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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 12:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Eve M. Cohen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable director lacking non-trivial support. No in-depth support. References consist of listings or trivial articles. reddogsix ( talk) 22:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as failing WP:CREATIVE. Looking through the contribution history, one finds what appears to be a ring of editors creating film-related articles of questionable notability. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 02:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Can't see which notability criteria she'd pass. NickCT ( talk) 10:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete There seem to be no WP:RS that the subject passes WP:GNG via WP:CREATIVE or any other rule.-- Jersey92 ( talk) 03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was deleted as A7 speedy by Kudpung (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 14:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Faysal Mustafa soomro (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

no sources, non notable org, autobiography Kges1901 ( talk) 22:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• NOTE: The article has been speedy deleted per WP:A7. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk)

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

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

The result was delete. ( WP:SNOW). NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Daniel O'Shaughnessy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

O'Shaughnessy has yet to play a game in a fully professional league. His matches for Klubi 04 and FC Metz II were in the Kakkonen and the Championnat de France amateur respectively. He has yet to play for the full Finland international side either. Beatpoet ( talk) 21:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down ( talk) 10:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 10:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA ( talk) 12:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete – Presently fails WP:NFOOTY and does not seems to meet WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation if/when he plays for Finland national football team or in a WP:FPL, which seems likely, but WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Jkudlick ^t c _s 04:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete & redirect to Mitra Kukar FC.

Mitra Kukar FC U-21 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This is just a youth section of Mitra Kukar FC. It is not separately notable. There are no reliable sources that discuss the youth section. Google News search returns no hits. Vanjagenije ( talk) 21:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep – I think it should be kept as they were the runner-up for the 2012–13 Indonesia Super League U-21. I think it's enough for notability. I will add the sources later. MbahGondrong ( talk) 00:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete – I'm not convinced of the notability of the youth division of a club. There is nothing to indicate this club meets WP:FOOTYN, and of the two sources listed, one is the club's own website. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate to me that WP:GNG has been met. — Jkudlick ^t c _s 04:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - non-notable youth team, worth a sentence in the main club article, but against merge. Fenix down ( talk) 15:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Mitra Kukar FC; not independently notable but possible search term. Giant Snowman 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Fairly clear cut case of a POV content fork Spinning Spark 21:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Content fork of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad containing material that was rejected at that article's own talkpage on multiple policy grounds, including sourcing and neutrality. If it isn't valid content even as part of a parent topic, it's surely invalid to stand alone (this aspect of the topic being independently notable is an even higher threshold). Note: original editor here was multiply blocked for trying to repeatedly insert it into that article. DMacks ( talk) 21:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete or merge to the relevant article if the content meets criteria for inclusion. Inappropriate article topic as a standalone article. Edison ( talk) 23:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as these citations are self-published attack pages. Bladesmulti ( talk) 23:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Bladesmulti. --Peace world 09:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Deletion: All sources can be verified from documents that are written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed himself and our viewable on the official Ahamdi website. Other sources such as those of critics have also been cited. Adjutor101 ( talk) 12:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Or rather *Speedy delete I think the policy was to use "reliable" sources. If we start quoting every itty bitty website which is basically used as hate campaigns then the whole encyclopedia will go to the dogs and non neutral will become an ancient tradition. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 13:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep – The article appears to be well sourced and the subject is notable. Specific concerns should be addressed by editing rather than through deletion. Tanbircdq ( talk) 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete this article is mostly WP:Original Research and uses unreliable, un-academic, and biased partisan sources. Sources such as The Qadiani Problem, Qadianism - A Critical Study, Qadiyaniat: An Analytical Survey etc. donnot meet any Wiki referencing guideline. (The term Qadiani itself is a derogatory slur!)-- Nawabmalhi ( talk) 03:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep There a lot of reliable sources in this article and the subject is very notable. Assimifne ( talk) 15:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)— Assimifne ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

the 1 or 2 reliable sources used contradict or donnot match the article content they seem to be thrown in....the 'subject' has his own page, please read responses above. There is no need for Original Research hate pages-- Nawabmalhi ( talk) 18:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Please check the sources. They are from the Official website of the "ahmedi" religion. References from books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed and his critics have also been provided. Adjutor101 ( talk) 19:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Taking quotes and interpreting yourself with out a secondary source is original research.-- Nawabmalhi ( talk) 21:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Why this article should be deleted? It has a lot of sources. Moreover, user Nawabmalhi and Peaceworld111 voted for deletion just because this "Mirza Gulam" is their leader. Rimidogla ( talk) 21:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC) — Rimidogla ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

