Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 May	1 June >

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 speedily deleted by User:Opabinia regalis per CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robustness Diagram

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

No context, no references, no links to other articles. The first sentence is one of several self-referential definitions. This topic may be notable, but the content of the article is unencyclopedic in tone and would need to be completely re-written. Neither an expert nor a non-expert would be likely to understand the content. Roches (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Context is clear enough to tell that this is a Unified Modeling Language diagram to analyze robustness (computer science) in computer systems. Sources resides mainly with UML tutorial (text)books. You can argue it is not separately significant from the concept of robustness to deserve an article though. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recommendations above: its a problem of someone not writing encyclopedically, not that the topic isn't notable. A quick google books/scholar search shows plenty of fairly significant discussion of the topic on its own. That being said, a well done merge might be useful in the shortterm, until someone takes a real pass at creating a full article, Sadads (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience ^t 23:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 23:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suspect the lack of comments is due to the first part of the bikeshed effect: since none really understands what the article topic is about none wishes to comment. I can safely say that I do not understand, either.

Searching for sources makes it clear this is a real thing (for instance, see this). Now this is probably going to be a "permatagged" (overtechnical article with little chance to ever be brought to a mortal's understanding). Tigraan (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright violation from [2] - FYI Roches —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyright violation; nice catch, Мандичка. Once the copyvio text is deleted, only the title and a bare reference is left. Robustness diagrams seem common enough to be notable. Hence no prejudice to a newly re-created article that is properly written and referenced. --Mark viking (talk) 00:08, 2 June 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. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burgan vs Khaitan Derby

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

Contested prod on the fatuous grounds that the nominator doesnt know what goes on in kuwait. Aside from that utter irrelevance, the Derby has only been played once, clearly a non notable rivalry per WP:NRIVALRY. No indication of significant reliable coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The contested PROD was me. The [edit summary] for the removal of the PROD more or less concedes the complete non-notability of this event: "It's a local small event". It's been played once...TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 June 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 Snow keep. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's law

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day This was made up by a former lawyer for Wikipedia and should not be here per the above policy. Really should be deleted just as this one and this one were deleted. ( Further it fails notability as well ) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, but it is for things made up one day that meet general notability guidelines. In addition to refs cited in article, there's extensive coverage [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - coverage in multiple reliable sources, meets WP:GNG. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the Keep. This user has been vandalizing my talk page and removing my comments, because they are apparently offended that I don't take myself seriously. The only reason this was nominated was because I referenced it in a joke. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that explains it. I'm closing this ridiculous AfD. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While on numbers it is 2 each, the article bears no resemblence to the state it was in when it was nominated, and the nominator has withdrawn their nomination based on this. Davewild (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorant Art (Mixtape)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Not notable, no sources. Even if expanded to it's full potential, I still think it wouldn't be notable enough. Only notable part about the project is one of it's songs, Pu$$y, due to the controversy surrounding its video, but the song already has its own article. Would also support a redirect to Iggy Azalea. Azealia911 _talk 20:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWING NOMINATION PER ADDITION OF CONTENT FROM USERS. Azealia911 _talk 15:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Iggy Azalea as my searches found no significant coverage for this album and it's not even listed at Allmusic. SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Iggy Azalea. There's no significant coverage for the mixtape itself, except for one of its notable songs. TBrandley (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, because of WP:BEFORE, section C2: "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." Further, the mixtape is discussed in two interviews here: [9] and [10]. This is the debut work of a notable artist and whilst the internet is awash with non-notable references to the EP, it would be a shame if Wikipedia were not the one trustworthy site that people could use. Also see [11] and [12].Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considerable time meaning how long? The creator uploaded the artwork, created an infobox, a minuscule lead and abandoned the article with an incomplete article tag. Other than that, there's been one IP editor making one edit, and myself giving the article a cleanup. How long do we wait before considering the article for deletion? If needs be, I'll withdraw and re-nom in a week or two, obviously only if it's still not improved. Azealia911 _talk 10:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix the page myself tomorrow. I have found plenty of info making the page notable. Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the page is updated. I have kept the tags on there for now due to the AfD debate, but hope they can now all be removed.Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, withdrawing my nomination, no idea how to officially do that, so I guess I'll just leave it open and wait for the closing editor to see this, I'll also remove the cleanup tags, and move the article "Ignorant Art (Mixtape)" → "Ignorant Art (mixtape)" thanks for your contribution to the article. Azealia911 _talk 09:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, because TBrandley and SisterTwister have voted redirect, you wouldn't be able to withdraw it and expect it to be closed, though the procedure is to write your notion of withdrawal underneath your nominating comment.--Laun chba ller 12:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, have formally withdrawn at top of the page, hopefully TBrandley and SisterTwister can re-assess the page per these new additions and see if they still feel this way, thanks for the notice. Azealia911 _talk 15:19, 4 June 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) Rcsprinter¹²³ (comment) @ 15:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa local government elections 2015

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

Claims there are 81000 candidates running for 41000 seats which is patently false. Reference doesn't support article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Number 57 - ~~Comment~~ - Actually the reference does say that, but you have to click on this pdf [13]. It looks like it includes the seats for every single village council and district council, so I can see how that number is possible. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has a population of 28 million. I don't want to vote delete because of systemic bias though, considering the extensive numbers of articles on U.S. elections (see New Orleans mayoral election, 1866), but I don't know how the elections work in Pakistan and if this is truly notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Local government elections like this are clearly notable given that an AfD on an article about elections for the lowest tier of local government in England resulted in a near-unanimous keep vote. However, this is more on a par with Scottish local elections, 2012 (i.e. an article dealing with local elections across a second-level subdivision), although arguably more notable given that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has a population more than five times that of Scotland). Ironically, it appears it is the deletion rationale which is "patently false" given the evidence provided by Wikimandia ;) Number 5 7 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as above. There is plentiful coverage as well as any quick search on google news would show. Other sources do have slightly different figures for the candidates and seats - here it says "According to provincial election commission data, as many as 84,420 candidates contested 41,762 seats". Davewild (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per easy fulfillment of WP:GNG - remember WP:BEFORE. There are many sources, including [14][15][16], among many others. Esquivalience ^t 00:04, 7 June 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. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DiscountMugs

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

Fails WP:CORP as the only coverage in reliable sources is mentions in relation to a merger of the parent company. No other sources found. (PROD disputed by BiH who was paid to write it). SmartSE (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. I was able to find press releases (which is not a reliable source per WP:NCORP), but not much else. As mentioned by SmartSE, there were a brief mention or two of some merger, but the NCORP guideline also states that simple merger announcements do not show notability. --Biblioworm 15:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Inc. ranking (4423) is not that significant as with the Ernst & Young award; my searches only found PR here and here. I would be open to drafting to author BiH's userpage for future use. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - typical quality of paid editing for commercial entity. If it ever gains notability, restart from scratch per WP:TNT. — Brianhe (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mireille Liong-A-Kong

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

BLP. non notable individual with no major press coverage. Ireneshih (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is it possible she qualifies as WP:AUTHOR? There are references to her book being very popular and a best-seller.[17], [18]. Maybe someone will find something that confirms this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange, does writing one book qualify as WP:AUTHOR? —Мандичка, are you new on Wikipedia or related to the subject? Page is completely a balant hoax.Ireneshih (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first link I posted referred to the book as being a No. 1 best-seller, which, if confirmed, could meet the third criteria of WP:AUTHOR, if more reviews are found. Note I neither supported delete or keep, but merely left a comment. Ireneshih, your questions asking me if I'm "new on Wikipedia" or related to the subject are so intriguing and plausible that I'm not going to answer them yet; I know there are people researching this as we speak, and I don't want to ruin it by putting a spoiler here. Also, it seems you don't know the definition of hoax, but please don't feel bad, I don't know what the word "balant" means. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She published 3 books and Passes WP:AUTHOR 1) Kroeshaar wat je moet weten en meer: http://www.bol.com/nl/p/kroeshaar/1001004001839596/ Here is a review: http://www.suriname.nu/201cult/boek28.html

2) Going Natural How to Fall in Love with Nappy Hair. Plenty of reviews: http://aalbc.com/reviews/going_natural.htm http://www.natreview.com/2013/11/04/book-review-going-natural/ http://www.babebooks.com/hair/going-natural-how-to-fall-in-love-with-nappy-hair/

3) BAD Hair Uprooted: http://www.amazon.com/BAD-Hair-Uprooted-Celebration-Follicles-ebook/dp/B00M9O157W/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1431869477&sr=1-2 No reviews yet.

