First League - Top scorers. with 30 goals in only 31 games He is also in the world's top 20 list for this year See here (in French).--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another source cites him as third candidate for this year's European Golden Shoe: Cristiano Ronaldo marca e sobe ao topo da Bota de Ouro (in Portuguese).--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show the nonroutine sources that discuss this player (i.e., not match reports / team listings / stat sites). The fact that he plays in a countries top league is not relevant by consensus that only fully professional leagues impart sufficient inherent notability to individuals who have not played senior international football. Additionally, the Portuguese article you cite is incorrect. This player is not third in the running for the golden boot as this is for an award where the major European leagues are only halway through so he will almost certainly drop down the order through the rest of 2015 since someone playing in England, Spain, Italy, Germany and Portugal will only have to score 15 goals in a season in order to equal his points total. Fenix down (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: Hello, both of the sources I mentioned are nonroutine.

In the first case it is an article about the player, and it even compares his performance (Goals/games played) to Lionel Messi. Even if the comparison does not make too much sense, mathematically it is correct and it is not a routine source. It also shows him in a list of the top scorers so far.
In the second case it mentions the player as having scored enough goals to be third at that time for the title. The article also mentions that he has no chances of winning the award, but his 30 goals in 31 games been mention in an article about Cristiano Ronaldo and the European Golden Shoe is, in my opinion, more than routine coverage or a passing mention.

As I stated previously a google search revealed various WP:RS. For your reference, here is another where he is referred to as the best African striker for the season L’USMA engage Kako Rostan pour une durée de 30 mois (in French). Mentioned also by this other source.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's look at the sources you have provided:

This is just a stat table and is completely routine.

This I cannot see, I just get an error message unfortunately. However, if it is a list of top scorers then it is completely routine.

This is not about the player at all, but about Cristiano Ronaldo (as the title suggests). The player discussed here is mentioned very briefly in one sentence. Additionally, as I noted above, the Golden Shoe award is for the 2014/15 season. this article specifically notes that Kouakou has a total of 30 points but cannot score any more, whereas all the players in major european leagues are only halfway through their seasons. His current position in the ranking is irrelevant as the competition is nowhere near complete. Look at European Golden Shoe, in every season bar three in the last twenty years, the winner scored at least twice as many points as Kouakou.

This is just a routine report on his transfer. Current consensus at WP:FOOTY is that transfer reports are routine. In addition, there is not even a single quote from the player or semblance of an interview with him. It is just a report of his signing together with unrelated information (for the purpose of this discussion) about the hopes of his new club.

This is an article about the Tunisian club he has joined. The only mention of him is at the end and again this is just transfer speculation. I also note that the elements dealing with him are word for word identical to the source above.

Are you able to provide links to any interviews, or articles that discuss his career specifically in depth? So far all I see is a player who has not played internationally, has never played in a fully professional league and is a passing curiosity for topping the european Golden shoe table for a little while part way through the competition. Fenix down (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: Sorry but I beg to differ:

you don´t need to win the European Golden Shoe to be notable, been mentioned in that article about Cristiano Ronaldo and scoring 30 goals in 31 games is, in my opinion, notable.
The article that you can not read is extensive, and entirely about him, the site seems to be temporarily down for a technical problem.
The article that you say is just a routine transfer report, labels him as the best African striker for 2014, that also seems notable to me.
I hope this other article about the player that also compares his performance with Lionel Messi and mentions him as possibly the best African Striker for the current season may change your mind: FOOTBALL : MANUCHO L’IVOIRIEN PLUS EFFICACE QUE MESSI(in French).
This other article in Estonian reports him receiving an award as best player and 2012 season leading scorer, which I also deem notable. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also respond point-by-point:

A person who is mentioned in an article about someone else who is notable doesn't make that person notable.
The page at afrik.com only generates a message readin "Site under construction. This site is not yet set up. Please come back later..."
Per long-standing consensus at WP:FOOTY, transfer reports are routine coverage, regardless of the notability of the player or the club. Also, the source calling him "the best striker" is the team to which he is transferring, so that is hardly unbiased.
An article stating that he "may be the best African striker for the 2014 calendar year" is certainly not WP:NPOV without backing it up with statistics, and that same article reports that he will not take part in the African Nations Cup (which would have conferred NFOOTY status as a FIFA tier 1 match).
Many amateur and semi-professional leagues give awards for their top scorers or best players, but those awards don't automatically confer any general notability. Again, the long-standing consensus at WP:FOOTY is that taking part in a fully professional league or in a FIFA tier 1 match will generally confer notability.

Taking all of this together, I see nothing more than a lot of WP:ROUTINE coverage. All the routine coverage in the world will not confer notability. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Presently fails WP:NFOOTY for not playing in a WP:FPL and not yet playing in a FIFA tier 1 match. If he did transfer to USM Alger in the Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 (which is an FPL), he will technically meet NFOOTY as soon as he sets foot on the pitch in competition. When that will happen is unknown, but I must also refer to WP:CRYSTALBALL. All other coverage appears to be WP:ROUTINE, thus failing WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL yet, (will soon), but clearly meets WP:GNG as there are many sources that can't be dismissed as WP:ROUTINE.

Let me recap the notable non routine information cited by the sources I mentioned above:

Kouadio was the best player and top scorer in 2012 in Estonia he received an award for it covered by the source I cited above, (Here is a second source that covers it in detail). To be the top player and best striker of a country (Estonia) is nonroutine. To Be the top player of a notable Top level league like the Meistriliiga is also notable and non routine.
According to at least three sources cited above he was the best African Striker by number of goals in 2014 (this is not claimed by his new team, but by independent sources, and it can be easily checked that he indeed was the top African player by goals in 2014). Again non routine and notable.
According to at least two independent sources, with 30 goals in 31 games, his scoring average for 2014 is superior to that of Lionel Messi. Non routine and notable.
He is one of the top 20 scorers for 2014 (20th). This was sourced by the Afrik.com ref above (currently down for technical trouble) and by this other source: MÁXIMOS GOLEADORES DEL 2014(in Spanish) the data can also be checked at www.uefa.com. Notable and non routine.
[This source] is to meet the request by by Fenix Down for an interview to the player. Notable and non routine coverage.

There are more sources. I agree with previous comments that technically Kouadio will not meet WP:NFOOTBALL until he playes the first game with his new team. But in my opinion, the above notable and nonroutine coverage is more than enough to meet our WP:GNG --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY and I don't believe he meets WP:GNG either (the only source presented which I can see that is reliable, in-depth, independent and actually about this player is the soccernet.ee interview, and that's not enough IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Hello, looks like I am the only one defending this article... You don´t think that this other source: FOOTBALL : MANUCHO L’IVOIRIEN PLUS EFFICACE QUE MESSI(in Frech) that talks just about the player, how he was top player in Estonia in 2012, 20th in Europe in 2014 and that with 30 goals in 31 games had a beter goal ratio than messi is an in depth WP:RS?

Which of the four notability claims I mentioned in the comment above do you think are not notable and which ones do you think are not properly sourced? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Afrik.com site was down due to technical problems. It is up again: Manucho, l’Ivoirien qui fait mieux que Messi en 2014(in French) Does't it also qualify as an in depth WP:RS about the subject of the WP:BLP? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine and dandy, but it still doesn't change the fact that he presently fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, as all of his coverage is short blurbs, mere mentions, or biased based upon source. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 07:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the most important two points are firstly, that these goals were scored in the Estonian league which is of nowhere near the same level as the top European leagues and secondly, this player was not even the first or second highest scorer in the league for the 2014 season! Fenix down (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel like Custer at his Last Stand ;) , When I first read this AfD I was going to vote Delete, but after doing some WP:Before my only choice was to vote Keep. I have just improved the article and I must insist that the article clearly meets WP:GNG. There are at least 3 sources that objectively meet the first 4 requirements cited in the policy. The only subjective point is the fifth, that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. But the article does not violate WP:what Wikipedia is not and his achievements for 2012 and 2014 are indeed notable so there is no reason to justify deletion. In addition, it is confirmed by USM Alger that he has been transferred, and according to the subject he will probably play his first game before the end of this month, meeting also WP:NFOOTBALL.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like WP:NFOOTBALL is also met, Manucho scored 2 goals on his first game with USM Alger in a friendly match against AS Marsa. there are at least two sources that covered the story, here is one in English: USM Algiers crushed Tunisian AS Marsa 6-2 in a friendly.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For info, playing in a friendly does not satisfy the requirement to have played in a fully professional league, so NFOOTBALL isn't met -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. With footballers it happens all the time. There won't be any problem recreating the article if he plays in a competitive game. Fenix down (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So friendly is not good enough, ok, he has played for a professional league team, do you have any doubt that he will play again very soon? do you have any specific counter arguments based in policy to my claim that it meets point by point WP:GNG. Does it make any sense to still defend its deletion? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But he hasn't and consensus agreed over literally hundreds of different discussions that assurances from individuals that so and so is bound to play in a competitive FPL / international match soon are unacceptable per WP:TOOSOON. Like I said, once he has actually done something per NFOOTY that is considered notable, I will support the existence of the article. Prior to that happening, my concerns over GNG - and why those links do not meet GNG to my mind - are well documented above and to date it appears they are echoed to a greater or lesser extent by every other contributor bar yourself above. Unless additional sources showing significant coverage that satisfies GNG then I think we have said all we need to on this matter. Fenix down (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL... JMHamo (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can see that I am the least experienced editor in this AfD and I am also the only editor that is not a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football. It is also clear that I am the only one that thinks that WP:GNG is met, so...