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

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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 13:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Dan Dănilă (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Previously deleted via WP:PROD. I have restored it per a request posted at WP:REFUND but feel that it should be nominated for AFD here. The name is common enough to generate several search hits in non-English languages, but I cannot tell if any of them constitute actual significant coverage of this particular person by independent reliable sources. Happy to withdraw nomination if anyone can verify notability. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment the same article exists on five other language Wikis, however they are all entirely unsourced as well (and this just looks like a translation of one of those page). -- kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 22:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 00:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 00:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 00:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 00:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I was the prodder, and I continue supporting deletion. Although the man clearly exists and clearly writes poetry, everything I could find about him in some way falls short: bare poems, passing mentions, book launch announcements in terribly obscure newspapers, likely self-submitted blurbs on the sites of organizations with fairly open enrollment, blurbs written by editors who've published him.
• In other words, there is, as far as I can tell, nothing that is unambiguously a) independent b) in-depth and c) quotable. And because of that, we shouldn't be hosting his biography, no matter how respectable his career has been. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. Other than his odd nationality, he seems to be a run of the mill poet. Editors above have pointed out that he fails WP:42. Bearian ( talk) 01:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per Biruitorul. 03:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ( WP:SNOW). NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Omar Bulukhadze (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable per WP:NFOOTY. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 09:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete – Definitely WP:TOOSOON. Give him a few years to play in a WP:FPL or in a FIFA Tier A Match. — Jkudlick ^t c _s 05:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA ( talk) 12:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Monica Dunford (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Was in a documentary (not as the principal focus of the documentary) and had a blog. Does not meet WP:NACADEMICS, or else her academic credentials establishing notability are not well stated. Bueller 007 ( talk) 20:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Currently fails WP:PROF, and her role in the documentary does not satisfy WP:GNG. -- 120.23.98.8 ( talk) 05:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Article on postdoc with sources that are webpages. Agricola44 ( talk) 18:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - she has a very promising future, see WP:UPANDCOMING), but is not there yet for notability of academics. Bearian ( talk) 01:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Brief appearance in a documentary and being a blogger are not notability, and the citation record has not had time to accumulate impact. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 13:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The Power of God (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable book. The sources are primary sources + one trivial mention in a possibly secondary source. There's a walled garden of articles around Jaerock Lee and his books; he is definitely a notable person (although the article about him needs to lose a lot of promotional text) and one or two of his books might be notable - this one, however, does not appear to meet WP:NBOOKS (and as we know, notability is not inherited from the author to all their books.) bonadea contributions talk 19:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- In contrast with another of his books that claims to have been translated into 56 languages. I have little doubnt that this is merely a collection of sermons on a theme. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete on the same basis as the above editor. SFurthermore, WorldCat shows only 1 library holdings. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as above. Neutrality ^talk 03:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 20:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Chandan Majumder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I tagged the article with BLP PROD, the user removed it. I warned them about it. But now they have put in references from what seems to be a reliable source. The source is for an award in the psychic community. Seems okay on the surface but go any deeper and there are problems. The source in question is from the Psychic Entertainers Association about an award. A quick Ctrl+F reveals that "Chandan Kumar Majumder" isn't mentioned once; nor are variations of the name: "Chandan Majumder", etc. Furthermore, the user included a picture of an unrelated magician in the article. A general search engine test reveals little except social media links. A more specific test for news articles reveals two reliable sources, but only passing mentions; hardly significant coverage. All of this is to say he fails the general notability guideline. More specifically, when we look at WP:BIO: barring an apparent university grant, he hasn't won any awards, and hasn't made enduring contributions to the field of magic and related sorcery areas, or else he would have been more widely covered. He also appears to fail WP:ENTERTAINER: no "cult", no innovation, no significant roles in stage performances that I can see. I am more than willing to be swayed from my opinion that this entry is unworthy of inclusion, but this doesn't seem likely. Thank you, ceradon ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: per nom, I agree that the mentioned sources do not meet WP:GNG, neither is WP:ENTERTAINER met. I could not find aditional sources.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 20:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Obvious autobiography, no sources; the same user is also author of the two (self?-)portraits in the article. Given the number of posts on the Facebook page (0, to save you from looking), this is probably a hoax too - a schoolboy having a bit of fun. Should probably be speedied as G3/G11. The two people named "Chandan Majumder" that this news search turns up are neither of them this person (one is a singer, the other a painter). Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Per nom. - Rahat ( Talk * Contributions) 13:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, per nom and Yes it's an autobiography, check the creator's username: "Mentalist Chandan" . He is providing all the false information about him. He also created an article in Bengali Wikipedia, claiming him the best of the best mentalist, hypnotist and magician in home and abroad. I am a Bangladeshi and i never heard of him. Happiest persoN ( talk) 12:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, per nom. Clear self promotional autobiography. –  nafSadh did say 18:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bearian ( talk) 01:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Elliott Smith (book) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 17:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Appears to meet WP:NBOOK in view of these sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] Note that I have added the last of these sources to the article already. Everymorning talk 20:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Everymorning - It does meet NBOOK [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], So clearly BEFORE wasn't followed, Anyway passes NBOOK. – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Nomination withdrawn my error. Boleyn ( talk) 22:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. KTC ( talk) 21:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Masum Parvez Rubel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable as actor or martial artist. Last AfD was labelled no-consensus due to lack of interest. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Article shows no significant coverage from any independent source and there's no evidence he meets the notability criteria for actors or martial artists. Jakejr ( talk) 18:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 21:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 21:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep- Popular Bangladeshi actor. Although inactive in recent years. He was active in 1990s, so online sources are unavailable for him. - Rahat ( Talk * Contributions) 16:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I have added some references also. - Rahat ( Talk * Contributions) 16:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• weak delete the sources added verify existence, but none are third party significant coverage. (the third party sources are trivial passing mentions and the significant coverage is the website for an organization with which he is closely affiliated.) Even if he did them years ago, in the 15 years that everything has been on the internets, if he was indeed a major player, someone should have mentioned his significance.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep- famous and popular Bangladeshi film actor. He has appeared over 200 films. As he was active in 1990s, so online sources are hard to find. Ibrahim Husain Meraj ( talk) 05:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per WP:NACTOR, had significant roles in multiple notable films. -- Zayeem ^(talk) 10:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Film notability or significance of roles not supported by references. Peter Rehse ( talk) 11:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Definitely doesn't meet any of the martial arts notability criteria. The sources given do not provide the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG and there's no supporting evidence for the claim he's a notable actor. Should references be provided to support a claim of notability I will reconsider my vote. Papaursa ( talk) 03:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep - He is a noted Bangladeshi film actor who was mostly active in 1990s films and he is also a reputed martial artist with several awards. He is also president of three Karate organizations in Bangladesh. The article requires a major edits. Happiest persoN ( talk) 20:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. References are all to either unreliable sources, or barely mention subject of article. Notability is not established under WP:GNG. Under WP:NACTOR, he may have had significant roles in films, but there is no indication in the article nor references that the films are notable. The article provides no information about him as a martial artist.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  01:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not notable as a martial artist and lacks the coverage to meet GNG. There's no support for the claim he's a notable actor. Mdtemp ( talk) 21:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Although there are some sources available, The Legendary Ranger quite correctly observes that they all date from around the time that the bus route was closed. Hence, there does not appear to be any lasting impact. Combined with the fact that the coverage is limited to a local edition of a newspaper, I find that the delete !votes have the stronger arguments. Randykitty ( talk) 19:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Essex bus route H1 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