Antoher reivew for Going Natural http://www.blackcollegian.com/_DEVELOP/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1234:kam-williams&catid=32:xtra-books-and-literature&Itemid=135 Referenced: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/10173

About the bestseller: http://www.myblackhair.nl/kroeshaar-boek-bestseller-op-amazon/?fb_action_ids=10153047509522713&fb_action_types=og.comments http://www.devsur.com/surinamese-author-nr-1-on-amazon/2015/03/31/

Review of her book: http://futuristicallyancient.com/category/hair/ http://www.curatenyc.org/2013/mireille-liong-entry

She has got very wide coverage, so her article should be kept. - Baaleditor (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Baaleditor- It seems that you have conflict of interest with the page, not even a single reliable source and a clear promotional page. Are you a paid editor or related to the subject? Ireneshih (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more reliable sources: http://www.dwtonline.com/laatste-nieuws/2015/04/02/boek-surinaamse-schrijfster-bestseller-op-amazoncom/ http://www.joop.nl/opinies/detail/artikel/30434_de_blunder_van_keune_een_les_in_etnische_marketing/

Caribbean literature website: http://werkgroepcaraibischeletteren.nl/bad-hair-uprootedslecht-haar-ontworteld/ http://werkgroepcaraibischeletteren.nl/white-privilege/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.101.38 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think she qualifies on WP:AUTHOR - the references are mostly in minor sources, and most are not so much reviews of her book as statements about her position on "black hair" and "going natural." (BTW, the "Amazon Bestseller" statement is that she was #1 in the hair care area of Amazon. Unfortunately, Amazon US does not have such an area that I can find, which makes this hard to verify.) The books published in the US are by "Sabi Wiri Inc" press, which I can't find any information on, other than that "Sabi Wiri which means Know your Hair in Surinamese" and I believe is her own publishing house. [19]. She might qualify on fashion and/or style, but I wouldn't know where to begin to find RS for that, especially since this is a niche area. I note also that she now resides in Brooklyn, NY, so I would expect to find more US sources if she is notable. I looked at the links provided by Baaleditor but wasn't impressed. In the article, #5 is an interview, #6 is not about her, #14 is a blog, #17 is a blog, #10 is 404. Without reliable sources, this needs to be a "delete." LaMona (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with LaMona, the user has created few spam pages. All references are minor and doesn't qualify, claims to be No 1 Amazon seller is completely hoax. Page is a straightforward Salt and burn.Ireneshih (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found additional sources and feel she meets GNG. LaMona, what do you think? [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—Мандичка, these are the kinds of articles that I also found. My problem is that I don't know the fashion world, must less the Dutch/American black hair fashion world, so I am unsure of the importance of these publications. Clearly, this woman has has some impact -- I'm not sure, tho', how much. I'll go with weak keep.... but would really like this to be viewed by someone with a fashion sense. LaMona (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know these "worlds" either but it's not too relevant, I don't think. I just look at their main page and click around to make sure it's an independent publication (ie not a blog or corporate) and search to make sure it's not a press release. Clutch magazine is a real printed magazine, as is the Harlem one (and site says it's been around 20 years). So I feel pretty comfortable with these. (I also don't agree with the assertion that Baaleditor is COI, since I would assume her own press person would have digital clippings available.) —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Brâhmans

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

Reason Ogress _smash! 18:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC) This is not encyclopedic: it's a page conglomerating all the references to people who were connected to Buddhism who were Brahmans. Are we really going to drag casteism into Wikipedia? Such not a notable subject. It's a glorified list covering 2500 years of history and sketchy verification at best, especially if you know anything about the history of caste in India - the word "brahman" is so malleable. Ogress _smash! 18:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be wholesale SYNTH with dubious sourcing. This mixes a Hindu tradition with Buddhism, confuses Bhikshus with Brahmans, has very bizarre sourcing to sources that don't seem to fit the premise of the article, and, indeed, seems to be a random list of Buddhists who happened to be of a particular social class... we may as well have "Buddhist celebrities" and include Richare Gere or something... :-P. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:34, 31 May 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 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; add

also created by "Saint Tapasya", who's already been reported at ANI and SPI as a possible sock of Buddhakahika. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because some of the references are to message boards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G5 once the SPI case is adjudicated. Pervious AFDs for articles in this series include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Atavika Hindu saints and similar articles (with varying titles) have been created dozens of time by the puppet-master. Abecedare (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5, user has been blocked and tagged. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G5 and I have placed the speedy delete template on the page. Safiel (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yasin Demirel

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify and sustain an article. Fails general notability,WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE Jbh ^Talk 18:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with all the reasons above. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Two films and one new for this year but even IMDb doesn't have that much for him and although he has two film festivals there's not much coverage for that; my searches found nothing aside from primary and non-significant links. Even if by chance he had alot of German coverage, it's unlikely as he hasn't had much and you'd even at least find some which I haven't. SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G11) by MelanieN, non admin closure lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth Building

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

Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research (WP:NOT#OR). Conifer (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly OR. Signed at the bottom by the author. Bordwall(^talk⁄_ctrb) 18:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged as speedy delete - it's pure promotion of their project. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as promotional WP:OR. APerson (talk!) 19:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. None of the new editors arguing for keeping provide any real basis for the article meeting the notability guidelines, while the delete arguments convincing show it does not. Davewild (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leviak B. Kelly