At this point I am beginning to question if maybe I am missing something in the interpretation of the guideline. I am open to learning, so if I am wrong, I would appreciate it if you could help me understand how so I will not make the same mistakes in the future.

@Fenix down: you told me that the source with the interview met the significant coverage outlined in our WP:GNG policy but that just one source with significant coverage was not enough. Don't this other two sources (FOOTBALL : MANUCHO L’IVOIRIEN PLUS EFFICACE QUE MESSI(in Frech) , Manucho, l’Ivoirien qui fait mieux que Messi en 2014(in French)) also meet the guidelines? if not please let me know why so I can't understand it. If they are valid, is 3 sources not enough? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was the interview was some thing that can help assert GNG. One interview is nowhere near enough to imply significant coverage. Regarding the other sources. He has not outscored anyone. Comparing him to Messi is false as they are playing completely different standards of football. Additionally in the 2014 season he was not even the top goalscorer in Estonia so scoring thirty goals in that league is not in itself notable. Fenix down (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to XOXO (album). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Pearl (Exo song)

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

Song fails WP:GNG. It is a non-promotional track from Exo's XOXO (album), was released digitally only as part of the album, charted poorly, and had no music video. Song was reviewed as part of reviews of the entire album but did not receive significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Of the sources listed, some are music reviews (again, of the whole album) by the usual kpop promotional machine, some are people's profiles (not articles), and some are links to the artist's own webiste/youtube. Content was padded by adding superfluous information about the song's personnel, unrelated to the song itself. Shinyang-i (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to XOXO (album): Not even a hit single that charted. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tibbydibby Asdklf; (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mama (EP). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two Moons (song)

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

Song fails WP:GNG. It was yet another track off Exo's Mama (EP), was not released promotionally, and did not chart. There was no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Of the sources listed, four are "profile" pages (not articles), three of which are not related to the song; three are youtube videos belonging to the artist or of performances. Shinyang-i (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mama (EP): Not even a hit single that charted. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mama (EP) no independent notability Asdklf; (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mama (EP). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angel (Exo song)

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

Song fails WP:GNG. It is a track from Exo's Mama (EP) that was "given to radio stations", whatever that means. Article claims song "topped the charts" in China but the claim is unsourced. Did not appear to chart at all in the home country of Korea. The article's sources are just general information about the EP (not actual articles) and the artist's own youtube/website. Song did not generate any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Mind you, every single song on this EP was given an article on Wikipedia. Shinyang-i (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mama (EP): Not even a hit single that charted. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mama (EP) no independent notability Asdklf; (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mama (EP). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History (Exo song)

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

Song fails WP:GNG. It was released released digitally only, as as a second "prologue" single for Exo's Mama (EP), and charted poorly. It received no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The only sources on the article are an announcement, the artist's own website and youtube, and music charts. Shinyang-i (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mama (EP): A single but does not have any independence notable outside of Mama (EP). Tibbydibby (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mama (EP) performance does not warrant own page Asdklf; (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mama (EP). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Is Love (Exo song)

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

Song fails WP:GNG. It is a track from Exo's Mama (EP). It was released digitally only, in advance of the full EP, but charted poorly and generated no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The article's listed sources are an announcement plus a few links to the artist's own website and youtube channel. Shinyang-i (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mama (EP): A single, but does not have any notability outside of the EP. Best to describe in the EP article itself though. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mama (EP) no independent notability Asdklf; (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 9 January 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 Karthik Subbaraj. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iraivi

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

WP:CRYSTAL fail for a movie that is only at the auditions stage, and whose refs are almost entirely rumor and speculation based on unnamed sources. DMacks (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now per sources[15][16] to director Karthik Subbaraj where it may be spoken of and sourced as one of his upcoming projects. Allow return once filming has been confirmed IF it then meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Right now it is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karthik Subbaraj, as suggested above. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karthik Subbaraj per above. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:01, 9 January 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.

Consensus is that this should be merged/redirected, but we don't have consensus yet about where to. I suppose an experienced editor could resolve this editorially with a redirect, some selective merging and possibly a hatnote. Sandstein 11:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kangri people

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

Article about an Indian tribe that may exists but it is not notable enough. Jim Carter 10:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 18:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless references can be found, merge to Kangri language, the language they speak, which is adequately documented and clearly notable. I cannot find references that discuss this particular tribe not in the context of their language. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Hasirpad's suggestion. Kangri just brings up lots of articles about a certain type of basket used in Kashmir, so its hard to muddle through for references, but not seeing anything. JT_dale^Talk~ 15:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but consider merging to Kangra Valley instead. "The people of Kangra valley are well known for this exclusive language."[17] but no coverage is apparent of the people as a distinct ethnic group or tribe. So a sentence added to Kangra Valley referring to the distinct language spoken there should cover it: Noyster (talk), 18:03, 17 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lowe Fashion Group

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

Out of the sources I have checked, almost none of them actually mention the subject of the article; many are primary sources from the org's website, broken links or links to directory/database-type sources. There are no search results for this org in the leading PR trade magazine, PRWeek.[18] CorporateM (Talk) 14:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interact) @ 20:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 20:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spout) @ 20:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 18:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete the sources do not cover the subject in detail fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 9 January 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) Natg 19 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Sigma Phi

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

Fails GNG. This entire article on a sorority that claims to have a record-setting 12,500 chapters is sourced to one reference - its website (which is a landing page with a couple stock photos). It is not listed in the definitive Baird's Manual, and a search for RS finds it mentioned only in dozens upon dozens of obituaries (e.g. "Jane Smith was a member of Beta Sigma Phi.") According to the article, just about every famous woman in history was a member of it, from Eleanor Roosevelt, to Rosalyn Carter, and beyond - yet I can't find any RS that this is the case (and certainly not in our own articles on those women). It appears to be some type of for-profit scam like a self-styled order, and not an actual sorority. DOCUMENT★ERROR 09:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 18:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sure, edit away the unsupported list of notable members. But it is in fact significant and pretty darn huge. It seems like a major system of local women's clubs, originally focused on reading, so like book clubs, i guess, and also doing charitable works. For example, this current news article about a local chapter raising $1,800 for a local library. There were huge numbers of women's clubs in the U.S. in the late 1800s and early 1900s. See Women's club (United States) and see List of women's club buildings. Paraphrasing from the latter: there was another network of women's clubs that were promoted by publisher Edward Gardner Lewis to promote sales of "Woman's Magazine", but many more were independent organizations.

The scale of the organization is higher than described in current article which mentions $1 million donations to one cause. I do see lots of hits in Google scholar about medical research sponsored by Beta Sigma Phi Kidney and Renal fund. Besides local philanthropic activities of chapters, the Beta Sigma Phi Foundation is a 501c3 charitable nonprofit that collects receives donations from Beta Sigma Phi members and gives out grants. Per IRS Form 990 report available at Guidestar with free account, the foundation has $8.6 million assets at mid-2013, received >$500,000 total in donations during previous two years, gained >%00,000 in investment earnings, and granted out $460,000. There are also numerous state-level or other Beta Sigma Phi 501c3 nonprofits, besides the national Foundation one.

It's encyclopedic to provide some description of this organization, and assist readers looking it up who see news mention of local clubs' activity, and distinguishing Beta Sigma Phi vs. unrelated Phi Beta Sigma, Beta Sigma Psi, Beta Sigma Rho, Beta Sigma Fraternity and others.

About sources, the 75th Anniversary book listed in the article is a 144-page book about the organization's history. It's not independent of the organization, but would be reliable about a lot of facts. See Google books excerpts.

It has lots and lots of national and chapter-level cookbooks published, presumably as charity fund-raisers, e.g. this one.

I am sure there is plenty of reliable source coverage in local, regional, national newspapers about aspects of the organization or U.S. local chapters, Canada local chapters, and other chapters.

I am sure there is coverage of this in scholarly works about women's clubs and more, e.g. probably in Bowling Alone about decline of American community.