It is a minor bus route which ceased operating four years ago therefore it is not notable. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 22:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG as this single bus route has surprisingly some of the most in-depth significant coverage I've seen, [11] [12] [13] [14] probably due to its importance for the student population. As for the nom's "ceased operating four years ago therefore it is not notable" statement, once something is notable, it's always notable. The Broadway Limited ceased operating twenty years ago. I dare the nom to AfD that article with the same rationale.-- Oakshade ( talk) 07:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Being an ex route does not matter but it needs more than a few mentions in the local paper to establish notability in the first place. Charles ( talk) 10:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  This is a Bizarro World comment that completely contradicts reality. The primary definition of WP:GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." How is significant coverage in reliable sources about this subject that are independent of this subject not in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources about this subject? The in-dpeth significant coverage this is primarily about his topic is much more than than a "few mentions" and one of the sources, The Guardian, is a national (even international) source, not a "local paper."-- Oakshade ( talk) 17:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  You seem not to understand the difference between the (former Manchester) Guardian and the Epping Forest Guardian. Multiple articles in the same paper are treated as a single source. " Significant coverage" is normally taken to mean wider than local papers. This is not significant in Wikipedia terms. Charles ( talk) 18:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  "'Significant coverage' is normally taken to mean wider than local papers."??? Where did this come from? Certainly not WP:GNG. WP:GNG's full definition of "significant coverage" is:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."

WP:GNG does not and have never disqualified significant coverage because they came from a "local" source. The coverage this topic addresses Essex bus route H1 directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and is the main topic of the source material, despite WP:GNG not requiring the latter. If you'd like to change WP:GNG's definition of "significant coverage" to "mean wider than local papers", you need to take up your preference on WP:GNG's talk page, not invent your own definition in a single AfD. -- Oakshade ( talk) 20:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

That prevailing view comes from a combination of guidelines like WP:AUD and the nutshell of WP:N itself - "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". AUD applies to WP:NCORP, though this is the "product" of a company and "world at large" is ambiguous. That said, while there's no chance that a handful of articles from local papers would meet anyone's definition of the "world at large", the inclusion of "local coverage" clauses in WP:GNG has not gained consensus. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 09:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Even per WP:AUD states "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." The publication doesn't just cover a single municipality, but an entire region and this bus-route had regional importance, hence the very in-depth coverage over a period of a year.-- Oakshade ( talk) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

And that's the problem with the definition of "regional". In Australia, an entire region can be covered by one municipal council, while in others it might be six or seven. The point of those guidelines is that a thing must be notable to a wider audience for a reasonably long period of time. I don't think coverage in a few (even regional) papers for a year is sufficient. But it might be enough for others and I respect that. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 21:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

An English region would encompass a few or several counties. The area here is much less than one county. Charles ( talk) 13:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually this bus route covered multiple cities in multiple parishes - Harlow, North Weald, Epping, Debden, Loughton - in the scope of WPs loosely defined term of "regional." -- Oakshade ( talk) 16:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

None of those are cities. Charles ( talk) 18:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I've lived in London so I am familiar with these places. While a municipality like Harlow with a population of over 80,000 might not be technically called a city, by all practical purposes it is. -- Oakshade ( talk) 19:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete - this doesn't seem to have gained any sort of attention from the world at large. While obviously popular with locals, significant coverage in small-circulation local press is generally not considered enough. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 09:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep - I was leaning towards delete as I can't see anything particularly notable about this now cancelled route - it is certainly verifiable, but that alone does not make it notable. However, I stopped short of arguing for deletion, as regional and metropolitan rail and light rail routes are almost always notable, therefore why not major bus routes? My only concern is with WP:NOTDIR, as there are literally thousands of bus routes in cities all over the world. The article really should be improved to demonstrate why this one was significant, as opposed to say the ACTION No. 56 bus that stops outside my house linking Canberra City with Belconnen via Gungahlin (a catchment area of close to 200,000 which I would not expect to withstand a deletion debate if I was to create an article? Dfadden ( talk) 12:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above - Fails NOTDIR & TRAVELGUIDE, Someone could move it to a Wikia if really wanted. – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

How is an in-depth article about a former bus route and its impact on the region along with very significant coverage about the topic a "directory listing" to warrant a NOTDIR and TRAVELGUIDE argument?-- Oakshade ( talk) 04:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

If I say it fails NOTDIR & TRAVELGUIDE then it does so deal with it. – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