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

No evidence found that the author meets any notability guidelines (e.g. WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:AUTHOR) and the article is purely one-sided and POV pushing. His book Religion: The Ultimate STD? is apparently self-published by CreateSpace, and there don't seem to be enough reliable, independent sources to write a neutral article without merely summarizing what Kelly says in his non-notable book, contra to WP:PROMO. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could only find self-published or simple author profile pages. Agree that Kelly doesn't meet the necessary notability guidelines. Bordwall(^talk⁄_ctrb) 18:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any third-party sources. Book is self-published. Note also that the article was created today (May 31) so shall check back after a few days to see if author has added more information. LaMona (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can find four places where he's been quoted, and one interview. (Here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuCC8lTyNjQ, here: http://www.paduiblog.com/pa-dui/ever-met-a-judge-in-america-who-is-against-free-speech-we-have/, here: https://medium.com/@andrianagc/the-reality-of-the-zombie-apocalypse-1bc032ad5bcc, here: http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/03/18/seeking_a_mean.html, and here: http://pvsmokesignal.com/open-letter-to-our-community-from-the-pvhs-human-rights-league/) AlixeTiir (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are what we consider reliable sources. They are user-generated or otherwise self-published. Furthermore, the quotes are trivial coverage, and in two instances (The Advice Goddess Blog and The Smoke Signal a quote appears in the comments section. I don't doubt this person exists, nor that some people have read or even enjoyed his one book, but notability requires thorough coverage from trustworthy, impartial sources, not a namedrop from anyone with a blog, podcast, or YouTube channel. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Bordwall. Snappy (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - several sources are on the page and one is an hour long interview. These sources are third-party sources. Elizabeth Ryri (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nom: This account is newly minted and has made exactly one edit -- this one. LaMona (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I know the quotations may seem like trivial sources, the interview isn't, and I've seen articles on wikipedia before that use interviews on yuotube as citations. Spookyeditorialguy (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nom: The above is the author of the article. They are a new user, and the first five of their seven edits were on this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In certain cases, interviews are cited to support particular facts. However, those interviews are not sufficient to establish notability. Interviews are not considered to be neutral, third-party resources. You may find articles on WP that use interviews, and also that do not have other reliable resources, but that just means that you have found poorly sourced articles; it doesn't make lack of sources to be ok. LaMona (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up to LaMona, interviews can be used to verify elements, but do not count towards Notability because they are Primary sources. There is nothing wrong with interviews, YouTube or otherwise, provided notability has been sufficiently demonstrated from other sources, but in this case notability has not been demonstrated. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the interview: I find it not reassuring that The Pew has exactly one video: the interview. Hardly a reputable, reliable source, i.e. one exercising editorial control and fact-checking per WP:RS. I could interview my cat and post it to YouTube, and maybe get a couple hundred views, but that doesn't make my cat any more deserving of an article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a very long interview plus multiple quotations. I don't see what's not notable. RenardFjord2014 (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nom: This is a new account, and the above was its first edit. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any of the relevant policies or guidelines we're discussing, for example Notability for people or more specific Notability for authors? Please suggest how a single interview from a random you tube account and scattered name-dropping on blogs (or anonymous posts in comments) demonstrates this person has met any criteria for inclusion. If you can find any reliable, impartial sources that neutrally discuss the book or author in any depth, please include them, otherwise this is pure promotion. Note: I find it a little suspicious that User:RenardFjord2014 is the second recently-created account after User:Elizabeth Ryri whose first or only edit was a keep vote in this discussion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG/ There are literally NO independent reliable sources about this person or his book. The references at the article are an interview by "The Pew", which doesn't seem to exist except for that one youtube interview; Createspace, a self-publisher; and Religion the Ultimate STD, the author's or book's own web page. The Keep arguments from the SPAs are unconvincing and not policy based. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 7 June 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. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgette Owens

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

Track and field athlete does not appear to meet notability guidelines in WP:NTRACK. Bordwall(^talk⁄_ctrb) 17:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was just about to PROD it. It seems to be an autobiography too. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 2 June 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 WWE 2K. I will watchlist the redirect page to make sure it doesn't get inappropriately re-expanded to an article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of wrestlers in WWE video games

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

Unsourced advertising, WP:OR The Banner talk 17:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent article. I'm assuming that'd be WWE Video games or something. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:IINFO. Unless "Wrestlers in WWE video games" is commonly discussed as a coherent set among reliable, independent sources, this list is just fan stats and trivia, a list for the sake of listing things. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To my knowledge "Wrestlers in WWE video games" is not a commonly discussed topic among reliable sources.LM2000 (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial nonsense MB1972 (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*STRONG (and I mean strong) Keep/Userfy I worked hard of this article that I edit on a lot (and sorta in charge of because no one else edits it much). It may be just a simple, unsourced list (I can add sources tomorrow), but it means a lot to me. I use it for personal note, and even though it's mostly trivial, it still is valuable to me. Please don't delete it on me. Future WWE Champion, DrewieStewie (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Remember, I do plan on sourcing the article. Please don't delete until I do so (tomorrow after school, i get out at 2:40 P.M. (PST) Future WWE Champion, DrewieStewie (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRUFT. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for improvement. bd2412 T 17:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list seems like one big unsourced violation of WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE 2K I thought even better: redirect the page to the previously stated article. It'll keep the article's history, but redirect it to it's parent page. Future WWE Champion, DrewieStewie (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT --Anar chyte 01:00, 5 June 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. --MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC) ===Robert Fields (American Football)===}[reply]

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify and sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:ANYBIO. There is no one by that name listed at Pro-Football-Reference.com so it seems he has not played in a professional football game. Fails WP:ATHLETE Jbh ^Talk 17:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - does Pro-Football-Reference.com have everybody? I found his signing with the Rams in 1978 [26] and then a mention in 1984 that the Colts waived him [27]. It seems weird to be around that long and for two teams and never to have even played a quarter. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable databases indicate that he did not play in an NFL game. Further, I am not finding significant coverage of the type needed to satisfy WP:GNG. If additional sources are found showing he appeared in an NFL game, or that he received significant press coverage, I am prepared to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable former small college football player who never played a down in a regular season NFL game. I see nothing here to indicate that he satisfies the general notability guidelines as a football player, but if anyone turns up significant coverage of his local broadcast career, I would be willing to reconsider my !vote. (I am somewhat amused by the purported birth weight of his son!) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any references to make this former football player notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:39, 2 June 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. There is a clear consensus not to delete here, but this should not prejudice any discussion on the talk page about a merge, which also has support here. Davewild (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ma malakat aymanukum

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

The article should be removed per WP:NOTADVOCATE. The title is not encyclopedic and is mostly used to justify the violent rapes by extremists. Mhhossein (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though honestly, the violation of WP:OR seems more serious here. The opening line and much of the beginning is cited directly with the Qur'an itself - a telltale sign of original research by editors who believe they've discovered something which they must inform the world of. Beyond that, the citations are actual articles and papers but they're a mish-mash of different things which seem to be placed in order to evoke some sense of notability/legitimacy. In reality, it's a premise being suggested with citations selected to push the point of view. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is of poor quality indeed and it needs to be cleaned for OR and other issues. However, the article should be revised, but not deleted. Ma malakat aymanukum is much discussed in the historical scholarship of various Fiqhs of Islam, as well as in the English literature (1, 2, p. 202 of ISBN 978-0674050594 by Harvard University Press, p. 6 of ISBN 978-0195053265 by Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0674810839, etc). The article topic is thus notable per WP:N. The article does not meet the deletion criterion stated in WP:DEL-REASON. Wikipedia's deletion policy page, at WP:ATD states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." RLoutfy (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RLoutfy: How about the nominator reasoning? Mhhossein (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the article "advocating"? It is understandable that some Muslims are annoyed that this passage of the Quran is used to justify rape, but that doesn't really diminish its notability - quite the contrary. In addition to the sources brought up by RLoutfy, the phrase is mentioned in Brill's "First Encyclopaedia of Islam"[28] up towards a century ago, long before anyone in the West had heard of jihadism, so any insinuation that the interest in the passage is due to some great conspiracy against Muslisms should be disregarded.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article should not be deleted because there is no basis for such an action. Plus Muhammad himself had a slave who was his concubine so this is not some fictional concept. The article should be edited further using academic sources and not frenzied media reports. Mbcap (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbcap: Could you please expalin why there'e no basis fir this action? Plus, how can you regard the that attribution to Muhammad as if it is certainly true? I did not questioned the notability, I believe that the title is not encyclopedic! Mhhossein (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein if you are not questioning the notability of the article then why are you asking why there is no basis for the topic? Muhammad himself had a slave who was his concubine. I suggest you go read Martin Lings book on the life of Muhammad. Mbcap (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a rather significant corpus of material to be found in Google books on the topic of slavery and this phrase. That defines notable. Ogress _smash! 08:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress: Not every material found in Google merits being an article here. Mhhossein (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge to Islamic views on slavery- @Mhhossein and MezzoMezzo: Please try to improve the article instead of deleting. This article refers has many problems but the solution is not deletion.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. Satisfies GNG due to sources in GBooks. As for the nominator's rationale, "unencyclopedic title" is per se not a valid argument for deletion, as, in all cases, pages can be moved or redirected, and content merged. James500 (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think merging is the best suggestion to solve the problems.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Islamic views on slavery. Quis separabit? 20:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG and is extensive enough to merit its own article —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets GNG, The article does need major improvements but notability's there so will have to say keep. –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG and, contra arguments advanced above, just as there are WP articles on The Bible and slavery and Christian views on slavery, so there can be articles on both Islamic views on slavery and this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the article's topic in and of itself is important and deleting it would not be in the spirit of an encyclopedia. Rather, the original proposer of this deletion may want to improve it if he/she can and discuss it. As someone above has said, just because it is allegedly used to excuse "violent rapes by extremists" does not mean it should be deleted, but improved to meet WP:OR and WP:POV. Akhi666 01:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also seems to make sense to merge it with Islamic views on slavery, as this is a sub-topic of that and there is a large overlap (see Wikipedia-Merging). Thank you. Akhi666 01:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: First improve and expand Ma malakat aymanukum, then decide if a merger is appropriate. The Islamic views on slavery article is already long, and WP:SUMMARY guidelines may be constructive. RLoutfy (talk) 11:57, 6 June 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 salted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darshan raval