So i vote Keep, anyhow. :) --do ncr am 00:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A state governor says Keep.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gubernatorial proclamations in the U.S. are not an indication of GNG. Governors routinely make hundreds of ceremonial proclamations every year. Many have forms you can fill out and send in with a SASE (usually $4-$7) to get a proclamation for your group. DOCUMENT★ERROR 00:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not a sorority like girls at college sorority, it is a MAJOR national social and service organization for women which has been around for 80 years, akin to Kiwanis or Rotary or Lions etc. Their papers are ARCHIVED at Bowling Green St. University. It's also ARCHIVED at Powell River Historical Society and Archives. AND at the Galt Archives, which counts as a reliable source towards GNG for its scholarly introduction viewable at this link. AND at the Humboldt County Historical Society. Political Graveyard categorizes BETA SIGMA PHI POLITICIANS. HERE is a history of the organization on a web publication of the Hank Greenspun School of Journalism and Media Studies at UNLV. And HERE'S A BOOK, Beta Sigma Phi, 1931-2006. And HERE'S A BOOK, The Beta Sigma Phi scrapbook : fifty years in pictures. Easily passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 9 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katna caste

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

Non notable grouping. Google search returns no hits.[19] Vanjagenije (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. As mentioned in the nomination, this article does not bring up any internet search results (other than the Wikipedia page and the deletion discussion). BenLinus 1214^talk 21:55, 9 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tevita Pangai

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

This athlete has yet to play a match for a fully professional club or to play a senior international representative match. See WP:RLN. Shirt58 (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RLN. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:20, 12 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheenam Katholic

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

No indication of significance. The speedy deletion tag was removed twice by the two different ips possibly of the same user Aryan kumar sangwan without any explaination. Mr RD 14:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:32, 10 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Mathis

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

No references provided. It appears to have been written by the subject and I cannot find any independent coverage (nor any of his books). ツStacey (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books may be under different name: 'Mathis Group' ツStacey (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any significant coverage independent of the subject of this BLP, does not appear to meet GNG or ANYBIO. J04n(talk page) 13:40, 13 January 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 Leakey (disambiguation). And merge from history as desired. Sandstein 11:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaky

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

A dab page with no valid entries, just a partial match and a link to a name page with a similar spelling. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Leakey (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 16:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I doubt that many readers are going to search for "Leakey" at "Leaky", and vice versa. If we keep, we should add Leaky bucket, which is a far better known algorithm. But we can't do that, because per WP:PTM we don't dab partial matches. Hence, delete. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Leakey (disambiguation) per WP:ATD. Potentially WP:USEFUL, spelling error would be easy to make. Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a plausible (and very obvious) redirect to Leak, this page is not eligible for deletion (WP:R). James500 (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Leakey (disambiguation). Intending "Leakey" seems much more likely than "leak".^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – OK, I can see a redirect to Leak or Leakey. Some people may misspell the surname "Leakey". But what are we going to merge? There is a link to Leaky abstraction and a "See also" for Leak. The destination article "Leakey" already has a "See also" for Leak (disambiguation). Are we going to add Leaky abstraction? That really does seem far-fetched, that a user who types "Leakey" would be looking for the theories of a programming guru. It also violates WP:PTM, according to which we don't dab partial matches. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:41, 17 January 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. —Cryptic 19:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Imrose

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

Non-notable actor. No significant coverage. The only reliable source The Daily Star says he was the second runner up of a competition. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 09:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 11:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – TOOSOON. Needs multiple significant roles for NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margin1522 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to meet WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avalathikaaram

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

This does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, however I decided against prod as there may be Tamil sources I'm not seeing. This page appears to have been created for promotional purposes and to have WP:COI, and I've reported creator to sock puppet investigations. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' all 4 editors of this article, excluding one IP and those placing negative tags on the article, blocked for sockpuppetry. Boleyn (talk) 00:20, 4 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – We have no evidence that it passes WP:NBOOK. The references all seem to be about the launch event. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:33, 9 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhikhari Thakur

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

Non-notable. No independent sources cited. Puffery and promotional language. Lots of original research. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 06:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There are multiple sources out there in English, never mind Devanagari. Sure, the article needs clean up but that is no reason to delete it. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entire article is OR, not written to standards, and subject is wholly non-notable on en.wp. On the bright side, all the non-English external links are 404s!--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on what you base your assertion that Thakur is non-notable when he is covered in multiple independent reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So put them in! (Even with refs I'd have a hard time liking the article in its present form. What a mess.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Subject meets WP:GNG, WP:BIO standard for having significant coverage in 'multiple' secondary, independent and reliable sources (Hindi sources, English sources). One requires to use these sources to improve the article, though. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:23, 6 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BIO for sure. Noteswork (talk) 12:49, 10 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admitas

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

According to the original author of the article, the company had 14 employees at that time - and the article really hasn't been updated since. I have a hard time believing that a company that had 14 employees would be notable, and although it is possible that it is much larger now, I'm seeing no sign of that. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They're now apparently up to 25-50 "employee's number [sic]" and a capitalization of $2.48 million.[20] No significant media coverage that I can find, so it fails WP:CORP. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim of encyclopedic relevance, no coverage found, none cited in the article. --Michig (talk) 09:43, 9 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 9 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Newman Lombard Craig

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Does an entry in Burkes make him automatically notable? Gbawden (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he passes WP:Soldier due to the multiple honours, and having them from more than one country should be a plus. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Yeah I would have thought that the multiple honours and being Burkes would be notable enough? I have made contact with the Royal Dublin Fusiliers to see if I can get a few more references that they used for their article. Smirkybec (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think his rank, his decorations and the coverage he has received, taken together, indicate notability. James500 (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, "DSO OBE" (again). Also fond Who's Who entry, which details career, sometime author of Gulfs (novel, 1932); and Twilight in Vienna, served both world wars, prisoner in the second, and "euphemistical diplomatic activity" at other times. Burke's contains Irish landed families, OK as a source (albeit with usual caveats) but not everyone mentioned therein would be considered notable. Le petit fromage (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His British honours most certainly do not qualify him for inclusion per WP:SOLDIER. A DSO and Bar, yes. A CBE, yes. A DSO and an OBE? I don't think so. DSOs and OBEs were ubiquitous among mid-ranking (and even junior) WWI officers. However, the fact he was awarded seven foreign decorations as well probably does take him over the bar. Plus his post-WWI achievements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 20:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M. S. Guhan

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE Makro (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - nominated for several awards at the Filmfare Awards South and per WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Be warned that this editor has been making several bad faith AfDs in response to his own article's AfD. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 18:26, 1 January 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, Michig (talk) 09:20, 9 January 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 consensus that the topic is better suited to be covered in Terrorism in Australia and Islam in Australia respectively. Can be userfied if there is consensus for merging any content there. Sandstein 11:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Militant Islam in Australia

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

This article appears to be a 'resurrected' article that was previously deleted - and the response to the initial prod questioning this was simply reverted, with no attempt to understand that many australian editors would consider article re-creation so soon after the previous article deletion, without any form of discussion, as lacking in adequate understanding of how article re-creation might occur - in a community of editors where adequate discussion might precede any re-commening of a subject. As there has been no discussion, it is hoped an AFD might allow members of the Australian editing community an opportunity to discuss, after the factm rather than what would have been more WP:AGF - discussion before 're-creating' satusuro 08:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If in fact the editor creating both articles claims they are 'different' - there has been inadequate explanation as to why and how, now is the opportunity. satusuro 08:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact a different article. The subject matter (as well as the material) is not the same. "Radical Islam" is essentially fundamentalist Islam (interpretations, an the organisations that promote it), "Militant Islam" includes Islamic militias and other groups involved in violence regardless of their interpretation of Islam (be it conservative or radical). I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt an old favorite topic of User:DavidYork71 and his multitude of socks(note: not implying current article creator is related to this user) Islamic terrorism in Australia by another name, definately a WP:POVFORK of Islam in Australia. Gnangarra 08:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- wasnt aware of the Radical Islam in Australia article discussions, this is more of the same noting that that prior AFD was sent to DRV where this closures was endorsed. Gnan garra 10:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no idea if it was the same person, but we've definitely had this article deleted before under another name, and the same rationale that applied then applies now: this, by the very definition of its topic, takes an opinionated point of view. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article operates on a similar basis to the Radical Islam in Australia article (which was also created by I.am.a.qwerty) and has the same problems which led to its deletion through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical Islam in Australia and the subsequent deletion review. "Militant Islam" isn't a topic which can be satisfactorily defined, and this is surplus to the Islam in Australia and Terrorism in Australia articles from which much of its content has been taken without any discussion of the merits of creating another article on this topic. The definitional problems are illustrated by the article asserting that the plot against PM Bob Hawke was motivated by "militant Islam" despite the reference given stating that the plotters were motivated by his support for Israel, and almost all of the "ISIL-related incidents" section discussing incidents involving Australian nationals who were very much not "in Australia" at the time. Like the Radical Islam in Australia article, this is also not far from a WP:POVFORK. As the article has been created in dubious faith, contains WP:SYNTH and is not on a genuinely viable topic I don't think that it should be retained. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rename or Merge into Islamic terrorism in Australia (currently serving as a redirect); there appear to be plenty of, and accumulating, RS'd incidents to justify an separate specific article beyond the already existent Islamic terrorism and Terrorism in Australia general articles. Needs some minor POV clean-up, but is otherwise well-formatted. Pax 11:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even just on procedural grounds there is enough here, as this is clearly an attempt to replace the Radical Islam article. But also per Nick-D and Drover's Wife. I think perhaps the creator would be well-advised to discuss any future articles of this sort before creating them. Frickeg (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the same rationale for every other time we've deleted an article on this topic. Pure POV pushing, despite protestations to the contrary. Refer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical Islam in Australia, among others. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per Lankiveil above. -- Chuq (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there an Islamist campaign of terrorism in Australia? Even more to the point, has there been a terrorist campaign in Australia at any point contemporaneously which has not been Islamist in nature? If the answers are 'yes' and 'no', then there should be an article on the subject, not a weak redirect to a generic article. Pax 22:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the arguments of ressurection are blantently false as the content I used to create the radical Islam in Oz page was used to create two other pages. The radical Islam in Oz page had material on the Aussie Jihadi posting photos of decapitated heads. That section lead to the creation of the ISIL beheadings page. The section on radical organisations lead to the creation of Islamic orgs in Oz. This article has new content on Islamic militant groups in Australia (Mantiqi 4, etc.) as well as the ISIL in Oz material (recruiting Aussies, threats to Australia etc.). The ISIL material is from the main Islam in Australia page which is quite long and in need of a main article to wrap things up properly. The terrorism in Australia page contains plenty of non-Islamic material and is mostly short paragraphs with links to the main article for each incident. (That page would probably look better as a list instead of an article as all attempts to form it as a single subject have failed thus far...)