If that's how it's left, then all your !vote is is a straw man argument as the article is not a "directory listing" nor a "travel guide." -- Oakshade ( talk) 04:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note to self: Read the article before making moronic !votes based on ... well polices that don't apply!..... I think I best go sleep before I say something else idiotic! – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The subject seems non notable to keep an encyclopedic article. Maduwanwela ( talk) 11:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Just a guideline? How is it that a topic that has received in-depth reliable coverage "fails GNG"? "Seems" like it fails GNG doesn't count.-- Oakshade ( talk) 21:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete I see no significant persistent coverage for this bus route. The sources mentioned were all written when Regal announced its elimination. ANY public transit line that gets cut, no matter how big or small, WILL get a brief outburst of coverage because its riders will take action to stop it or get it restored (e.g. protests, social media posts, board meetings, etc.) That does not make them notable. In 2010, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) eliminated, rerouted, or shortened dozens of bus lines, all of which received brief coverage in the NY Times and other major news sites due to the high number of people affected. Some have since been restored, leading to more brief outbursts of coverage, but that does not meet we should have articles on every single bus route affected, does it? I wished List of bus routes in Essex was not deleted because that would have been the perfect article to merge some of the contents here to. The Legendary Ranger ( talk) 01:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Jacob Stein (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article written by Lawguru20002, all of whose edits revolve around lawyer Jacob Stein. All of the articles the user edited and created are sourced primarily to, repeatedly credit, and otherwise promote lawyer Jacob Stein (including this bio article). As some of the work mentions use of Stein's material "with his permission," I have to assume WP:COI is a factor here, in addition to the more obvious WP:PROMO.There is a WP:BIO concern as well, but even if notability is established this may be a case for WP:NUKEANDPAVE.

For context, I came across these articles when I was going through edits of a[nother] spam-only account and noticed one site he/she added had been added to many other wiki pages, too. The site was maximumassetprotection.com, also run by Jacob Stein.

Also nominating Qualified personal residence trust and Foreign trust. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

• Comment The article was started in 2007 by Lawguru20002. The initial text was subsequently edited and expanded by various other users (about 100 edits, 1500 -> 9500 bytes). Manzzoku ( talk) 14:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Glad you pointed that out. As it turns out, multiple other accounts added promotional material (updates on where he's adjuncting now, adding minor/non-notable publications, etc.) to this article and added various links to Stein's site to other articles. That's not to say there are no good faith editors -- clearly there are, like Keithbob -- but even if there were more than that, it doesn't change any of the deletion rationale. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Does not meet the notability standard. The article makes big claims, but they are not supported by independent reliable sources. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Jacob Stein. Notability hasn't been established via reliable independent coverage. I found no such coverage. As for Qualified personal residence trust ( [15], [16]) and Foreign trust ( [17]), they do seem to be things that is defined and discussed in several sources, and I would suggest that they be listed separately. -- Michig ( talk) 09:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep I'd be inclined to keep it. He is featured in a Robb Report issue [18]. In a book by Robert Denham, published by CEB (Continuing Education of the Bar) [19] he is mentioned as a source for offshore trusts (article available in the members area of California State Bar), fraudulent transfers and qualified personal residence trust (in the last case by managing to tackle creditor concerns about QRPT). Also editorial advisor of an asset protection book published by James Publishing [20]. These only when searching QRPT related work, probably a more thoroughgoing search would reveal more. I included these sources in the introduction and I deleted the peacock words. Manzzoku ( talk) 12:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - besides the obvious sourcing problems, and lack of any biography in either secondary or independent primary sources (such as a newspaper article with biographical details), he does not pass my standards for notable attorneys. I'd be willing to change my mind if somebody can point out even one reliable source that says he's an "expert" in his specific field. Currently, this violates WP:NOTWEBHOST, but it could be fixed. Bearian ( talk) 01:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Michael J. Brown (linebacker) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article with only one reference which states they have no stats in the NFL. Other references are hard to come by for this person as he has a common name. As it appears he has not played any regular season NFL games and there are no other references this person looks to fail WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG - McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 16:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 16:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 16:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 16:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 16:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, and maybe CSD as a hoax. The user who created the article also changed the 1987 NFL draft article to make pick 204 Michael Brown, not Ron Brown, as per all the refs NFL.com and Pro Football Ref. No reason to doubt those refs. This USC document mentions Ron, not Michael. The-Pope ( talk) 17:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not appear to pass muster for notability by any measure. An enthusiastic editor may want to WP:USERFY and try again after finding sources, or try another wiki.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. Bbb23 ( talk) 06:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Hendurian Flu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Sounds suspiciously like a hoax. Google search brings up only the article itself. -- Jakob ( talk) 16:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. The 'flu does not involve deadly fungus in one's gut. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 18:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete I can't find anything to show that this actually exists. It kind of vaguely reminds me of a few of those diseases that get put in books and movies like the Andromeda Strain (of the film/book of the same name) and Captain Tripps of The Stand, so this was likely a hoax modeled after those fictional diseases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Besides WP:FPL, a quick Google search suggest Oman Professional League is still moving towards fully professional status, but is not there yet. KTC ( talk) 13:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Sulaiman Al-Buraiki (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - it's about an Omani footballer who has played for the national team. GTVM92 ( talk) 19:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

While has been called up, he has not actually played any matches for Oman meaning WP:NSPORT does not apply. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football (he has only been called up to the squad) nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 09:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA ( talk) 12:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