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

Person with no notability to be found. It appears that Darshan Raval has been salted already by the way. Wgolf (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He was the runner up of India's Raw Star. That is probably the most significant thing he has done so far which is not enough to pass WP:GNG. — Yash! ^(Y) 18:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No clue what that is actually. Wgolf (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India's Raw Star - I overhead the name some time ago since this guy lives a few blocks away from my place. — Yash! ^(Y) 01:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the coverage the subject has received so far. He has composed songs for 2 Gujarati films also. --Skr15081997 (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has also won Gujarati Screen & Stage Awards 2014 for best playback singer male for Bey Yaar. Besides that he has sung 2 songs for Ek Veer Ki Ardaas...Veera & 2 Gujarati language films Romance Complicated and Bey Yaar (both 2014).--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on the coverage the subject has received so far. He has composed songs for 2 Gujarati films also.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe draft - Based on the coverage given by Skr15081997, I think there isn't much coverage past the usual excitement after a competition; the film composing is good but he's barely beginning so I'd give him some more time. A usual News search found results but it fades at page 2. SwisterTwister talk 17:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. May become notable in the future but isn't as of now. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That page says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Yes the subject has received that coverage.--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:14, 2 June 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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 23:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Luthringshausen

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

Bio of unclear notability-the only refs were to el's also. Almost comes across as a advertisement as well. Wgolf (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged as speedy delete - his sister's already was already tagged. He doesn't make any real claim for notability - having a Youtube channel and appearing on other YouTube channels does not come close. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arashi Tsunami

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

Does not meet WP:ENT. Person has no notability in independent reliable sources. Reference to database only shows three credits and no significance in which roles. No JP wiki equivalent article. Search shows more references to a motorcycle helmet than the actor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable enough for it's own article. Also, you could have just prodded it, for future reference. AFD is really for controversial deletions that aren't clear cases such as this one.--十八 20:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Steve Smith under criterion G7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 23:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S.E.N.S.I.B.L.E. Choice

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

One-off lobby group whose notability is limited to a single municipal election in a single small city, and relying entirely on deadlinked primary sources for referencing. While it's not impossible for organizations of primarily "local to a single city" notability to qualify for Wikipedia articles, that takes a lot more than being able to minimally source the fact that they existed — it takes writing an article that's substantive enough and sourced enough to pass WP:ORG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no coverage at all. Esquivalience ^t 15:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator (long, long, ago). Steve Smith (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe do a WP:CSD#G7? Esquivalience ^t 18:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do appear to have been the only significant contributor, so done. Steve Smith (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (chew) @ 15:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveh Boulevard

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

There is no reference for the article and it does not comply with WP:GEOROAD criteria, as it is an urban road, not a state or provincial road. Mahdy Saffar (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This does appear to be one of the main thoroughfares in Isfahan, one of Iran’s primary cities. [29] Not surprisingly it wasn’t hard to find coverage in Persian. [30][31] Streets don’t have to be state or provincial to be notable. Urban roads, like Sepulveda Boulevard for example, are allowed. --Oakshade (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade (I am the creator of the article) Nima Farid (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade - Major roads in & out of areas are generally considered notable . –Davey2010^Talk 19:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 18:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Like Fairytale

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

Article about a television series for which I can find no sources. For some reason, the only content seems to be copied from Project G.e.e.K.e.R.. Possibly a hoax. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I HATE BE BLOCKED — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiCNeons+ (talk • contribs) 13:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I have nommed it for speedy under A10 for duplicating content found elsewhere. If we ignore the copy/pasted infobox, (which we should because it's for another work entirely) it is impossible to tell what the actual subject of the article is, and the article could be deleted under A1 criteria, for lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:HOAX: no coverage at all, no mentions at all. Esquivalience ^t 15:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete added. Creator DiCNeons is a troll and has already been blocked. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above reasons. --TL22 (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-admin closure)--Antigng (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Gell

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

Main notability would come from being a co-founder of War on Want, person not found in article nor in history section of website. WP:BIO not met. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This, from the archive that has some of her papers, a brief bio [32]. She is listed in old medical registers, and as a Japanese POW during WWII. That's all I have found. Early-ish woman medical graduate. Medical missionary in China. POW. It's certainly not a vanity article. User:Loriendrew, What so you tunk? Given Wikipedia:Does deletion help, should we add the material form the archive to the book now on the page and leave it up?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original author is nor blocked due to spam/advert (mass creation of one-line articles). I'm not convinced WP:GNG/WP:BIO is met if you remove the unverifiable notability claim given the sources provided.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've cleaned it up a bit, and War on Want is a hugely significant charity. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The one reliable source we have is a biography related to a deposit of her papers at Sheffield University. That source indicates that she was an associate professor at a Chinese univeristy hospital, not Sheffield University. However the fact that Sheffield thinks it worth accepting a deposit of a box of her papers suggests some notability to me. The connection to War on Want is tagged as dubious, apparently because the brief history of it on the charity's own website does not mention that. It names Victor Gollancz the publisher as its founder or initiator. However, it seems unlikely that he would have had the time to devote to the hard day-to-day work of establishing the charity. I also note that War on Want's website conveniently ignores the fact that (if I remember correctly) at one point the charity went into liquidation, as a result of having anticipated its income through borrowings. Possibly my memory is wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 6 June 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. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exeter Metro

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources for planned metro, seems to be mostly based on some sort of made up project by a user, going by several links to personal website in initial http://kerrystapleton.wix.com/exeter-metro CutOffTies (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to be found. Probably not real. Rcsprinter¹²³ (confide) @ 23:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete and salt - blatant vanity page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Kishore Joshi

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

Fails WP:BIO JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Obvious autobio as well. Wgolf (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shopaholic Abroad

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

Not finding any third-party references about this book; I don't believe it meets WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shopaholic_(novels)#The_Books where it is mentioned as my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant aside from some results at News and a few at highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect works: The book was published by Dell, and it has reviews by very high profile RS. At the same time, it seems to have set no worlds on fire, and the article is an extraordinary gush about the novel. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Shopaholic series is among the best known in chick lit. This book and the first in the series were made into a film. A look at the world cat entry suggests that this book meets WP:NBOOK with reviews in Glamour, Waterstones Books Quarterly, Cosmopolitan, Mirror, and Sunday Mirror. There are also reviews from Publishers Weekly, WWD, and Kirkus Reviews. Many of the reviews can only be found by searching the alternative title Shopaholic Takes Manhattan. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 21:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gobonobo. Easily meets GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There are some reviews on the article and something else to take into consideration (as Gobonobo has stated) is that the Shopaholic film was actually an adaptation of the first two books in the series, which includes this novel. It's enough to where this would pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:58, 4 June 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TG Rayong F.C.