It seems to me that this AFD is simply a knee-jerk reaction of editors who believe there shouldn't be a stand alone article on Miltant Islam in Australia and attempt to throw some alphabet WP policies for their reasoning despite the fact that this article fits the general criteria for notability as a stand alone article on WP. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder to the editors who did not follow up with the second round of discussions on the deleted Radical Islam in Australia, the final decision rendered the article's deletion valid was solely due to WP:Fork, not any of the POV arguments some would like to believe. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not true. The close was simply "Overwhelming consensus that AfD close was correct", which was because nobody apart from you disagreed with the close. You are, I assume, not in fact referring to that but to this discussion on the original AfD closer's talk page, in which the closer said that the consensus was that the article was (guess what?) a "POVFORK" (their words) of Islam in Australia. Please do not misrepresent previous discussions. Frickeg (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and Salt. Quite a few primary sources used, giving away the fact that this is a work of WP:SYNTH AlanS^talk 08:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong retain:

1 In the last four months since the previous article-deletion, a number of 'issues' have occurred in Australia. These 'issues' are categorised / obfuscated using a variety of descriptors. However there is one connector linking all of these issues, that being Militant Islam.

2 There is a growing awareness (further raised by the recent events in France) for the need to speak openly in responding and dealing with these issues.

3 One of Wikipedia's foundational principles is WP:NOTCENSORED. Most arguments for the deletion of this article are variations of CENSORSHIP.

4 A section 'Criticisms / Controversy' (now included, but ultimately integrated WP:CSECTION ) is a more enlightened method to handle the differing elements of this subject. BruceSpider (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5 And as precedents Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic terrorism & Militant Islam BruceSpider (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

point 1. sounds like original research created out of synthesis of available material. For this to be a valid article editors need to provide reliable sources that cover the topic and clearly define the terms.

point 2. yes I agree there is a growing awareness in speaking openly about what is occurring, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; WP:FORUM

point 3. yes not censored is a fundamental principle, but that applies to the information we present not how its presented which set out by other policies such as WP:NPOV

the link in point 4 for says all of reasons for this article not being appropriate An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy. and sets out how to address the negative perspective within a balanced article..

There many outlets available which are designed specifically for the publication of original thought and personal perspectives, Wikipedia is a tertiary source what is being put forth here is still at primary source stage it needs go through that then be reported/discussed/opinionated about by secondary sources at which point it will become a valid topic for Wikipedia. Gnan garra 12:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On careful examination, none of those 'rebuttal' points are particularly strong. For instance, the lead-article in the SMH today, These crimes have everything to do with Islam [21] - this being a, "reported/discussed/opinionated [article] by secondary sources at which point it will become a valid topic for Wikipedia". Lots of those articles available. Another alternative is to re-focus this Wiki article as, Controversy regarding Militant Islam in Australia. Plenty of, 'Controversy over . . .' type entries in this Wiki encyclopaedia BruceSpider (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the lead article, by which you mean Paul Sheehan's opinion piece. As for "controversy" articles, these are specifically discouraged (see WP:CSECTION). Frickeg (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and salt This is just a repeat of Radical Islam in Australia with even weaker content and less coherent sourcing. The reasons for deleting that article - viewable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical Islam in Australia - are the same as deleting this one, and then some. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you claim it is a repeat article when in fact it is entirely new material on a different (though similar) subject. Don't judge based on the title. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it exists, but not sure how many radical Muslims there are down under. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it exists, and is notable enough to be mentioned in a number of scholarly and news sources, why would you vote to delete? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge' and redirect to Terrorism in Australia as almost all recent incidents have been overlapping between the two articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to reply to 2nd part of nomination

It is in fact a different article. The subject matter (as well as the material) is not the same. ok, I accept that it might not be the same, but your other comments require responding to..

- - "Radical Islam" is essentially fundamentalist Islam (interpretations, and the organisations that promote it) I am not sure what extent you actually know anything about islam, there are within islam major ruptures between sunni and shia, and also other lesser groups, which in turn could specifically aim at the groups that they are either fighting with or at difference with as being 'radical' - there is no single unitary context into which such a simplistic analysis can be made, even more so in an online encyclopedia. There is no such thing as 'radical islam' or 'fundamentalist islam' - there are interpretations of what particular forms of behaviour within certain groups - there can be radicals in shia and in sunni interpretations. The dumbing down of the media to be able to get simplistic handles on something like radical or fundamentalist - without carefull qualification leaves such a label totally unstuitable for an encyclopedia. If you dont like this - try reading the headers on categories related to terrorism - leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels - and your explanations to date leave you open to being reverted because of your over-use and interpretations that are closer to contentious rather than encyclopediac.

- - "Militant Islam" includes Islamic militias and other groups involved in violence regardless of their interpretation of Islam (be it conservative or radical - I dont particularly want to fill this Afd with further comment questioning your personal interpretations, but I really think you need to think carefully about editing wikipedia if you always think you have the right answer. Otherwise you might get close to WP:SOAPBOX areas.

- - So the important thing about contributing to wikipedia is to understand its a bit more important for an online community created encyclopedia - really there can be a range of things that need careful 'adjustments' rather than WP:POINT scoring. It would be well worth understanding some of the more important issues about Afd - if you dont like the outcome, you can always ask for a review, without either quizzing editors who make comment here. Remember, tread carefully, take care and consider that consensus might not be there for your editing, and requires a certain level of WP:AGF and WP:CIVILity. cheers satusuro 13:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems to have generated plenty of media coverage in the wake of the attacks and is spawning further academic and government discussion. Juno (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, reliably sourced content, and neutrally word it, either in the article Terrorism in Australia or Islam in Australia. Subject falls within the scope of either of those subjects, and verified and neutrally worded content would add WP:BALANCE to either of those articles (which ever the community believes is the most appropriate target).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with merging, the editors of both articles don't want to focus on this topic. They have expressed in the past that the sections on militant Islam wrecks the overall structure of those articles, so it would probably benefit the balance of those pages to keep the current page and minimise references to militant Islam on their pages. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:01, 18 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boon Natural Mineral Water

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

I don't believe this meets WP:NOTABILITY or WP:GNG. This article is written like an advert for the product and the company with no sources to indicate notability Gbawden (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article created by a SPA. I concur that it reads like an advert. A search through gNews, gNewspapers and gBooks turn up no hits leading to reliable sources for this Turkish company, though an advert in the Sidney Morning Herald from 1980 mentions a similarly named Australian water. It's simply not notable. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 20:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (notify) @ 20:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CMoy

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

Does not seem to be a really notable design. Besides some DYI web pages and forums, there isn't much else on this trivial application of an opamp. There are various other proposed designs on tangentsoft's website (ppa etc.), but luckily those don't have Wikipedia pages. I'm not prejudging all DYI designs as non-notable; for example the gainclone is mentioned in some books. But the CMoy does not seem to pass the WP:N standard. December Rush (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 20:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep: As I am building this one a second time and consider it a really well-documented design, I have to say it deserves its right to have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.12.140 (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 18:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Delicious sugar-flavored crack like this is why I come to Wikipedia. (If there's a problem with the article, fix it.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:35, 2 January 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, Michig (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (sing) @ 20:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italcar

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

Small company with limited revenue (between 5 and 13 M EUR) not relevant due to the production of common products. The level of engeneering and design seems to be very limited. Likely product promotional page. НУРшЯGIO^{(beware of the moose)} 20:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. НУРшЯGIO^{(beware of the moose)} 20:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. НУРшЯGIO^{(beware of the moose)} 20:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 18:24, 1 January 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, Michig (talk) 08:09, 9 January 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionist Western

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

The article is ill-defined and unsourced, and the talk page demonstrates that there's no consensus for criteria, but rather that it's a hopeless mess. This term and others like it have indeed been used in discussion of film history, but evidently can be applied in wildly opposing ways. Much of the article consists of a list, which has served as a magnet for clashes of personal taste and opinion. Editors have questioned the page's existence for years. I just happened past it, was dismayed by the article, also, and saw that a deletion was proposed last summer. It was a procedural misfire, so I thought I should submit it. It looks like the article has had more than enough time for consensus and sources to emerge, and they have not.