He is a member of Al-Nahda Club of Oman Professional League, Oman's highest football league this meaning he is a professional player and has played for a professional club in the league. GTVM92 ( talk) 19:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oman Professional League is not in WikiProject Football's list of fully professional leagues. Therefore, he could play his entire career in that league and never meet WP:NFOOTY unless the league is verified to be an FPL. — Jkudlick ^t c _s 02:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete – Has not played in a fully professional league or in a FIFA Tier 1 match, therefore fails WP:NFOOTY. Insufficient non- WP:ROUTINE coverage to meet WP:GNG. This is WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ^t c _s 02:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. This is a re-creation of an article that was previously deleted at AfD back in October. Nothing appears to have changed since that point in time. I'm salting both this and the original article location. I'm also blocking the article creator as a possible sock or meatpuppet of User:PeterJohnston12345, who has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and re-adding this very same article to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Coming back on to say that this was also previously deleted under the name Scary House, which was created by various socks of User:Aron&April654321. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Haunted Party(2014 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a notable film. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 15:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I would say A7, as it has no reference except from a homebrew trailer. I highly doubt this is anything more than a class project, or something along those lines. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 16:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete - no claim of significance. Nothing reliable found for citation. Iniciativass ( talk) 16:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I'm more inclined to say this is a Hoax seeing as the Youtube Vid's recorded off a computer screen .... Surely if this was legit we'd all be viewing the actual video/trailer ? .... Meh I'm not sure but anyway no evidence of notability. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no indication of notability. And you know it's not notable when four of the "Cast/producers" have the same last name. -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, Non-notable - and highly dubious. I'm sure this is a recreation of a previously deleted article, and the speedy deletion tag was removed by the article creator.
  Rather than revert to a speedy, if we let it run as an AFD, it can simply be deleted {{Db-g4}} if it ever re-appears. - Arjayay ( talk) 17:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete all. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Democrat Republic Party (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be WP:HOAX, created by now blocked user. No refs, google search on the party name in Albanian or the name of the supposed leader gives no result. Soman ( talk) 14:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages due to same concerns (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Party (Kosovo)): reply

Christian Party of Kosovo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Union of Kosovo Party (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Serbian Union of Kosovo & Metohija (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Peoples Party of Kosovo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Soman ( talk) 14:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. All five of these parties appear to be long-lived hoaxes, with no references for their names or supposed leaders. Even in a foreign language, it's inconceivable that an individual leading a serious political party in Europe would not have multiple independent Google hits. 66.177.64.39 ( talk) 21:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete all per 66, no coverage on Google Books or anywhere except Wikipedia mirrors. Everymorning talk 15:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. At best, they fail the GNG. At worst, hoaxes. I'm leaning towards hoax. bobrayner ( talk) 00:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nomination statement and all comments above. They are all either original research or a blatant hoax. Either way, they're clearly non-notable.-- NextUSprez ( talk) 19:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sufficient consensus after relistings DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Dossier Riolândia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Cross-wiki spam created by Machado Zamenhof, a sock-puppet user (blocked on Wikipedia in Portuguese, see also meta:Special:CentralAuth/Machado_Zamenhof, Category sockpuppets of Victor R12). Deleted from Wikipedia in Simple English and Wikipedia in French. It is only a temporary event. It had only received some coverage in January 2014 because the Dossier had been just finished, but it does not seem that it lasted. Anyway a document from INAPE's website (pg. 10) indicates that it is an amateur organisation: "INAPE (Instituto de Astronomia e Pesquisa Espacial), organização amadora com sede em Araçatuba SP" translation: "INAPE (Institute of Astronomy and Space Research), amateur organisation located in Araçatuba SP". Kimbler ( talk) 13:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Wikipedia:Fringe theories, "To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia." This topic has been cited in a news item in a local newspaper, I would not call that "significant coverage". Lechatjaune ( talk) 10:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Merge with UFO sightings in Brazil. Insufficient material for a standalone article. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Does not appear to be notable, one newspaper article isn't enough to meet GNG, no Google News results, and most Google results are Wikipedia mirrors. Everymorning talk 16:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - non-notable spam per WP:FRINGE. Bearian ( talk) 01:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - not that I think it should be kept, but it's not a sock if they are blocked on another wiki. Otherwise I'd just delete it right now. Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 13:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1970 play) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Obscure play by an obscure playwright. A Google search finds little that would justify its notability, as per Wikipedia standards regarding drama. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 21:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I'd debated suggesting a merge and redirect to the popular culture/adaptations section for Snow White, but the problem is that this section in the page article looks to be reserved for adaptations that are notable enough to warrant an article. This is probably for the best, as I can't even begin to imagine the number of adaptations that have gained a little coverage in RS but overall fail notability guidelines here on Wikipedia. In any case, the most promising sources were this Chicago Tribune article and this State Journal article, but neither are enough to really show notability and I can't really find anything else to show that this is particularly of note. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 10:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Mamiboys (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a band, which as written strikes a heavily promotional tone, and makes no particularly strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. Further, while on the surface the article looks extensively sourced, closer examination reveals that there are major problems with the referencing as well: (1) most of the sources are unreliable blogs or press releases rather than reliable source coverage; (2) sources 5 through 10 have nothing whatsoever to do with the band, but are sourcing facts about a film that they happened to contribute a song to; (3) sources 14 through 39 are refbombing a single fact; (4) sources 40 through 51 are another refbomb, consisting of 11 different reprints of the same article in 11 different unreliable sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a properly written and properly sourced article about the band can be created, but this version is a delete. Bearcat ( talk) 02:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jaw) @ 14:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 14:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comment) @ 14:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Bearcat: Any idea if any of their CDs ever charted? Because if they have, that would be enough to establish notability. Also, they appear to have performed songs for some notable films. In the Anime and manga WikiProject, this is sometimes considered enough to establish notability, but I have no idea if this applies to other kinds of media (and obviously, the stuff they performed for aren't anime). Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment References have been edited accordingly to guidelines. Duplicate reprints have been removed. References are from Notable Press such as Straits Times, The Hindu, Times of India, AsiaOne etc. Only references to movies which talks about the Artist "Mamiboys" have been used as references.