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG. Prod was removed as editor felt this meets WP:NFOOTY; NFOOTY is for articles on individuals footballers. Additionally, the Khor Royal Cup is national in scope, but only for semi-professional/low-level clubs. Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be notable by playing in the national cup competition, see this. Giant Snowman 16:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - club has played in a national competition. Fenix down (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in national competitions. Good find, I couldn't find any evidence when I'd looked previously! Nfitz (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimana Sthalam

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

as per WP:Unreferenced and WP:OR Vin09 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because all my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant aside from some results at Books (but nothing significant or in-depth) and two minor mentions at News. Sources are probably offline and non-English and the article doesn't currently have any more good information so delete is the only option. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a violation of NPOV, in a sense: the "article" is a statement that these are the holiest or most important, and then there is a list. Either that's a hat rack to get 29 new articles made, or it's a list that simply asserts a fact that's already contained in its lede. Arguing for holiest, best, etc., is extraordinary without heavy citation. Therefore, in addition to the nominating rationale, we have the potential NPOV problem (unless there is serious citation, and then we're hit with the "you're saying what you just said" problem). Hithladaeus (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Truth (band)

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

This band seem to have no notability. The only search results for naked truth that talk about the band are links to buy their albums. Snood1205 (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "The band seem to have no notability" - what about the two albums on Sony and the entry in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music that much of this article very (too) closely resembles? --Michig (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I could not find the entry in the encyclopedia of popular music. Could you link that by chance, because it'd be quite useful to improve the article. Snood1205 (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are a couple of snippet views in GBooks ([33], [34]) and the whole entry is reproduced at Allmusic ([35]). --Michig (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now because that encyclopedia of popular music and this Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music are the best links there are and I can't find an article for Kerrang at their website. My searches at News, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing. If they get better coverage in the future, there may be an article there and I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there isn't a good target. It seems I'm the one that tagged it for additional citations in May 2012 and it seems they haven't even received the slightest news coverage since then. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inclusion in the Encyclopedia of Popular Music plus two albums on Sony is plenty to establish notability. Most coverage is likely to be in print sources. --Michig (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the band put out two albums on Sony label it qualifies per WP:BAND —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entry in the encyclopedia of popular music suggests notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:26, 1 June 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. No support for deletion apart from the nominator. Davewild (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stella (software)

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

There is little evidence of notability per WP:PRODUCT. I think WP:NOT#ADVERT is relevant. The only independent source seems to be the article in PC Plus magazine. The general notability guideline requires multiple independent sources that discuss the subject in detail. This does not seem to be the case here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in a position to judge notability. I have the software and I use it, and generated many of the geometric images for wikipedia with it. I helped write the article, but confess it isn't very useful anyway in its current form. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some online references to the correct software, not considering the quality or usefulness in content in adding to the article content. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[36] Mindhacker: 60 Tips, Tricks, and Games to Take Your Mind to the Next Level By Ron Hale-Evans, Marty Hale-Evans
[37] Coordinates of polyhedra were calculated using Great Stella [2]. In this program, there are 17 stellations (the icosahedron is not counted). Our notation, for instance SI06, means the sixth stellation in this sequence.
[38] Great Software for Polyhedrons and Polytopes «Stella» and «Great Stella» These are great polyherons programs that the author intended to be the ultimate one, and it truely is a excellent program. This is probably the most comprehensive software for polyhedrons. Author is by Robert Webb.
[39] Magnus Wenninger, author of the introduction to Polyhedron Models for the Classroom, now uses a program called Stella to design his projects. This program provides a 3D perspective as well as the 2D view needed for construction and assembly.
[40] 10 am – 11 am – Polyhedra Power! – Have you heard of Stella http://www.software3d.com/Stella.php? This is a funky software program which allows you to design, print and assemble your own personal polyhedron. We will be operating Great Stella and a color printer to produce polyhedra only limited by your imagination! Come join us for fun polyhedra creation!
[41] The calculation of intersections of extended polyhedron faces is a tedious process to do by hand, but it can be easily done using interactive computer programs such as Stellation Applet [3] or Great Stella [4].
[42] Stella is the name of a computerized polyhedron creator. Designed by Robert Webb of Australia, the program allows you to create a polyhedron on the screen and print out its net, which you can then cut out and assemble into a real-life 3D model of your original creation. The Stella software contains a built-in polyhedron library that includes all the Platonic solids, or regular polyhedrons, as well as many other shapes.
[43] Cylinder intersections with the program Stella 4D, Dr. Ulrich Mikloweit

Keep – Though the article could be improved, I think it is keepable in its present form. This page points out the connection to regular polytopes and the work of H. S. M. Coxeter. Our article on Great icosahedron uses diagrams generated by this software. It appears there is some overlap between what Mathematica can do and the Stella software regarding polyhedrons. (Here is a great icosahedron as generated by Mathematica).You would think that the more popular math journals would have articles on generation of polyhedra with software, and if they don't cite Stella, they must cite some of its competitors and we would find out which ones they are. Well-known published pictures of star polyhedra, like the one of the cover of Proofs and Refutations, seem to have been made by photographing models built by hand rather than created by software. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. EdJohnston, the primary purpose of Stella software was for computing printing nets for hand-built physical models. Some of the nets are also uploaded to wikipedia, like for the harder to see Johnson solids. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this vote. Yes, polyhedra are notable things. We have articles about them. The star polyhedron on the cover of the 1976 book Proofs and Refutations was not created using this piece of software. Perhaps it was made using the methods described in the 1951 book Mathematical Models by Cundy and Rollett. Anyway, there are lots of sources, both online and in good old-fashioned books, that will allow you to draw nets that can be cut out to make whatever polyhedra you want. Surely not all of these things are also notable just because polyhedra are. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is Robert Webb, author of Stella, so I may be biased, but here are my thoughts. Regarding being an advert, I did not write the page or ask for it to be written. Robert Austin created it and Tom Ruen has also done a lot of work on it. It does not appear to have sensational language, just stating what the software does. I have made small changes now and then when something was out of date or incorrect, but tried not to get involved with the content too much. As to notability, PC Plus is not the only independent source:

The wiki article already includes a reference to a story about it on television, including a video of the story. Why overlook that?
Stella also got a write-up in Edward S. Popko's book "Divided Spheres" on pages 350-355. On Amazon you can preview some pages including 352, 354 and 355 within this range. See [44] and [45]
David Darling's "The Universal Book of Mathematics" also includes photos of polyhedra made using Stella software. From the acknowledgements: "Thanks especially go to ...Robert Webb (www.software3d.com) for numerous photos of his wonderful, homemade polyhedra...". See [46]
Matt Parker's "Things to Make and Do in the Fourth Dimension" includes images from Stella4D and mentions me in the acknowledgements p454: "Most of the renders of 4D shapes were done using the program Stella4D developed by Robert Webb". You can see some pages in the Amazon preview including images from Stella4D, eg p215, 216. See [47]
An image from Stella4D also appears in Giulio Tononi's "Phi" p214 (not in the Amazon preview). See [48]
Article in Melbourne newspaper The Age about me and Stella and the models it can be used to produce. See [49] (alas the images in the article seem to have gone for some reason).
Wikipedia itself uses dozens of images from Stella in various articles about geometry.