Quotes from the talk page:

"This is OR, an article that feels like some first year film student's misbegotten post-modern ramblings."

"Not an encyclopedia article. Citing not a single source, this "article" is nothing more than a very opinionated essay. As written, it belongs on someone's personal blog - not in an encyclopedia."

"...I see no grounds for an article here."

Thank you. Ale And Quail (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

? ? Pardon, but who made which statement and in what context? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped to give a quick sample of the tenor of the Talk page, but pardon me if it was too sloppy leaving them unmoored. It might be better to direct you to the talk page than try to reproduce and attribute those discussions more fully here? Certainly the context for some was past versions of the article, with particular sins that have been reduced, but the talk page seemed to me dominated by the recurring theme of editors' objection to the article as a whole, and that was what I hoped to convey. Don't know if it's best to cut these fragments, if that rather failed. Ale And Quail (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... old talk page comments about what to add to the list or remove from it... and made toward earlier versions than what you brought here.

unsigned comment added by Xenomorphs 11:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC) toward this version of 1 year ago: what you brought here was just a tad out of context from his longer comment "Ah, Hyper Realism in Westerns. This is OR, an article that feels like some first year film student's misbegotten post-modern ramblings. Historical accuracy has never been the point of Westerns or War movies or ... basically all of Literature. I wouldn't mind so much if there was any way of proving the idea presented here, but the outside links (two of them) are broken and no one seems to be able to actually find sources. I know Wiki's policy is to keep articles, even really bad ones, assuming that they can be fixed, but there is nothing here other than pointing out that, yes, almost all Westerns are "revisionist" (whatever that means)".
unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.47 21:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC) toward this vandalized version of 2 years ago: "Not an encyclopedia article. Citing not a single source, this "article" is nothing more than a very opinionated essay. As written, it belongs on someone's personal blog - not in an encyclopedia."
User:DanielCD 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC) comment toward this version from 9 years ago "...I see no grounds for an article here."

So pardon me, but I see your chosen examples as representing a much longer history of this article slowly being discussed and improved. As Wikipedia is far from complete, such talk page discussion is exactly what is needed for an admittedly imperfect work-in-progress. There is no hurry that it ever be complete, nor any mandate that everyone'e efforts concentrate on one topic seen as needing more work. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but possibly rename Anti-Western film genre and clean up. There are plenty of reliable sources for the genre.[22][23][24][25] However, a lot of the examples don't really qualify. Also, since it started in the '60s, earlier films probably shouldn't be cited as examples. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup per Clarityfiend. I think such article is not just notable but also necessary. Other examples of sigcov:

Campbell, Neil.“Post-Western Cinema.” A Companion to the Literature and Culture of the American West. Cured by Nicholas S. Witschi. pp. 409-424.
Prats, Armando. “His Master’s Voice(over): Revisionist Ethos and Narrative Dependence from Broken Arrow (1950) to Geronimo: An American Legend (1993).” ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes, and Reviews. 9.3 (1996). pp. 15-29.
Hoffman, Donald. “Whose Home on the Range? Finding Room for Native Americans, African Americans, and Latino Americans in the Revisionists Western.” MELUS 22.2 (1997). pp. 45-59.
Kitses, Jim. “Introduction: Post-Modernism and the Western.” The Western Reader. Cured by Jim Kitses and Gredd Rickman. pp. 15-31.
Mariani, Giorgio. “Reimmaginare il passato. Il mito della frontiera, la violenza e il cinema western 'revisionista' (1982-1993).” Un fascino osceno. Guerra e violenza nella letteratura e nel cinema. Cured by Stefano Rosso. pp. 108-150.

The article is in poor shape, but AFD is not cleanup. Cavarrone 11:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OK, it needs cleaned up. But deleted? Where will this content go? dino (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, everyone, and it seems good that there's consensus. I'm less experienced than you all seem to be, so help me understand, if you like. I'm concerned and curious: is the cleanup that has not happened for years, despite requests, going to become likely now? Will the page be better curated? I'm inferring that you all are relatively confident that when the right process is applied, things will improve. When I try to read up on policies and practices, for these matters and others, I find myself lost in a labyrinth of docs; some people clearly do better and know better. Like you folks, probably. :) If this is beyond the scope of this discussion, ignore me, give a pointer, or whatever. Thanks! Ale And Quail (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ale And Quail: Though it seems you already may have, you may always officially "withdraw" your nomination and await closure. And then you have the option of following deletion policy and tagging it for improvements per the found sources? There is really no hurry that it must be done, and you might even choose to do it yourself. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Michael. It may make no difference, but I don't mean to withdraw the nomination; I was probably just over-polite there. After finding the talk page to show, over quite a long term, a decent consensus that the page was inherently troubled--built on an insufficiently definable term--I thought the same consensus might be found here. I could find the motivation to submit the AfD the right way, but cleanup would need someone who believes in the basic project of the page. Potential sources have been linked, but I'm not concerned about the absence of claims to what "revisionist western" means. Rather the absence of any end or bound to those claims! :) It's hard for me to see from the "keep" point of view, but to try and contribute something--If the majority here wants to keep, how about renaming as Clarityfiend ponders? Would a title that explicitly refers to the 1960s and 1970s help fix the bounds of the page? Only one of several axes of drift, but probably the simplest to nail down. Ale And Quail (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as "revisionist western" is a term used in and by multiple sources, the article will benefit from continued editorial attention and tune-up over time, but not deletion. There is no hurry that it MUST be done immediately. Honest and forthright impatience is not always in the project's best interest. WP:WIP, WP:PRESERVE, WP:IMPROVE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:16, 16 January 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 After School (band). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E-Young

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

Does not appear to have individual notability per WP:MUS. Should be redirected to After School (band). Random86 (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom. Article shows no evidence of individual notability. There are no sources with actual information (one is a dead link). None of the information in the article is sourced. All activities have been as part of After School. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete No independent notability outside of her group.--TerryAlex (talk) 01:43, 3 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 9 January 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. —Cryptic 19:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shehnaz Khan

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

Non notable journalist. Notability for the Happy Birthday video is a class BLP1E single even of no lasting importance. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. Out of interest, what would you deem to be "notable" in terms of Journalism? Despite the Happy Birthday video, which to my understanding allowed the journalist in question to receive job offers, as well as internet fame and publicity - The person in question gained significance and notability after targeting the Urban genre of music and entertainment, for a mainstream publication that is of course, Yahoo. Yahoo Celebrity does not usually target that genre, as proven with a simple search of its website. The journalist has also previously written and conducted high profile interviews for national newspapers (such as the Daily Mirror) and two of the top five most visited news websites in the world, both Yahoo News and The Huffington Post. Please do let me know what can be done to consider this article of a higher importance. Apologies for any mistakes thus far, this is the first time I have submitted a piece for Wikipedia. James2370 00:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous2370 (talk • contribs)

What our notability guidelines require is media coverage in which the article topic is the subject of the coverage. None of our inclusion rules confer any notability freebies on people who are the bylined authors of media coverage — for her to qualify for an article on Wikipedia, she would need to be the subject, not the author, of sufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that she has accomplished something that would get her past WP:CREATIVE. As written, that hasn't been demonstrated here in the slightest — so being able to say "she's written for X, Y and Z publications" has no bearing on her notability. If other people haven't written about her writing for X, Y and Z, then she doesn't get over the bar just because she's the bylined author of media coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also in regards to "non-notable journalist" there are many in the category of British Journalist stubs which also fit into that same description.James2370 00:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I consider neither Yahoo nor the Huffigton Post as reliable for establishing notability, searately or together. Neither has adequatre editorial control. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Web Ranking websites such as Alexa would disagree, see the ranking section of both Yahoo! News and The Huffington Post, the Wikipedia page for Alexa's most popular websites also suggests otherwise. The statement that neither has 'adequate editorial control' is purely opinion and not a fact backed up with evidence or references, both sites are hugely popular news aggregators with many experienced editors working to review work editorially.James2370 15:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous2370 (talk • contribs)