According to WP:NMUSIC, A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

The article meets the following guidelines :

• Article has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries. The Article "Mamiboys" has been a subject of multiple, published works such as South Indian Films (Thottu Paar, Bindaas, Orange). The music soundtrack of the movies has also been chartered as CDs worldwide. The Artist has also released a music album called "Dum Tea" and references has been provided by notable press too stating the release of the album. - Times of India has mentioned that the Artist Mamiboys have collaborated with south indian music producers such as Harris Jayaraj and Srikanth Deva which is a notable reference.

• Artist has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. (IMDB Credits which indicates "Mamiboys" as Music for the movie Roadside Ambanis which won the Best film awards for the Norway International Film Festival).

06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisheno ( talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Still no discussion after almost a month of being at AfD. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 02:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Lagos Countdown (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Questionable notability, written blatantly like an advert ViperSnake151  Talk  00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I did a bit of a search for copyvio and it looks like this same content is in the article for George Noah, so it looks like there will have to be some fairly widespread cleanup. I'll start on Noah's article since he does appear to be notable (at first glance) and if he's pretty much the big cheese with this countdown it can always redirect to a subsection in his article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• I've done some major cleaning to this article (the other one will require far more attention than this one, so doing the small one first) and so far it does appear that the event is notable enough to probably warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• A pity the cleanup has now been reverted, so as it stands it is back to being a blatant advert : Noyster (talk), 12:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

James L. Robo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

fails GNG - references for this promotional/vanity article are all to executive databases DOCUMENT ★ ERROR 09:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete For the CEO of a major company, this person has a surprisingly low public profile. Not finding anything interesting in Google other than short profiles in business periodicals. He once testified before a committee of Congress, asking for renewable energy incentives, but that's just lobbying. John Nagle ( talk) 05:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as sources are just profile listings. Iniciativass ( talk) 16:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

FairCom (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Clearly promotional/vanity article with 90% of sources pointing to company's own website or its press releases. Fails GNG. DOCUMENT ★ ERROR 03:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. VikÞor | Talk 04:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. VikÞor | Talk 04:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dea db eef 06:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Promotional articles can be stubbed; this is not one of those cases. I'm not seeing nearly the level of coverage needed to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Nonnotable subject with no content worth merging or keeping otherwise. Dea db eef 06:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete A straight press release. Good candidate for G11 speedy. That it was created by a spa reinforces that impression. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 13:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Dale Partridge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Piece has strongly promotional tone, despite having cleaned out the large number of inappropriate external links. Additionally, the focus of the supplied sources appears to be Partridge's business Sevenly rather than Partridge himself. Given that, the notability of the article's subject appears, in my eyes, to be distinctly borderline and worth consulting the community about. Dolescum ( talk) 03:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The focus is indeed far more on Sevenly than on Partridge. The sources are about the success story of the store and most of them are about Apple or other companies and based mainly on interviews. A promotional piece masquerding as a bio. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Lack of material and lack of importance. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Johanna Graham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. As an aside, it was created by an WP:SPA and the tome seems promotional. Possibly worth a redirect to 33 Jazz, the label she is with, but does not seem to be notable. Boleyn ( talk) 17:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: Are the awards that she has won notable awards? (I suspect they're not, but not enough to go with a delete.)-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 20:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Раціональне анархіст, This is Cornwall and South West Music Awards are not notable awards. The amount of jazz in SW England is minimal, so to be voted best in jazz for that area says nothing at all, and to get any award at that award ceremony would be non-notable. Boleyn ( talk) 20:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Graham has a few reviews under her belt, passes WP:GNG.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 19:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

So So Gay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article relies almost exclusively on primary sources, mainly the website itself. Does not appear to be a notable publication. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 05:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment – The only source about the magazine itself that I could find was this interview of the first editor from 2011. He described it as "the most popular and fastest-growing online LGBT lifestyle magazine in the UK." 40,000 readers per month. OTOH there were many recent hits about the content of the magazine, especially interviews. So it looks like it is small but widely read among bloggers. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 19:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
• "Most popular" and "fastest-growing" are unverifiable claims, and no number of readers confers an automatic notability freebie on a publication that isn't the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to get past WP:NMEDIA. But with this article relying almost entirely on the magazine's own content about itself for sourcing, that hasn't been demonstrated. No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly, but this version as written and sourced is a delete. Bearcat ( talk) 17:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete: I suspect this webzine is notable, but you wouldn't know it from the existing references.-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 19:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. — Cryptic 22:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Ramsay Corporation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails to meet notability requirements, and a further search yields no citations or references of value. Transmissionelement ( talk) 21:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The awards from Plant Engineering are enough to establish notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The Plant Engineering award is not sufficient, including for reason there is no in-depth coverage. The Plant Engineering link about the company (separate from listing it in an list of companies receiving awards) is merely this short blurb about the firm. Some coverage of the company in independent reliable sources is needed. Note the article (and the firm's own website) could be a bit clearer about what "tests" are provided. They are not medical lab tests. They are not tests of manufacturing plant machines' efficiency. They are not tests of product quality. Apparently the small firm puts together questions for on-line educational-type testing of manufacturing workers, about, well, what I am not sure. Whether a person is well-enough informed to operate a specific piece of equipment? I dunno. -- do ncr am 15:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