I don't know whether simply using images created in Stella adds to wikipedia's concept of notability. If not, then the off-line references would be limited to the PC Plus article, the TV spot, and Popko's book "Divided Spheres" which reviews Stella over 6 pages. The Age article was online, but had a brief mention in the printed paper which you can see here: [50]. Someone should add these references to the wiki article maybe? Tom has already listed a bunch of online references, many of which I didn't even know about, and there are many more. RobertCWebb (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG, even if it's a little spammy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:49, 1 June 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) 07:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen document

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

No evidence of notability given, and a web search fails to find any suitable references. Propose deletion as non-notable neologism. Impsswoon (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send to Wiktionary - there are many references to this phrase, but I can't find anything that supports it having its own article —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Transwiki~~Delete. Would be more suitable for Wiktionary. APerson (talk!) 18:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to "Delete" per the comments Hithladaeus made about the feasibility of putting this on Wiktionary. APerson (talk!) 20:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd prefer sending it to ~~WikiDictionary~~ Wiktionary but it's unlikely it'll happen (I've never used the site in my life so wouldn't have any idea on how to transwiki it over) so it may aswell be deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 07:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't want to say what the Wiktionary folks can and cannot do, but a transwiki would give them "Evergreen" and then as "comb. Everygreen document." In other words, it's not an entry there, or not at a regular dictionary. As for the strength of this usage, I know that I'm a bit of a poor judge on what's obvious, but this is a relatively new combining term (hence the article and "I've heard of it") and yet relatively self-explaining. So. . . certainly no need for an encyclopedia article, and this is a definition, and not jargon or a complex concept. (Shrug.) This may be an evergreen debate, but I'd say delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced WP:DICDEF. If someone wants to add it to Wiktionary, I have no objection. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams (producer)

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

BLP with borderline notability. May be WP:TOOSOON. Serious sourcing issues for a BLP (overuse of primaries, claims) Widefox; talk 10:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched and found nothing and although I haven't found much I suspect he's not notable (also after looking at the depth of his IMDb list). SwisterTwister talk 17:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - four of the six sources are related to the subject and his work, the other two promote his movies which seem to be not that notable themselves. Kraxler (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karen DeSoto

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

Academic who does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Previously speedily deleted as spam as Karen desoto, but I don't think the current version is unambiguously spammy. bonadea contributions talk 10:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. No articles about her. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Easy delete: no notability claims. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 2 June 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 Grupo Vidanta. – czar 14:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo Vidanta Foundation

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

Fails WP:ORG. Zero substantial coverage in RS as far as I can tell. SmartSE (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and mention briefly at Grupo Vidanta as there is no significant and notable coverage and my two searches here and here mostly found press releases and other searches here, here and here but nothing significant. SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compostela Aberta

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

Article is about a very recently established political party for "the municipal elections of May 2015." WP:NONPROFIT guides that "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale" and meets GNG. Being purely an Anglophone, it's hard for me to gauge the Spanish language third-party coverage here but the very narrow geographic and political scope of the organization makes me question its notability. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It happens to have won the election in Santiago de Compostela (see here), which happens to be the capital of Galicia. No need to delete. --Discasto (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep: The party winning an election is notable, and that is why it should have an article.~~ SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think that political parties fall into the category of "non-profits" but please correct me if I'm wrong. Significant coverage in Spanish. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I speak Spanish but I'm not familiar with Galician politics but News found pages and pages of mentions and some through browser. When I saw it was founded this year, I wasn't optimistic but the amount of news results changed my thinking. Maybe someone familiar with this group or Galician politics can help. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 1 June 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination – czar 14:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Maló

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

possibly not notable Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems he invented a technique, All-on-4, and there are articles referring to him as the "world's most famous dentist." This article states his 49 clinics in 19 countries are "currently the world leader in the field of implantology and dental aesthetics." Some coverage and Q&As: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], plus I think he would pass as WP:ACADEMIC based on his Google Scholar numbers. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it appears he has an h-index of 24, which I think passes as WP:ACADEMIC —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

107.5_Switch_Radio

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

Does not pass WP:GNG, there is nothing specifically notable about this radio station. LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 02:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:PERNOM yet? --TL22 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, Wikipedia's baseline criterion for the notability of a radio station is that it has a broadcast license from the appropriate media-regulation authority (the FCC in the United States, the CRTC in Canada, OFCOM in the UK, etc.) — any station which has that is always a valid topic for an article, but that "validity in principle" does not confer an exemption from the article having to be properly written and sourced. This article, however, is resting entirely on primary sources — and is only just barely removed from being speediable as blatant advertising (the lack of advertorial adjectives being about the only thing that keeps it from falling over the line.) And no radio station, even if it is officially eligible for an article, gets to keep that kind of article. Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a better and more properly sourced version in the future. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearcat, what are you talking about? Having a broadcast license is not a qualification in any way. Radio stations must meet regular WP:GNG. See WP:BROADCAST —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suspect you're misunderstanding my point, if you think it's in conflict with yours. I didn't say that sources didn't have to be there — in fact, I specifically said that they do have to be there. If an article is properly sourced, however, then a radio station does not have to claim any special or unique notability above and beyond the fact of having a broadcast license — the broadcast license is all it takes for the radio station to be eligible to have a properly sourced article written about it, but the quality of sourcing that can or cannot be provided is still what determines whether we actually keep or delete any particular version of that article. And this isn't properly sourced in the least, which is why I argued to delete — but if a new, better article can be written which does cite proper sourcing, then it would be eligible to keep that version. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bearcat, I know what you're saying and you're not correct - the broadcast license is totally irrelevant to eligibility and irrelevant to anything relating to a Wikipedia article. Have you never heard of Category:Pirate radio stations? —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're still misunderstanding (and I'm a longstanding member of WP:WPRS, actually one of the original creators of that project and one of the drafters of WP:NMEDIA, so I'm hardly somebody who needs to be educated on the finer points of a guideline I wrote in the first place.) Nothing I said above discounts the possibility of a pirate radio station also being considered notable — but that takes being able to properly source enough notability, above and beyond the mere fact of its existence, to counter the lack of a license with a "got covered enough to satisfy WP:GNG" claim. For a duly licensed radio station, however, the license itself is all the notability it takes to make the radio station eligible for an article — that article can still be deleted as an advertisement if it's written and sourced this badly, but if the article were properly sourced then the license itself would be all the notability that it takes to make the article keepable. That doesn't negate the necessity of sourcing the article properly — an article can still be deleted if it's this bad, but we just can't deem it permanently ineligible to have a better article recreated in the future. And neither does it discount the possibility of a pirate station also clearing the bar for other reasons independent of its licensing status — pirates can still qualify if there's enough sourcing to demonstrate a cultural influence beyond the mere fact of existing, and just don't get an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        "the license itself is all the notability it takes to make the radio station eligible for an article."← This does not make sense so I must not be understanding. The license is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with anything, and it's not a factor in any way, shape or form. It makes no difference toward "eligibility" for an article. If this is any kind of guideline, why is not mentioned in WP:NMEDIA (or anywhere else)? Maybe things have changed since the "old days" because there is no "eligibility" for anything. Any possible thing in the world is "eligible" if it meets GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me try this in different words, then: if an article about a duly licensed radio station is properly sourced (which, again, I said right up front that this isn't), then you cannot take it to AFD on the grounds that it would have to pass any higher notability bar beyond the fact of having a broadcast license — we do not separate licensed radio stations into distinct "notable" and "non-notable" classes on any criterion beyond their licensing status. If it's written and sourced this badly, then yes, it can absolutely be nuked and paved as a WP:NOTADVERT violation, with no prejudice and no permanent injunction against the future recreation of a properly sourced new article. (Pirate stations can still be eligible for articles if you can source a substantive claim of notability independent of their licensing status, but they're not automatically eligible to have an article just because they exist — it takes a higher volume of reliable source coverage to get a pirate into Wikipedia than it does for a licensed radio station, but neither class of radio station gets to rest on no reliable sourcing.) Again, this article is not properly sourced, and is fully deletable in this form — we're in complete agreement on that. But if the article were properly sourced, then the fact of having a broadcast license would be the only notability claim it had to make, and it would not have to demonstrate any special level of notability beyond that fact. But for the moment, I'm not sure why we're even having this discussion — even though we both expressed the same opinion on the keepability or deletability of this article, you're quibbling with something I said about how the article might become salvageable, instead of with the position that we share on the actual article that we're actually looking at? Even though, when you get right down to it, we're actually saying the same thing (i.e. reliable sourcing) about how the article might become keepable too — and so you're really just arguing with the wording I'm using to express the same thing you are? Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I see what you're saying, however, I don't see anywhere that information is listed; ie if someone were to claim that in an AfD, where would they find that vital piece of information? It seems that that might be something that was discussed at some point, but is not in the actual guideline or any essays. As you see, it's not in WP:NMEDIA. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I think what Мандичка was trying to say is that the license does not give notability to an article. I wasn't able to find anything that says otherwise. Having a license does not allow an article to pass WP:GNG, at least from what I have seen. I might be missing something on the finer details of what a license does and does not entitle an article to. I was basing this AFD an the sole grounds that there was nothing specifically notable about it, not as much so the references and writing of the article. LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 03:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        If the article is sourced properly — which this absolutely isn't — then a radio station doesn't have to have anything "special" about it beyond the fact of having a broadcast license. The license doesn't get the station over GNG by itself if proper sourcing isn't present, but I never said that it did. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, lets assume that the article is properly written and with quality secondary sources. I haven't been able to find where a broadcasting license alone would give it notability? Maybe im missing something, but I havent found anything on that. LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 03:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NMEDIA, primary criterion: A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. In other words, as long as proper sourcing is present in the article to give it a WP:GNG pass, no media outlet — no newspaper, no radio station, no television station, etc. — actually has to make any special claim of notability above and beyond "it exists and these reliable sources prove it". See also WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. Bearcat (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't want to start posting links as which is greater than the other but WP:ORG is wikipedia policy. I know that your a lot, lot more experienced on wikipedia than I am, I'm just trying to make sure I understand what your trying to say. On WP:ORG it says that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." and this should be deferred to over any conflict over the WP:NMEDIA or WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 15:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing I said in that comment, or indeed anywhere in this entire discussion, is in any kind of conflict with that passage from WP:ORG — that passage is exactly what I've been saying the whole freaking time: if proper reliable sources are present in the article — though they aren't here, which is why I argued to delete — then the radio station does not need to make any special claim of notability beyond the fact of existing as a licensed radio station, because the sources satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ORG in and of themselves. There's no conflict between what I said and what WP:ORG says, which is why I don't understand how we've gotten so bogged down on this tangent. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Youtube, Twitter, etc. are not reliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator and others above. There aren't enough reliable sources to make a page on this. Page has been tagged for a year and a half and nothing has come forward since then. mikeman67 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 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 of the "keep" !votes are from confirmed sockpuppets. JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CoLocalizer Pro