The Huffington Post is actually a problem, but not for the reason DGG suggested — rather, the issue here is that she has not been covered in The Huffington Post (which is what it would take for that publication to be in any way relevant to her notability), but is a contributor to The Huffington Post (which does not confer a notability freebie on a person who hasn't garnered media coverage about that fact). Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 20:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 20:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 2 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we need coverage of the subject, not by the subject. For the record, I think The Huffington Post is a problem for both reasons. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 of unneccessay AFD. Nominator has repeatedly nom'd articles without showing due diligence, and shows a lack of understanding of WP:NRVE's instruction that topic notability is dependent upon existence of sources (easily found) and not upon use or not in an article. Had he looked, he would have found them.[26] Kudos and appreciations to ChrisGualtieri for improving the article even though AFD is not to be used to force improvements. Good job. As topic notability is so obvious, continuing this AFD is an embarrassment, and I am happy to close it. If PAX continues, it may result in an WP:ANI, so I urge he be more careful. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another Gay Movie

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

Fails WP:NF. No RS. Pax 05:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient reviews to pass WP:NF, I think. rotten tomatoes points to a few, a couple of which are apparently outdated links but nonetheless pulled from the respective publications' websites: Boston Globe, Fresno Bee, EURWeb, Entertainment Weekly, Digital Spy, Shadows on the Wall (Boston Globe and Entertainment Weekly are "top critics"). Not listed on Rotten Tomatoes is a review on new York Times, Film Threat, and others that I didn't bother getting to as NF seemed sufficiently satisfied already. @Nom did you search for sources before nominating? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - National attention by many reviews, we do not need anything like Rotten Tomatoes when there is a small gold mine of newspaper articles and other coverage. In a digital age, the links can 404, but Highbeam has allowed me to pull quite a bit of content from this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet again the nominator has failed to explain why the article does not meet the quoted policy. Just linking to a policy is not a deletion rational. Please Раціональне анархіст stop making low quality AfD noms, it is getting disruptive. Chillum 19:39, 9 January 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. Any subsequent redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 11:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aoskar

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kas the Bloody-Handed, the sources provided are not independent of the D&D source and look to be primarily in-universe material. They all refer to TSR (company), which was the game's publisher. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources can be found, otherwise merge to Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete no significant coverage by third party sources, only primary sources of the company that created it. potentially redirect/merge to an article that does have third party coverage, although you generally have to go up 3 or 4 levels of similar primary sourced cruft to find one of them, at which point UNDUE tends to kick in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 18:23, 1 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Faction_(Planescape)#Original_factions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Раціональне анархіст (talk • contribs) 05:39, 9 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TheRedPenOfDoom. Fictional characters need sources discussing real world notability as well as third-party sources (as everything does). This character has not been shown to have either of those things. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:35, 13 January 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 and close of an unnecessary AFD. My reasons: Nominator 1. quotes the "unreliable" IMDB for budgets stats, 2. does not show understanding (yet) that film notability is dependent upon coverage, not upon budget. 3. incorrectly asserts a (sourcable) topic's not being sourced as a reason for deletion, when it is not, 4. repeatedly ignores WP:BEFORE (when he he actually looked he would have found multiple sources to meet WP:NF through WP:GNG), 5. seems to be unaware of WP:NRVE's instruction that topic notability is dependent upon sources being available and not upon their use or not within an article, 6. AFD is not to be used as a bludgeon to force improvements, and 7. WP:ATD tells us that deletion is not the best solution to addressable issues. In closing this, I urge the nominator to seek a mentor. Per WP:Deletion policy, I will be tagging the article for work. And to @Cavarrone: while the nominator might withdraw, blatantly unnecessary AFDs are disruptive to the project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy 83

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

Fails WP:NF; IMDB notes less than $30,000 gross box. A number of awards from non-notable "festivals". No RS. Pax 05:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, let alone WP:BEFORE, have you checked the Rotten Tomatoes link (which is actually the only reference in the article)? While RT is only a review aggregator, in this case it includes/links reviews from Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, Variety, L.A. Weekly, Dallas Morning News, San Francisco Chronicle and more... I think it is enough for a claim of notability, withdrawal suggested. Cavarrone 11:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Vinecki

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

"Youngest person to complete a marathon" is not notability DGG ( talk ) 09:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- She is also part of the first mother-daughter pair to complete seven marathons on seven continents.Maranjosie (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquize) @ 18:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completing marathons, with or without your mother, is not grounds for notability.Jakejr (talk) 07:29, 2 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was fifth in ladies' aerial skiing at last year's Junior Championships. In other sports that's sufficient to meet notability requirement. She has had articles written on her, e.g. a recent article, 2013 article list, 2012 article list, etc. I think she has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. (Disclosure: I did make some edits to the article after I saw this AfD page last week.) Kirin13 (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep – This is an interesting case. I am generally in favor of including people who are among the best in some recognized activity. For example, ice skaters who compete in the World Junior Figure Skating Championships get articles because just to qualify they have to be among the best in the world. So I would tend to say yes because of the 5th place in world freestyle championships. Especially if other skiers got articles because of that. The marathons, no. There are too many limiting factors. She completed a marathon + [youngest] + [with her mother] + [in Antarctica]. That excludes too many other people (almost everybody). If the RS coverage was because of [youngest], that doesn't impress me a lot. Basically my feeling is maybe TOOSOON, but if 5th place in the world championships is enough, then yes. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Setting the course record in the "world's toughest marathon" in the Andes is also impressive. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I considered adding that to the article, but it was just asking for a {{According to whom}} tag. Kirin13 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however as I learned this week, even a figure skater who clearly fails WP:NSKATE and hasn't done anything else, if there is sufficient RS, then s/he meets WP:GNG and gets an article. Regards Kirin13 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Competencies

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

This page seems to cover some of the ideas addressed in Competence (human resources). Most of the article is unsourced (I removed about a dozen "references" to other articles) and I cannot see anything in this article that is worth merging, so I propose that it be deleted. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 18:22, 1 January 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) 04:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Heritage 2014

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

advertising. Non-notable year version of a new pageant. Most sources used are not reliable sources conform WP:RS. All the important parts are unsourced. The Banner talk 20:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 18:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While most of the references are non-RS, there are a few credible news organizations in there (Times of Swaziland, Manila Standard Today)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:55, 2 January 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) 04:24, 9 January 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) 04:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrophobic effect

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

This article is redundant because of the 'Hydrophobic force' section of the 'Entropic force' article and the 'Hydrophobe' article. This article also has several tags for cleanup and since I just edited its excessive grammar errors, the credibility of its writing is questionable anyways. Some sections such as 'The origin of hydrophobic effect' and 'protein purification' could be merged with the 'Hydrophobe' article, which already contains a 'Research and development' section and a 'Potential applications' subsection. Pigi5 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – this is an important subject in its own right since the hydrophobic effect drives cell membrane formation, protein folding, protein-protein interaction, and binding of drugs to their biological targets. Overlap with other articles is perhaps a justification for merger, not deletion. The proposed mergers into 'Research and development' and a 'Potential applications' subsection do not make any sense since the hydrophobic effect already has proven applications (i.e., life as we know it would not be possible without the hydrophobic effect). If anything, hydrophobe should be merged into hydrophobic effect as the number of Google search hits hydrophobic effect (3,550,000 results) far outweighs hydrophobe (476,000 results). Poor writing, grammatical errors, etc. as they can easily be corrected, are not valid reasons for deletion. Boghog (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
STrong keep. Agree with Boghog. Hydrophobic effect is a widely-used term in chemistry and biochemistry as shown by the Google search results above. As for hydrophobic force as mentioned by Pigi5, it has only 24, 500 results. Dirac66 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An obvious keep. This is a very well-known term in biophysics, and in particular protein physics, and is far more notable than the nom's proposed alternative forms. AfD isn't for cleanup and it is not for merging. Also the hydrophobic effect is a scientific phenomenon, whereas the hydrophobic force is a physical model of the phenomenon, so they are neither equivalent nor redundant. It is best to remind oneself of WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD before nomination. --Mark viking (talk) 21:00, 11 January 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Financial astrology

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because the topic itself fringe science in that it lacks prominence in any sort of mainstream publication. There is no indication of any notable adherence to this idea nor is there any consistent description of this process.

If there were to be an article on the topic of Financial Astrology then it would need to be based on multiple reliable sources that give a consistent story. If an article is to exist on this subject it would need to be rewritten to the point that the current article would not be of use.

The existing references in the article are either not reliable sources or do not support the text of the article. My own search for sources revealed a series of contradictory ideas about the subject by sources that range from moderate reliability to not reliable at all.

I think that the lack of serious sources demonstrates the lack of notability of this topic. All sources I can find that describe the topic are either fluff pieces(soft news) or unreliable sources.

If this topic can be substantiated by some sort of scientific and consistent coverage by multiple independent reliable sources I will gladly reverse my position but I have made a good faith effort to find such and have come up lacking. On this basis I propose the deletion of this article. Chillum 03:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator or redirect to astrology. Chillum 19:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep While I still think this is a really stupid topic for an encyclopedia I also see that the burden of inclusion has been met. I wonder what happens if you play the financial markets using a random number generator or tea leaves. Chillum 04:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:fringe & fraud. Pax 09:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a Telegraph piece, but that's not enough to warrant a separate article from astrology. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Personally, I find the whole idea of financial astrology highly questionable. However, some of the best known market analysts use it and publish on it, include Arch Crawford and Harry Weingarten, among others. They are regularly quoted in the financial press and interviewed on mainstream business outlets such as CNBC. Gann analysis uses some of these concepts too, and there are funds that use Gann in their investing, although I cannot personally give you the lists. This is out of my field of expertise, but what is 10000% clear is it would be wrong to delete this article. It has as much validity as efficient markets do or the random walk. None of them are correct. Sposer (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't decide whether this is a valid article, but here's a related source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1428792
I'll leave it to other editors to decide whether this source is a stray outlier and integrating it would be SYNTH. Shii (tock) 17:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems easy to find sources for this such as Financial Astrology or The Evolution of Technical Analysis: Financial Prediction from Babylonian Tablets to Bloomberg Terminals. Andrew D. (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues I brought up is that the sources that do exist do not give a consistent description of the practice. Each source that describes how it works seems to be describing something different. One of the key factors in determining if something is science or fringe science is if there are reproducible experiments to prove it. In order to combine these sources into an article we would have to engage in synthesis which amounts to original research. Chillum 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Different practioners may have had different theories and practises but this is quite normal in many fields. For example, musicians may play a large variety of instruments in a great variety of styles but this doesn't stop us having an article about music. Synthesis would only arise if we went beyond the sources in some way and would be addressed by ordinary editing rather than deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source consists of a whopping two pages in a book from an astrology publisher; the second just has scattered mentions. I don't doubt that astrology is used by some financial analysts. Is that enough for a separate article? Not in my opinion, any more than sports astrology, political astrology (a redirect), etc. Maybe a brief mention in Astrology, but that's about all it's worth. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Even if there was some consistency and notability on Financial Astrology (which there is not, what little info there is, is all fluff, as one would expect from such nonsense), should Wikipedia be a place to promote archaic thought? Any market analyst that uses astrology to make financial determinations should be banned, I can't believe that this might even be a real thing, how ridiculous. Should we also have an article about people who use the current mood of Zeus to predict weather patterns? Give me a break. Apparently more people use this than I thought, which makes me sad, but unfortunately it apparently is notable...sigh. War wizard90 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not delete an article because we do not like it or because it is real or not. We keep this one, and it would be a REALLY BAD DECISION to delete it, because a lot of people use it, a lot of people follow it, and there are many practitioners. It is used in investing, even though I too think it is ridiculous. We do not delete things that are in use, even if it makes no sense to you.Sposer (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as anyone can see, I have now gutted it and added information and sources. This meets the criteria for fringe notability, has had significant coverage from mainstream sources, and is apparently used quite often in the financial market. There's a lot more coverage out there and a lot more to be done but I am sadly busy right this second. I will get on it! And @War wizard90:, we don't have articles on just anything, but we'd be foolish to omit culturally notable phenomena or stories just because they're patently ridiculous. That's not how notability does or should work. We have good guidelines on fringe practices to assist with this. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Panyd has made the article look fine, hardly any reason to vote for delete. VandVictory (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article looks reasonable now. Sourcing could be better but it's clear that this topic exists. Shii (tock) 17:59, 12 January 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 all. KTC (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Ambassador to Bulgaria

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

fails WP:ORG. this is part of a sprawling series of "Albanian Ambassador" articles that simply confirm an embassy exists, it's also not named like "Embassy of" as in standard. Lastly there is no bilateral article to redirect to. also nominating for same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, the article, and all of the others, fail WP:ORG. I've also delsorted this into all of the other countries' pages here, as this is a joint AFD. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we already have Foreign relations of Albania and small parts of these duplicate information already there. None of these "offices" are notable. Some of the individual holders of these posts might be notable but that's a matter for those BLPs. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. (How many countries^squared are there? No, just no.) Pax 09:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, provides no useful info on them, other than stating their existence. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:03, 11 January 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) 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariko Okubo

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

Non-notable actor lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with expansion. Won a Golden Bell Award (major award in Taiwanese entertainment) in 2013. Note that she is currently more active in Taiwan than in Japan, so Chinese sources might reap more for the interested. See also zh:大久保麻梨子 and ja:大久保麻理子 for expansion. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 06:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of sources in Japanese media: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], etc. I even got one in Chinese as I searched Japanese sources: [33]. Passes WP:GNG, but certainly such sources need to be inserted in the article. Michitaro (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep did reddogsix do any research as WP:BEFORE stipulates? All he had to do was look at a translation of Wikpedia's Chinese page to see she won a Golden Bell Award. [34] It takes less than 10 seconds. --Oakshade (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Chinese page has the same issue that English page does, it fails to cite support for the claim. As you know, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for an article. Thanks... reddogsix (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reddogsix, so you didn't follow WP:BEFORE. WP:NOTABILITY only requires the existence of sources. You didn't even have to look at Chinese sources and translate them. It took only 3 seconds to find just an English language verification that she's a Golden Bell Award winner. [35] --Oakshade (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe the statement says something about reliable sources - Wikipedia is not an independent resource. At any rate, thanks for your hard work, please add the reference to the article. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YesAsia is not Wikipedia. Please do due diligence before prodding or nominating an article for deletion in the future. --Oakshade (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry for the confusion, your first example was from Wikipedia. [36]. Please add the valid reference to the article. reddogsix (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you're keeping this AfD going because you want the reference in the article despite WP:AFD stating "f you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."? --Oakshade (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above accurate analysis and links, passes WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. As mentioned above, Chinese WP lists several RS about the subject, and WP:NRVE requires that sources are available, not that they are used in the an article. AfD is not cleanup, and being unsourced or in poor shape is not a reason for deletion. Cavarrone 06:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:BASIC.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sultan Bahu. None of the "keep" !votes seems to be policy based. The meat/sockpuppeting does not help either. Randykitty (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarwari Qadiri

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

No RS supporting claim that this sect is as widespread as claimed. Many of the linked names in the claimed lineage go to generic "Muslim male given name" articles. Article written in a weasel-worded OR style (e.g., "The following people are said to continue..."). Pax 03:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Badly written and overly long, but this religious tradition exists nonetheless [37], with adherents in a number of countries outside Pakistan [38] [39]. However, the article should be copyedited and reduced to no more than two paragraphs. kashmiri ^TALK 10:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sultan Bahu - on second thought, this article is only relevant in the context of Sultan Bahu where a paragraph could be devoted to this tradition. kashmiri ^TALK 12:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Aside from one journal citation in the beginning, the other sources seem tied back to the whole Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd. advertising fiasco here on the site. A single citation isn't enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it to Sultan Bahu, not much because of the content but because of its little relevance. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"No need to delete" because the objection itself is not true and fair

- Given first 8 references have nothing to do with deletion labels - As per policy, Online and Published materials are also sufficiently available to justify the existence of this article - The article is very much verifiable from ground realities and facts 110.93.205.162 (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

INVALID REASON TO MERGE

This article should not be merged with Sultan Bahu:

Both articles are on DISCRETE subjects:Sarwari Qadiri about a Sufi Order and Sultan Bahu is a biography.
The reason of merging is itself IRRELEVANT AND ILLOGICAL.There is no significant overlap of topic i,e. between Sarwari Qadiri and Sultan Bahu. In Islamic Sufism, the Sufi Order and Biography are two separate categories. While the Sufi Order contains the origin, history, progress, saints of the order, etc., biographies of saints exist in large number each limited to one particular saint's life. Even if a saint is the founder of a specific Sufi Order, that still does not qualify for a merge. For example, Qadiriyya is one article totally separate from Abdul-Qadir Gilani although this saint was the founder of this Order. So the reason to merge is totally INVALID.
Also no duplication of content.
The article has significant references and reliable sources attached (Google search is available for keen investigations).

Iilluminate (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Speedy Close: Notable Spiritual Order like Qadiriyya, Chishti Order and Naqshbandi and foundation of this Spiritual Order Was set by famous sufi Saint and sufi Poet Hazrat Sultan Bahu about 340 years ago 182.185.229.16 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Close Admin

7 Days have passed after the AfD and the article has now been added to Old Discussion.
This is what the article says:

"For administrator use only:

This project page was nominated for deletion on 9 January 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

"

I now ask admin to close the discussion as this tag is already present on the article edit section.

Iilluminate (talk) 19:52, 14 January 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. In view of the socking problems, I'm disregarding any new user and IP comments, which makes the outcome rather clear. Sandstein 11:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan-ul-Arifeen

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

One-sentence article failing WP:NOTDIC. Pax 02:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambig. This is used locally as a personal name (and, by extension, the name of that person's shrine): [40], [41], [42], [43].

Another option would be delete and redirect to Hamza Makhdum with {{redirect}} hatnote to Sultan Bahu who is also, albeit rarely, titled "Sultan-ul-Arifeen" (this second option risks wrath of User:Mrashid364 and socks). kashmiri ^TALK 10:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin: Please note that this one and several other AFDs on related subjects have been the target of sockpuppetry and several SPAs. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364 for more information. Bjelleklang - talk 18:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* No Redirection Needed. The suggested redirection to Hamza Makhdoom should not be acted upon. Since there is not any authentic declaration of hamza makhoom being awarded the title of Sultan ul Arifeen in given citation 1. Hence due to absence of family lineage and generic info, the provided reference is not valid and seems like a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roship (talk • contribs) 13:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Remove. Remove the fake disclaimer Hamza Makhdoom who has no connection with the title Sultan ul Arifeen, instead of deleting this article.Roship (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. MAYASA Enterprises in the reference 1, citation 1, fails WP:ORG . There is no trace of the said organization which is referring Hamza Makhdoom .Roship (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC) [Account blocked, see WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364.][reply]

Delete. I did not find any marks of MAYASA Enterprises anywhere relating to any religious reference. It fails WP:ORG . And there is not any published or documented proof of Hamza Makhdoom to carry this religious title Sultan ul Arifeen. So Hamza Makhdoom and his related info must be deleted from this religious title. 39.59.51.86 (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you have to come to terms with the fact that your Pakistani organisation does not own this Arabic title and cannot stop folks across the world from using it for other respected people. kashmiri ^TALK 22:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If disambiguation is suggestion, what else we would include in disambiguation? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. The title is used by two communities: (1) by the population of the Kashmir Valley, as a sort of alternate name to denote the local saint Hamza Makhdum and/or his shrine (examples are in the sources); and (2) by some folks in Pakistan, as one of many honorifics of Sultan Bahu, a widely known and influential Sufi mystic, although this particular title of his is neither widely known or used. However, the second community, gathered around a small religious organisation in Lahore, is apparently strong on Wikipedia, has done a number of POV edits (including even deletion of Hamza Makhdum article), and operates a number of socks. So, while a redirection to the more common use (by Google search) Hamza Makhdum would be fair, this would risk constant edit wars with the Pakistani group - and I will not monitor this article indefinitely. That's the reason I proposed turning this into disambiguation. Hope this clarifies. kashmiri ^TALK 12:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting (to Hamza Makhdoom) will work, let us all agree with so that some agreement can be made. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Hamza Makhdoom is absolutely unjustifiable and Non-Rational decision due to the facts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16, This is a title not a name and Sultan Bahu is most strong on this Title and Spiritual Status in the context of Websites and even boobs which are 1 2 3 4 5 6.So not relate it with single Personality, keep this title separate and add more facts in this Article, if you want to redirect it on a single personality then ground reality is most strong in favor of Sultan Bahu even i fails to fine a single written book in favor of Hamza Makhdoom. Deletion or Redirect Tags are wrong and improvement tag is more suitable for this Article, Due to some users do not mixup facts in favor of single personality.182.185.147.141 (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This article has only one sentence, two citations and no proof that the term is noteworthy at all. The fact that it fails WP:GNG also means, by virtue of that, that it fails a whole host of other more specific notability guidelines. It should also not be lost on the closer that those defending the article have already been mentioned on the above SPI as "probably" being socks and the citations here all seem to return to the whole Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd. advertising fiasco. This could almost have been speedied. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple mentions in a few reliable citations, redirecting will work. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Rejection of Deletion and Keep SeparateSultan Bahu was born in Shorekot, Jhang in the current Punjab Province of Pakistan,The shrine of Sultan Bahu, located in Garh Maharaja, Punjab,The national language of Pakistan is Urdu,Here are some book covers on which Title Sultan ul Arifeen سلطان العارفین written in Urdu Language,These books are written by Sultan Bahu in Persian language about 370 years ago and translated in Urdu by different persons 1 2 3 4 5, So how redirecting will work? 202.166.163.146 (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIC is indeed the crux of the issue here. If this was a case of a term which referred to unique position/social role which could be sourced and discussed in an encyclopedic manner, it's status as a stub would not be a problem, but as the article references only an honorific, this is clearly a Wiktionary entry, if anything, not a Wikipedia article. Snow talk 23:04, 16 January 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. Could also be snow, but consensus is clearly showing that this was a very dodgy nomination at best. Non-admin closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Bahu

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

Another Punjab-related article written in an OR manner concerning a subject of dubious notability. Article creator indefinitely blocked. Pax 02:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appropriately described in a few reliable citations.[44]-[45]-[46] Bladesmulti (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Sufi mystic and poet still widely revered over three centuries later. The University of California Press has published a volume of English translations of his poetry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is widely admired sufi poet in the Punjab. He has written number of books available online for reading.[47]-[48]-[49]--Leotassawer (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close, erroneous nomination. The article is well sourced to reliable sources, article has been edited by 180 different editors since its creation in 2005 [50], and its creator is not blocked [51]. kashmiri ^TALK 10:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Deeley

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, butt here are enough assertions of WP:NOTABILITY that I felt uncomfotable with just prodding it. Also seems to be have been created for promotional purposes. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm seeing several RS's that provide direct or semi-direct coverage. (e.g. NYT, Orlando Magazine, CNBC, Triblive) NickCT (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Quick search shows enough coverage. -M.Altenmann >t 18:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no idea how to judge one's position in the world of dog training, but there are definitely more references that could be included here. None of substance, however, appear to be entirely third-party, in the sense that none are from outside of the world of dog training with the exception of this [52] piece from the Orlando newspaper. That is basically a "local human interest" story, and by itself wouldn't imply notability. He is indeed in the hall of fame of "Canine Professionals" organization [53], but he's also a founding member of the organization and on its board. I can't find information on how many members there are, but it looks like anyone can become a member. He has written books and did develop a special collar, but so far I can only find promotional material about those. LaMona (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 1 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbadians in Brazil

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is only one verified statement in the article, otherwise looks like original research. At best this topic should have one or 2 lines in Demographics of Brazil LibStar (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Caribbean Brazilian. Curiously, the interwiki at this article takes us to a Portuguese-language article on Caribbean Brazilians, but then the interwiki at that Portuguese article takes us to Caribbean Brazilian, not Barbadians in Brazil. Anyway, the point is, this article does not justify itself, not with just one source and so little non-obvious, non-structural content. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 16:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 1 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 9 January 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. Unopposed deletion, any redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 11:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moulai Abadullah

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

Unnotable person , no secondary references. Summichum (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC) --redirect to Dawoodi Bohra. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: He is not a Dai of dawoodi bohra but only a "saint" as considered by some dawoodi bohras, SHould be deleted Summichum (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That the subject isn't notable enough to warrant an article is clear. What isn't clear is whether a redirect is warranted or not. Abadullah is a common mispronounciation of the name Abdullah in the Indian subcontinent. It's a personal name which is about as common as Dave or Steve. There is also another, earlier Dawoodi saint commonly referred to as simply Abadullah, the same way (he actually IS notable - see Ahmad al-Wafi (Abadullah)). I don't think even a redirect can be justified here; just delete. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 7 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 9 January 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. —Cryptic 19:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aabdoz: underwater vehicle design

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

Entirely unreferenced article with an odd title. I couldn't find what "aabdoz" is, so redirecting or merging in my opinion isn't the best option. Brandmeister^talk 17:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – "aabdoz" appears to be the Urdu word for "submarine" or "underwater" [54]. The first paragraph was deleted earlier as a copyright violation, and the History section has also been taken straight from the ROV COMMITTEE reference. That leaves only the formulas. I wasn't able to find most of it, but the "Integral Approach" section is copied straight from here -- UnifiedPropulsion7. My guess is that the formulas are copied from a book. It might be a valid article if all of this was rewritten and referenced, but per policy the only choice seems to be delete. (Very similar content has also been added to wikibooks.) – Margin1522 (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 2 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to future recreation for massive copyvio. PianoDan (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't quite tell what this article is about. I have notified User:Sameer264 (one of the major contributors) of this AfD to see if he can explain the article's merits to us. Piboy51 (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical Society Vega - Ljubljana

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

Just one of many local astronomical societies. Is it notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 20:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) @ 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is notable, because of the described notable events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nejc Kincl (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, both in English and Slovenian, per my own searches. This is a WP:Run of the mill high school science club. The "notable events" are pretty much routine for a high school club, and while it's wonderful that the kids are motivated to study science, WP is not the right place for this article. Wish the students good luck, though, and all the best with their science careers! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True there is no English language coverage, why should that matter? "Routine": 3 hour visit by world famous astronaut, building the first radio telescope of it's kind in the country. This is an article about a "society", a club, not a school group, so no need to wish the "students" and the "kids" well.--Nejc Kincl (talk) 21:49, 6 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of secondary references. VandVictory (talk) 22:31, 12 January 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) 08:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-File Shuffle Play

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

No sources. No significant coverage or reliable sources. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable technology. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:40, 9 January 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.