In 2007 Ramsay Corporation won the overall "Grand Award", which was for receiving the most votes of any product in any category, and in 2012 it got the Bronze/3rd prize in "Productivity & Training" category. Per the rules, presumably same as rules for the most recent Plant Engineering annual award program, only new products are eligible to be nominated. Ramsay itself had to pay a fee like $495 self-nominate its products and to be put onto ballot, then online invitations to vote were sent to Plant Engineering magazine subscribers by email and also some notice was given online. The winners get good publicity in the announcement of winners. However, that does not seem impressive. Maybe it was only 10 people voting, for all products, and Ramsay got 2 votes. Subscribers might be interested in reading about new products, but why subscribers would be interested in voting is not clear to me, besides subscribers who could vote for a product of their own company. Certainly voters would not be a random sample; voters would not be informed about all products; vote-stacking is conceivable; there is no assertion that any panel of experts has reviewed products and found one to be the besst. Wikipedia does have an article about Plant Engineering magazine but no coverage there of its annual awards; quick searching by me finds no independent coverage about the awards program itself. Some past winners of awards proclaim their winning (e.g. this CooperIndustries webpage describing the awards as "prestigious" and listing their receipt of awards in 3 categories in 2013) but that is not independent. So the award itself seems not wikipedia-notable, and a manufacturer is not wikipedia-notable for having won the award. -- do ncr am 22:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

For software products, the rules are that software can be deemed a new product if there is a "major" upgrade. Apparently the major upgrade for Ramsay Corporation's software in 2012 was that it randomized the items in its multiple choice questions, or it randomized the questions, in online tests. And in 2014, the apparent upgrade is that it offers tests now for "Entry Level Maintenance Workers". Doesn't seem important to me. -- do ncr am 22:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Ramsay Corporation has one of just 3 accepted nominations in the Productivity & Training category in current voting for 2014 Plant Engineering awards, and will surely win Gold, Silver or Bronze. It's likely there were only 3 candidates in 2012 when it won Bronze. It appears to have been the only nomination in an unnamed category, or one of only two in "Training/Education Products" category in 2007, while every other category had 3 or more nominees, so it would not be surprising for it to get more votes than any other product (as votes in all other categories would be split across more options). Also voting for 2014 Plant Engineering awards is now open (until Jan 9, 2015) at this open website. I just voted; anyone can, as many times as they want, presumably entering different names and email addresses. Perhaps PE staff will evaluate my vote and some others as not eligible (and my vote should not be eligible, as i am not a subscriber to the magazine), but perhaps they will not. Anyhow, having won an award in this kind of system does not establish notability for an encyclopedia. I voted "Delete" above. -- do ncr am 22:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete In the circumstances mentioned the award is not significant. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• delete the award doesn't seem like anything notable, and neither does the company Deunanknute ( talk) 06:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Abhilash Kumar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Model who has done a bit of print work, appeared in a couple of TV shows and has a minor role in a TV series. It's WP:TOOSOON and currently it does not live up to WP:NACTOR Sam ^Sing! 18:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam ^Sing! 18:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam ^Sing! 18:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This article appears to be the case of too soon and can be either delete or moved to draft. — CutestPenguin ^Hangout 12:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( NPASR) ( non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 18:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Niko Levy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

As far as I can tell, Niko Levy does not pass our notability requirements for biographies. (But note that there may be some coverage in Hebrew) Pichpich ( talk) 19:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 19:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Female-led relationship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The goal of the article seems to be to discredit feminism, and the article fails both WP:RELIABLE and WP:NPOV. E.g., the page has feminism-related categories and templates. Links to it has been inserted into feminism-related templates. Furthermore, it contains claims such as (without any WP:RELIABLE source of course): "However since the 1960s, second-wave feminism, modern-day goddess movements and female veneration movements have helped bring these types of relationships more out-of-the-closet and into the open, thereby becoming more socially acceptable (or tolerable) in the eye of the general public and formerly oppressive patriarchal authority structures." Cic ( talk) 14:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete and Redirect - At minimum this is a WP:TNT situation. The article makes very large claims about feminism, social trends, relationships, etc. but lacks even one reliable source. Of its four sections, the first, The History of Female-Led Relationships, is entirely OR (citing only Wiktionary); the second, Female Superiority, draws predominantly from, ahem, femalesuperiority.com (NSFW, for those who care); the third section, The Nature of the FLR, only cites a wiki page at aboutflr.com (note the URL again); the last section, The Dynamics of the FLR (continuing an oddly scientific organizational scheme), cites an archived version of a discussion forum at she-makes-the-rules.com and rwddh.com. ...It's also unclear that what encyclopedic potential this has isn't already addressed elsewhere (I'm not sure which is the best redirect target), e.g. matriarchy, gynocentrism, gender role, matrifocal family, Stay-at-home dad, Family economics, Men's liberation movement, and so on. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per above. My sweeps did not find much for the exact phrase Female-led relationship, although there was discussion in Slate magazine about the term. Given the current length of the article, and lack of WP:RS, seems like this is mostly original research. One aspect is disquieting, however -- the substantial daily pageviews numbering 200+/day, doubling since December 1 2014, seen here. What is that all about. It is my experience that articles with huge readership are more likely to be mishandled rather than worthy of deletion, so I am open to rethinking things.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Tomwsulcer: Probably because 75.46.65.137 spammed other articles with links to that article around that time. -- Cic ( talk) 20:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Keep changing based on comments below, plus there are sources in a sweep of books such as here.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 19:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I'm seeing multiple books with this very phrase, verbatim, in the book's titles, themselves. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 23:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Cirt: A lack of sources using the phrase wasn't one of the deletion rationales, but if you could link those books they might help with the rest. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep I think that it is valuable to have an article about a lifestyle that isn't described under some of the redirects that the earlier poster posed, but agree with the need for one that is more balanced or presents different perspectives on what it means, or the motives behind it. It feels like should be a page about a romantic lifestyle chosen by individuals and the different reasons behind it, and practices within that lifestyle choice. I think this is a human sexuality topic, rather than a sociocultural anthropology topic like some of the suggested redirects (eg: matriarchy (referencing female heads of households, but also female lines of descent), or matrifocal (which emphasizes the absence of the father, like single motherhood). I think this is one of those topics where there may not be much in the way of authoritative sources at this time, related mostly to the relative newness of this topic to most people. Looking for books available on Amazon shows 400 results, most of which seem to be written by practitioners, which I think are in this case the best sources available. A quick 3 book selection How To Set Up An FLR: A Couple's Guide to Female Led Relationships, What To Do When Your Man Asks You For A Female Led Relationship, and The Mistress Manual: The Good Girl's Guide to Female Dominance. From the readership numbers (13k in the last 90 days) people are looking for this topic, and I think looking for the relationship/sex/sexuality definition. It seems like this page definitely needs a good overhaul, but I definitely would argue for keeping the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.115.48 ( talk) 03:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep I think there's sufficient for a separate article. The various possibilities have their own nuances, and trying to merge them into more general articles is an impediment to proper adequate opov coverage. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Shawn Oakman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