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

Spammy article about a software package. I've checked six of the papers cited at the end of the Overview section, and they only contain passing mentions of the software ("we used Colocalizer Pro"). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a contributor to this article (mainly about references) I found a note that the article is being considered for deletion. I agree that it contained portions that sounded like advertisement supposedly contributed by others. It is also true that it contained references which only mentioned the use of the software without actually providing any useful information (partially I am to blame).

Therefore, I improved the article. I edited it to remove the content that sounded like advertisement. Ten irrelevant papers were deleted. Deleting this article would be a mistake, because it describes the software which is used by many researchers in the medico-biological field, some of them are my students who actually introduced me to it. References to the remaining sources (Nature Protocols, Current Protocols in Cell Biology) are very reliable and trusted. Importantly, the article itself and the subject it describes (colocalization in fluorescence microscopy have good coverage across Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageJ, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colocalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence_in_the_life_sciences In my opinion, the article is a definite keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow line987 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC) — Yellow line987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I note that many of the references are to papers cowritten by Vadim Zinchuk and/or Olga Grossenbacher, who happen to be the authors of CoLocalizer Pro. To demonstrate notability we need independent coverage of the software itself, not just of results that were obtained with the help of the software. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference of Zinchuk et al was replaced by a more independent one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow line987 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reference that you added is to a source in which the sum total of the content about this article's subject is the sentence, "MOC is implemented in image analysis software packages, such as Colocalizer Pro, Image-Pro, Imaris, and Volocity and can be implemented in ImageJ via the JACoP plugin." This is far from the kind of significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability. Once again, we need independent reliable sources that actually say something significant about this software, rather than mentioning it along with three others in a single sentence. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have looked for independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of this topic and come up blank and, more importantly, Yellow line987, who seems to know something about this field, has also been unable to offer any such sources. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing spammy about it, OK written and probably has a dedicated readership. The problem was that some contributors probably trying to get some publicity for their published papers added them to the reference list. Just deleted references about use without clear indication of functionality applications. Good thing about this article is that described software, unlike many other scientific commercial packages, is available for free evaluation. Added a sentence that software can be evaluated freely. “The software is available for free evaluation”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adodedudid (talk • contribs) 07:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC) — Adodedudid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It seems that I have to repeat myself yet again. To show notability we need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this software. A bare acknowledgement that it exists or was used for a piece of research is not significant coverage. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately I couldn't find anything. Book searches brought a lot of results but no preview for most, so I'm not able to see what is said. If this software has been analyzed in sources like this [56] [57] then I would change my mind —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: GBooks says "no results found for CoLocalizer" for both books. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added independent references. ^[1]^[2] The comment above that “sources that have significant coverage of this topic and come up blank” has no any relation to the article itself. Please be fair.

^ Zinchuk V and Grossenbacher-Zinchuk O (2014) Quantitative colocalization analysis of fluorescence microscopy images. Curr Protoc Cell Biol http://www.currentprotocols.com/WileyCDA/CPUnit/refId-cb0419.html
^ Jensen E. Technical review: Colocalization of antibodies using confocal microscopy Anat. Rec.[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepy-molly (talk • contribs) 05:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Sleepy-molly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The first of those references is to a paper written by the authors of CoLocalizer Pro, and the second mentions it once in a parenthetical aside: "Estimating colocalization requires specialized algorithms (e.g., CoLocalizer Pro software) executed by computer software." Why do you continually argue that sources are independent and have significant coverage of the subject when they obviously do not? I certainly wouldn't consider using software from anyone who had such a poor grasp of simple logic, and most people reading this will assume that you are one of or that you represent the authors of this software, so by arguing in this way you are damaging your reputation and your potential sales. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you removed a {{Failed verification}} template that I placed against a reference that claims that the source shows that this software has been evaluated, but that in fact mentions nothing whatsoever about such evaluation. Such actions will lead to people respecting you even less than they may do already on the basis of your conduct in this discussion. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer. The accounts listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/7yPDx4 are Confirmed. At best, only one of their !votes here should be counted.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @82.9.185.151: your inflamed demands about independent citation sources is either trolling or incompetence (or perhaps even both). If you are trying to judge an article about scientific software, you must know that there is no better way to independently evaluate, as well as endorse, it than to publish data obtained with its help in high impact factor journals. This article cites Nature and Cell, among others, as sources where reports that used Colocalizer pro software were published. This is as high as it can get with scientific publications, top of tops in science. There is no doubts that authors of the papers presented detailed protocols of procedures using this software (which can be checked in presented links and likely say a lot to specialists) and that the independent referees of cited journals thoroughly evaluated the results before publication. If you don’t understand it, you shouldn’t participate in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandraEW (talk • contribs) 08:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — SandraEW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Striking vote by yet another sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the post above has been struck (stricken?) I still think that there is a potentially valid point that needs to be responded to. If it was the case that this software had been widely used by researchers other than its authors to produce peer reviewed papers I would accept that we should have an article about it. The problem is that neither of the independent sources claimed to show such use actually does. Neither the Dunn et al. nor the Jensen paper even says that they used this software, but they simply mention it as an example of software that is available in this area, and the former lists it among several others. The other sources in the article are either by the authors of this software or are used to support general statements about colocalization rather than about CoLocalizer Pro. I am certainly not trolling, but will leave any judgement of my competence to others. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of third-party refs (independent in-depth review articles) to demonstrate notability. Attempts to prove notability via a list of cites to those who use this product, where the ref essentially just states that this product was used, seem like a form of WP:OR akin to google hit-counting (as opposed to an independent review that says that it is widely used or novel/important/popular in its genre--similar to Wikipedia:Notability (software)). DMacks (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Algeria

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

Fails WP:GNG, no sources, no linked contestants The Banner talk 17:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 19:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unsourced fancruft-article. Thomas.W ^talk 22:29, 1 June 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Libcom.org

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

Has been nominated before in 2005 but was kept, however, the reasons are unknown. Still no notability has been established. Majority if not all the sources are from the website itself, it has almost no reliable secondary sources. Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Way, way, way too many primary sources. No evidence of notability. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking as by blocked sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Has a number of secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A number of secondary sources." Are these sources that you have found elsewhere? Because there are only two sources on the article right now that source to any substance of the article and even then the sources seem to just make brief mention of them in passing, not being the subjects of the source themselves. Alexa and the british library do not speak to its notability, just the fact that they exist. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - current sourcing fails WP:GNG. Only minor mentions in a couple secondary sources. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this as delete, but had not spotted one of the opinions was by a blocked sockpuppet so per requests have restored the article and relisted the AFD. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any sources —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing really makes it notable. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Struck !vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and WP:AC/N#OccultZone and sockpuppetry Esquivalience ^t 01:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG lacks reliable secondary sources .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A long-running and massive archive frequently cited in academic literature. Incredibly important to the community it serves. -- haminoon (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks secondary sources. Secondary sources present in article show only passing mentions of the site; the site is not the subject of these sourced articles. Plainly fails WP:GNG. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a long running and vast repository of anarchist history packed with academic material. fi (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being subjectively important isn't a reason to keep a page. There needs to be reliable sources with which to create an article. I'm not seeing that here, and it doesn't appear that any editor has found any. Will reconsider if any are presented. mikeman67 (talk) 15:43, 9 June 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. Consensus is somewhere between merge and delete, but given that there is no content to merge, I am closing this as delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone 6S

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

Lacks Citation Sammanhumagain^t@lk 05:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - lacking citation is not an acceptable reason for deletion - significant coverage already based on Apple screwing up and posting the photos of the new phone on its website: [58], [59], [60] —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge with iPhone 6. Too soon for a separate article for this model. Article content is speculation and conjecture. Fails WP:BALL and WP:TOOSOON. Guffydrawers (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ - Some news mentions make this upcoming iPhone notable. I'm voting weak keep because the article is still WP:CRYSTALBALL in some way. --TL22 (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guffydrawers' comment. Plus too soon for an article like this. --TL22 (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wouldn't be against a merge/redirect to the regular iPhone article, if anyone else thinks that's a good idea. That way it is easy to restore the article when it's closer to release. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is much speculation on this model, but no verifiable evidence of any aspect - specification, release date even the name is not confirmed. Some sources suggest it may be named the iPhone 7 instead of 6S. One of the Forbes refs supplied above calls it the "heavily rumored i6S" and none of the three is more than conjecture. Doubtless there will be a rush to create a WP article when Apple reveal their plans for the next model, but in my view it's too soon now. To quote WP:CRYSTALBALL:

Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.

Guffydrawers (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with iPhone 6 or iPhone per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL and WP:GNG: there is no reliable evidence of the next iPhone being released as the "iPhone 6S", and no reliable source comments on any details of the next iPhone. Esquivalience ^t 23:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, the article consists of a single sentence that has no citations to show it is a confirmed upcoming product. The article, in its current state, would add little value to the iPhone and iPhone 6 articles if merged so my vote is delete. — Jordan Mussi ^Talk 11:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to iPhone6. There are two things here. One is the iPhone6s that had its release date leaked, but the mere existence of this phone (possibly under another name) is presented as a fact by the press. (The release date itself is speculative, sure.) The other is the iPhone6c that is merely rumored due to photos posted on Apple's website (sources 1 and 2 above by Wikimandia).

The latter possibly deserves a mention in iPhone6 under a heading such as "rumors about the iPhone 6c" though I am not sure. However, for the former, the lack of mention on Apple's website does not set off my alarm bells, since saying there is an imminent upgrade is likely to kill current sales; there are multiple sources out there, so I would say it definitely passes. Tigraan (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What content is there to merge? That Apple will release a smartphone with an unconfirmed name and an unconfirmed specification at an unconfirmed release date? regards Guffydrawers (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of content makes it pretty clear that this qualifies for CRYSTAL. Product doesn't exist, and may never exist. Way too premature. mikeman67 (talk) 15:47, 9 June 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. Michig (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antti Lange

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

unclear notability Fgnievinski (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG as academic and unelected politician —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:SCIENCE or WP:MATHEMATICS. No reliable sources to establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. The associated article Fast Kalman filter is also of dubious notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine in the Town

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

Possible hoax. I've been unable to find any mention of this from a third-party reference. The page lists references as follows "References and External links are not included on this page. Instead, they are included on http://www.jasmineinthetown.com/references/ and http://www.jasmineinthetown.com/externallinks/." This domain seems to be non-existent. In any case, if this isn't a hoax, it's clearly WP:TOOSOON. --Non-Dropframe _talk 00:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Everymorning nominated the article for a speedy just as I was placing the AfD tag. --Non-Dropframe _talk 00:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did, I too think this seems to be a hoax. There is no web footprint for it as would be expected if Nickelodeon was planning a show to be released in just a few months. Everymorning talk 00:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhartha Das

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. References include press releases and a book he published. Article reads like a resume. Even if his parents are notable, notability is not inherited. Subject fails general notability, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Jbh ^Talk 00:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I haven't found many good sources aside from one at News from Press Trust of India but when you click the link it says "site under construction" as well as if you search the link at Archive.org. Scholar found several results for a "S. Das" but I'm not sure if that's him. Either way, I'm not seeing much and I'm not familiar with those awards to know if they're notable. SwisterTwister talk 17:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Article is written in a promotional style, like saying "is a Nehru trustee" while meaning "has received a travel scholarship from the Nehru Trust". Most sources in teh article are press release style announcements of his lectures. The only thing that might come close to pass WP:ANYBIO is winning the 2008 International Young Design Entrepreneur of the Year award, but this turns out to be something organized by the British Council jointly with the organizers of a UK design trade fair, and the prize that goes with the award is getting a free ticket to the trade fair and make a speach there. Kraxler (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Zinchuk V and Grossenbacher-Zinchuk O (2014) Quantitative colocalization analysis of fluorescence microscopy images. Curr Protoc Cell Biol http://www.currentprotocols.com/WileyCDA/CPUnit/refId-cb0419.html

[2] Jensen E. Technical review: Colocalization of antibodies using confocal microscopy Anat. Rec.[1]

[1]

[2]