• Queried speedy delete, has been discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 4 (there, click on "[show]"). Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 14:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are enough sources to pass GNG. He is not run of the mill, as he was a first team All-Big 12 selection and was also named an All-American. He was also regarded as a likely first round NFL Draft pick this year if he had entered. But most importantly the sources are there for GNG-- Yankees10 17:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Yankees10 and WP:GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 07:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep looks like he clearly passes WP:GNG to me.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Not a strong case, but enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, with both sports-related content and the recent social media virality. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 10:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by someone. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 14:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Province of Baghdad (ISIL) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Recreation of a title almost like those rejected here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Related Legacypac ( talk) 13:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedied. Enough of this tendentious crap. Bishonen | talk 14:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was keep. sufficient consensus. I agree that perhaps the article should be moved as suggested, but I'm not making that part of the close DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Biggukatsu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable product. Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources [21]. Vanjagenije ( talk) 13:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the improvements by Margin1522. G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Delete: it doesn't seem to be a product per se, since the article doesn't mention a specific manufacturer. However, it definitely fails GNG, since it isn't covered by any reliable sources. G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep – and move to "Big Katsu". This actually has an article on the Japanese Wikipedia. It's quite a popular kind of snack that has been available for decades from many manufacturers. I cleaned it up a bit and added a picture and a reference. There are five or six other references in the Japanese article, to Japanese books that are available at Amazon. So if someone wants to expand it there are plenty of RS references. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 15:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Margin1522, per the Japanese sources it does seem to be a significantly popular item in Japan. Nom only looked up English language name and didn't look up Japanese name as they should have. [22] No need for systemic bias. -- Oakshade ( talk) 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Government schools in New South Wales: Q-Z. Feel free to retarget the redirect if needed. Stifle ( talk) 10:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Rainbow Street Public School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable public school (WP:MILL), not verified with secondary sources. Dfadden ( talk) 12:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect (no merge) to Department of Education and Communities (New South Wales) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The only secondary coverage I can find is this Sydney Morning Herald article, which doesn't give it a significant claim to notability. G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Department of Education and Communities (New South Wales) per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment I understand WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES refers to school districts, or the "lowest level locality" - the NSW Dept operates over 2,000 schools. I would not disagree with redirection, although I still think a lack of notability warrants deletion. A better target to redirect the page to would List of Government schools in New South Wales: Q-Z. Dfadden ( talk) 20:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that would be a better target. G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect per standard practice as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Policy also recommends redirection rather than deletion. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Department of Education and Communities (New South Wales). ƬheStrike Σagle 09:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Dural, New South Wales. KTC ( talk) 13:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Dural public school (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability (WP:MILL), no sources since creation, and is generally unencyclopedic. Dfadden ( talk) 12:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect (no merge) to Department of Education and Communities (New South Wales) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. A few mentions in secondary sources, but not enough to establish notability. G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Is it really the most appropriate redirect target? I understand WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES refers to school districts, or the "lowest level locality" - the NSW Dept operates over 2,000 schools! There is a link from that page to List of Government schools in New South Wales: A–F which already includes Dural public school so that would be a more appropriate target in my opinion. Dfadden ( talk) 20:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, that would be better. G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect per above per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Dural, New South Wales. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says "the lowest level locality" for outside the US. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 06:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete per speedy deletion criteria G12, unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.tripmondo.com/united-states/california/crystal-cove/attractions-in-crystal-cove/#Belcourt,_California NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Belcourt, California (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Written like an advertisement. Wholly unsourced material. Fails WP:GNG. ceradon ( talk • contribs) 11:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Rachel winter-wijntjes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

no sources for alleged popularity, notability issues Kges1901 ( talk) 11:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete No sources other than personal blogs and social network hits. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 11:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per A7. Seems to meet the criteria with no reliable sources. 331dot ( talk) 11:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per A7. Why is this even here at AfD? -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Sole contributor also created a draft namespace Draft:Rachel Winter-Wijntjes and a userspace draft User:Monkeyanne/Rachel Winter-Wijntjes, all today within hours. From these patterns WP:G11 could also work IMO. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  ...Or just test pages by a very new contributor, I just figured this possibility also. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete - A7 - Clearly a non=notable blp, Not sure why the nom couldn't of simply CSD'd it himself. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, probably speedy A7/G11. Unreferenced WP:BLP from a WP:SPA account. Multiple searches turn up nothing on this person, other than self-published sites. Given all the above comments, I'm flagging it for speedy deletion too. AllyD ( talk) 19:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete No sources indicating notability. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 19:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply