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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ReactJS[edit]

ReactJS (edit | 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 indication of notability, website given is a facebook page. NetworkOP (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 22:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 22:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Immediate keep. It's as famous as Angular.js, D3.js, and many other notable js libraries accepted on wikipedia. Yug (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Website http://facebook.github.io/react/ is not a "facebook.com" page, but a github page for a facebook lead project. Yug (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Immediate keep, author here. React is being used in production by major organizations and corporations such as Facebook, Khan Academy, Netflix, and Yahoo. It also has more followers on github than EmberJS which has its own article already. Patcito (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep significant javascript library worthy of an article. Artw (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a well used javascript library which needs an article. Evidence is that on StackOverflow, a well known software development Q&A site, there are over a thousand questions dealing with ReactJS. --Newtronic (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found coverage in a few places: this article in de:PHP Magazin, this already cited article in InfoWorld, and this article-type thing at the Financial Times (not sure this has editorial oversight, but it seems to be part of the FT). There's also a few trivial mentions which don't help notability all that much but can possibly be used for citations, for what it's worth: [1], [2], [3], [4]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 21 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. This certainly isn't a keep with only two opinions, however, at the state of being relisted twice this is pretty much a contested PROD. I'm going to close this as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amor Puro[edit]

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

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

Delete and redirect to Drama Queen (Ivy Queen album) as it fails WP:NSONG. The article has lots of references, but many don't mention the song at all (e.g. The Daily News here), and almost all that do mention it are really about the album, and the song is in passing or in a sidebar listing. The only two sources that I identified as being about the song were two de facto press releases rehashed here and here. The song has not been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. It did not win any significant awards or honors. It has not been independently released as a recording by other notable artists. This article was previously afded in May 2012, with the result to delete. --Bejnar (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. First, let's not that the article appeared at DYK on 23 May 2013. Notability was brought up there, however was ok'd. The argument made there was "The song partly fails WP:SONGS because it hasn't charted. But, it has enough coverage in reliable third party sources. Seven of the 15 are primarily on the song while at least three others mention the song including a review from Allmusic." Thank you for your interest in the article. —DivaKnockouts 21:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are the seven citations that "are primarily on the song"? There are the two PR-style ones for the video that I mentioned above. What are the other five? --Bejnar (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's reference number one titled "Ivy Queen lanza el segundo single de "Drama Queen" (Ivy Queen release the second single from "Drama Queen". The two you mentioned, reference number eleven titled "Ivy Queen graba nuevo video musical en Miami" (Ivy Queen records new music video in Miami). Number 18 is a dead link. Reference number 19 titled "Ivy Queen entrega Amor Puro" (Ivy Queen gives Amor Puro). Which are entirely on the song. Several others mention the song's recording, composition and music video. Allmusic even selects the song as an "Album pick" and calls the song "uplifting" in the album review. And.I don't know if this warrants anything, but the music video does have over four million views on YouTube. —DivaKnockouts 19:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are not significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Carmel transmitting station. The prior discussion had no good keep arguments and a proposal to merge. Redirect seems fair. Shii (tock) 06:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cwm Twrch transmitting station[edit]

Cwm Twrch transmitting station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete and redirect to Carmel transmitting station. It fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEOG. It fails WP:GNG becuase the coverage is not significant and most of the sources are not independent. The first of the five citations, is to a BBC engineering division newsletter Eng Inf which has a one line entry services opened between 17 September and 12 December: Cwm Twrch - West Glamorgan. The second citation is to the directory listing for the Cwm Twrch transmitter at UK Free TV. The third citation is to a BBC engineering division Press Release (Local Press Annoucement 698 e). The fourth cited source is to a directory that has a one line entry indicating that Cwm Twrch is part of the Carmel group. The last citation was to an Arqiva press release. The BBC engineering and Arqiva sources are not independent. The other two are directories. The previous Afd was in May 2012 with a "no consensus" result. This is just a radio/TV transmitter which is simply rebroadcasting the signal of other stations, that is, acting as a relay station. There is no claim to independent notability. WP:NGEOG says The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. --Bejnar (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Welch related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect without deleting. The nominator makes solid arguments for not having a separate article (I can't see a reason to disagree), but unless I'm missing something, there's nothing here that absolutely needs to be trashed. Just redirect it without deleting. Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The information is useful and well-sourced. I see no change in the article since the last AfD discussion, closed as no consensus. Presumably the opinions given in that discussion continue to apply. Have the editors involved in that discussion been notified that the question is being raised again? Aymatth2 (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, but do not delete. As Nyttend said, no reason not to preserve the history under the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Followup — we have the tiny problem that someone might hit "undo" and make it an article again, but that's the only situation where I can imagine the non-deletion being a problem, and even there we could just re-undo and protect the redirect if necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 26 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) 01:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undisputed World Bboy Series[edit]

Undisputed World Bboy Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BEFORE due diligence performed--I can't find anything significant at Google News or at Google Books. Most of the content I can find via Google appears to be minor, posted on blogs, the site's website, or obvious press releases [5][6] that seem to say the exact same thing. This competition doesn't appear to have received significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I think the subject is likely to be notable one day, but it is premature to include it at Wikipedia right now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Snow talk 03:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:GNG/WP:EVENT; searches do not seem to indicate any kind of coverage in any independent and secondary reliable sources. Further, the unsourced information that is on the page is not terribly encyclopedic, consisting mostly of non-contextualized competition trees and very little prose. Note that nominator made efforts to try to rescue this topic before recommending deletion (even reaching out to a WikiProject that might have additional resources), but the sources just don't seem to be there to make it happen. Snow talk 03:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I conducted my own searches and come to the same conclusion as the nominator. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 23 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Florida State Mall shooting[edit]

2015 Florida State Mall shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Routine crime story with no evidence of long term notability. Article says it was a domestic dispute. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have been a domestic dispute with nobody else involved. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of lasting significance. Suggest author see Wikinews, you can even use your same login! Crow^Caw 22:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is not a significant event and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.- MrX 23:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. Appears to be domestic dispute with potentially one unintended victim. Sad and senseless, but not something noteworthy that warrants an article. --Dwimble (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note also Elizabeth Trickle and Donna Evans, witnesses to the event and likely WP:BLP1E violations. Currently re-directed to this article. Crow^Caw 23:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just CSD A7'd them.- MrX 23:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. We can always create an article in the unlikely event that this eventually does become notable. Author also created articles on the local police departments and the mayor that have now been redirected to the municipality. Meters (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and all of the Melbourne-related articles that have been created (about the mayor, police station, etc) per WP:NOTNEWS. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A clear case of WP:NOTNEWS....William 16:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Police blotter type news. (Also misnamed BTW). Student7 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The man had multiple guns in his car and pockets full of ammunition. He obviously intended some sort of a domestic terrorist mass shooting, and shooting his wife who was cuban appears to be some sort of grim cover story. It is clearly one of a series of attacks on shopping malls, and comes not long after the terrorist attack on a jewish supermarket in Paris. The frequent and often successful attempts to delete documentation of similar incidents makes it difficult to connect such events. It received coverage on mainstream and international news. Crime blotter news does not make international headlines. Redhanker (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• He had a dispute with his wife, then showed up at work and shot her. A coworker tried to wrest the gun away and was himself shot. The gunman then shot himself. If he "intended" anything more, he would have done so until the police showed up. It is clearly a sad and all too common domestic dispute. Lets not try to find connections ourselves, because one can connect all sorts of individual details in one's mind, that doesn't make them factual. Crow^Caw 23:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It was a fatal domestic dispute. This belongs on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. I think this can pretty much be snow closed. Like others have said, we can recreate this article if/when it satisfies WP:EVENT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 21 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 V Festival. Everything's been merged months ago - Just needed Redirecting which the nom shoud've done in the first place instead of wasting everyones time, Next time WP:BE BOLD!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V Festival 2010[edit]

V Festival 2010 (edit | 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 information in this article is already contained in its entirety in V Festival in the 2010 section Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Be bold and just redirect it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to V Festival, where the content already exists at. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to V Festival, merging info if needed. Earflaps (talk) 23:23, 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. The arguments with the two keep !votes are strong enough to outweigh those of the nominator and satisfy the nom's concerns. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Heavy Low Low[edit]

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

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

Poorly cited article with no improvement since 2008. I can't see much in the way of reliable news coverage about, or reviews of this band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, some news coverage:
  • Andrés Solar. "Heavy Heavy Low Low". Miami New Times, 22 November 2007.
  • "Heavy Heavy Low Low – Interview". Racket Magazine , 7 March 2008.
  • "Heavy Heavy Low Low Everything’s Watched, Everyone’s Watching". Skope Magazine, May/June 2007.
  • Manuel Enrique Garcia. "Heavy Heavy Low Low Interview – December 19th, 2006".
  • Matt Kiser. "Exclusive: Heavy Heavy Low Low Stream Entire New Album on SPIN.com" SPIN.com, 20 August 2008.
  • Richard van Gerrevink. "Heavy Heavy Low Low". Lords Of Metal.
  • An entry in http://powerplaymagazine.co.uk/issue-83/ (but I can not access it to see how it is).

Enough to meet WP:GNG. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not so hot on several of the sources above (are they reliable?) but with Spin in addition to

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Geek Studies[edit]

Journal of Geek Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

De-PRODded by article creator with reason"This journal is indeed currently not-notable, but it is only in its first number. The journal is, however, gathering an international team of researchers to write articles". Whether this journal will ever become notable is difficult to say without a perfect crystal ball. At this point, even the article creator agrees that there is no notability. No independent sources. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable as conceded by the article's creator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete described as a journal but only a single "issue" published electronically, no indication of any printed format or circulation, not peer review, no notable features that I could see. In short it currently appears just to be a blog. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:TOOSOON, neither well-established enough nor sufficiently covered by independent and selective indexes to pass WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOWBALL Delete. Gaff (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think this is a pretty obvious case of non-notability. I'm surprised it hasn't been snow closed already. Looks like it has 19 Google hits. When it gets coverage in reliable source, it can come back. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:44, 21 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. Hoax Jac16888 ^Talk 00:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamuoliniai kamuoliai[edit]

Kamuoliniai kamuoliai (edit | 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 google translation of this article is mostly gibberish. It is unsourced and what can be gleaned from the google translation (and google image search for Kamuoliniai kamuoliai) suggests this might be about cumulus clouds, which we certainly already have an article about. If we cannot fix it, I think it should be deleted. Gaff (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (negotiate) @ 18:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for a merge. Proposals for a merge should in future be made on the talk page of the proposed destination page; follow the instructions at Merging#Proposing_a_merger. Proposals for page moves should also be made on the article talk page; follow the instructions at Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centenary of the outbreak of World War I[edit]

Centenary of the outbreak of World War I (edit | 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 article is a WP:FORK of First World War centenary, relevant content from this article should be merged into the other one.

Note to closing admin: also consider renaming First World War centenary so that it's in line with the common nomenclature here, such as World War I, World War I in popular culture, and so on (there's a failed RfM in which it basically amounted to which variety of English got the most votes at that time). Anonimski (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: First World War centenary seems to be broader in scope.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (inform) @ 18:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (discuss) @ 18:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 18:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed with the nominator, but does this sort of thing have to be a deletion proposal? Just propose the merge, and go ahead and do it if no-one objects. And separately propose the rename in the normal way. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Note also that the nominator has already made these proposals on the article talk pages but failed to achieve consensus there and so now seems to be forum shopping. The topic is, of course, highly notable and so it is absurd to bring it to AFD. Andrew D. (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Keeping the nomenclature consistent isn't based on getting consensus for every single article individually - there is a concistency criterion in WP:NC... - Anonimski (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This is not a standard fork, which ought to be merged back, but a freestanding article on commemorations held in late July/early August 2014. The other article is dealing with commemorations (many as yet only anticipated) covering the centernaries of events 4.25 years. These are different. In due course there will probably be other groups of sub-articles on different battles etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with First World War centenary. I suggested it months ago on the talk page. In my opinion, it's a clear content fork and frankly unnecessary. Keeping it would pave the way for literally hundreds of "Battle of X centenary" articles when they happen...—Brigade Piron (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator means WP:CONTENTFORK not WP:FORK. But this article is a WP:SPINOFF, a freestanding article on commemorations held in July and August 2014. It therefore should be kept. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:03, 24 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 Emoticon#Japanese style. -- KTC (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaomoji[edit]

Kaomoji (edit | 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 is little more than a (severely unsourced) list of emoticon which is already covered at List of emoticons. The concept itself is also discussed Emoticon#Japanese style in better detail. This used to be a redirect to Emoticon but was suddenly reverted to the list after 8 years in 2013. There is enough significant changes has been made for me to safely call a WP:BOLD, hence this AfD to try to have this settled once and for all. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 15:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) @ 18:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 18:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Redirect): This is the English WP; it deals with Topics, under their English names (unless of course there really is no English name). But in this case the English name is Emoticon, and there is therefore no reason to have a separate list under the Japanese title. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just a poor-quality unsourced duplication of the existing article at Emoticon. --DAJF (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nomination and Imaginatorium's reasoning. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Imaginatorium - It's basically a Japanese version of Emoticon. –Davey2010^Talk 23:57, 23 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. Michig (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Independent Research Consortium[edit]

International Independent Research Consortium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Utter lack of notability, borderline hoax. Supposedly founded in 2011 but seems to have accomplished nothing in four years. Searches for "International Independent Research Consortium" or "IIRC Bangalore" turn up absolutely no sources of interest; the few results you get are Wikipedia, the organization's own page, LinkedIn pages and the like. Zero hits on Scholar. Claims to be "reviewing and publishing research papers", but there is no evidence of this - in addition to the lack of any independent mention on the web and Scholar hits, the "Journal Overview" on their website is blank in every category. Kolbasz (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC is a non profit research organization. It has members across the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchester001 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Manchester001 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Kolbasz (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for organizations and general notability guideline. //@Manchester001: being a non-profit organization and having members world-wide -is not really a valid criteria of inclusion on Wikipedia. Please see WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No notability. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 18:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability. Only coverage is its own web site. They apparently intend to produce pay-to-publish open-access online journals, but so do hundreds of other fly-by-night operators. -- 120.23.42.25 (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I cannot find anything to suggest any notability under WP:ORG or WP:GNG. As noted above, there are various claims made on their website relating to being actively involved with publishing, but appears that there is no established history of them having published any significant volume of material. Drchriswilliams (talk) 00:42, 21 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. Overall consensus herein is for article retention. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Colville-Andersen[edit]

Mikael Colville-Andersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Header added. The original nomination is a few lines down, at "I nominate article for deletion..." -- John of Reading (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate article for deletion as Notability guidelines do not apply to content within the article

• http://www.velo-city2014.com/pages/speakers.php#Mikael its not notable source, just primary promotional list of participants of the conference

Comment: Fixed and added new references (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• "Copenhagenize Design Company client list". Retrieved 2014-08-08.self-published source of Mikael Colville

Comment: This is a page for the company in question. It supports the claim that the person works for cities and governments to see a list of cities and governments that have hired the company. (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

• "The Choreography of an Urban Intersection". Retrieved 2014-08-08. Another broken link

Comment: Fixed and added supplementary reference to the study. (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

• "Green Light Go - The Birth of Cycle Chic". Retrieved 2014-09-12. Flickr photo sharing service cannot be counted like notable as its Colville-Andersen self-published page

Comment: Removed and other references added. (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

• "How Cycling Became Britain's Most Fashionable Sport". Retrieved 2014-08-08.

Few lines mentioning Mikael Colville-Andersen blog, but don’t show why its notable despite being just another cycling blog

Comment: The question is not why a blog is notable, but rather the person who started the blog and coined the phrase. (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

• Carlton Reid: The Sartorialist on Two Wheels in The Guardian (June 26 2008), retrieved 25 August 2010

Entire article is about bikes and the latest tendencies of cycling. One interesting fact is that in the same article one can find the women called Caz Nicklin who is founder of cyclechic.co.uk, an online store and blog for fashion-conscious women on bicycles and launched the trend. Interesting that guardian refers to her first . To summarize Mikael Colville is definitely not the one who started the movement. If he is the big inventor of the coined phrase why Michael Colville does not own the domain cyclechic.com ?

Comment: This link supports the claim that the person was called The Sartorialist on Two Wheels. Domain ownership is not indicative of coining a phrase relating to urban cycling. According to my search, Nicklin acquired the cyclechic.com domain in 2010 and started cyclechic.co.uk in November 2007 - a year after Colville-Andersen started his work. The last half of the comment, above, makes this entire proposal for deletion sound suspiciously like character assination and a personal quest. (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

• "Babelgum - Mikael Colville-Andersen, Cycle Chic". Retrieved 2011-11-01. Dead link

Comment: Fixed (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

• "The Origins of Copenhagenize". Retrieved 2011-11-01. Self-published company website which is not an independent source

Comment: Added references (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

• Generation Zakka, retrieved 08 August 2014 the same company website

Comment: This link goes to the Danish Libary website (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

• "Dreams on Wheels". Danish Foreign Ministry. Retrieved 8 August 2014. Dead link but if you pay attention while opening it up you see the same company website http://copenhagenize.eu

Comment: Removed link and added new references (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

• "Monumental Motion". Danish Foreign Ministry. Retrieved 8 August 2014. The same story, link is dead but the address line points you to: the same website http://copenhagenize.eu

Comment: Removed link and added new references. Google is your friend. Remember that. (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

To summarize : this article has a clear overstatement tone and is mostly relying on primary sources material, 70  % of the article sources are from a self-published company website: http://copenhagenize.eu and company social profiles, the other 30% part are from primary source and content from death links.

Comment: Fixed (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a less extent on tertiary sources and primary sources. Primary sources are materials that are often written by people who are directly involved. Article written in the standalone event stating that Mikael Colville-Andersen started the cycling blog, sounds good but it is not notable, many bloggers write in the similar field and express their point on view on the web. Background in the urban design is very vague and unsubstantiated; I don’t see the connection between film making and the so called expert in urban solutions. It sounds like a self-proclaimed expert. Regarding the fact the he may have built the : bicentenary website for Hans Christian Andersen remains another dead link and I didn’t have enough luck to find it since the provided Link on website is dead. Ottocycle (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Mikeshoup, Phil Bridger — Ottocycle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I don't agree. This person is apparently well-known in his field. Otherwise he wouldn't have so many third-party links and references to him. Two TED talks, interviews in major newspapers on almost every continent in multiple languages. The reference to film is biographical. Compare this entry with other people who are similar: Bjarke Ingels. Jan Gehl. Even The Sartorialist. This article seems to match them for content, credability and relevance.

This request sounds a little too personal and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

• Comment I can't see any problem with this entry. Especially after the links were improved. This person meets the notability guidelines, in my opinion, and I agree with Luielle that it sounds like a personal vendetta. Saxovonhafnia (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In this diff Saxovonhafnia cast four keep !votes (one of which was for Luielle). I am changing the three of them to Comment. The above is the first. Sam ^Sing! 14:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is not a lot of willingness from the person who nominated this page for deletion to participate in the discussion or to comment on the revisions. I'll give it a few days and then remove the box at the top about deletion. Luielle (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In this diff Saxovonhafnia cast four keep !votes (one of which was for Luielle). I am changing the three of them to Comment. The above is the second. Sam ^Sing! 14:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article has standalone topic. I don’t see any notability in that. Person doesn’t even own copyright rights on the "coined name" he is promoting. This article is very short-term oriented and as a result uses Wikipedia for promotional self-interest.

I would also put this article into Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity as the person doesn’t have any background in mobility and urban design, also no copyright rights on the" CycleChic" as his blog has only a sub name copenhagencyclechic.com . The so called proclaimed inventor of "CycleChic" not only infringe copyrights of the creator of "Cyclechic" but has no ways to proof that he is the owner or the inventor of the trend. We cannot count self-written articles. He is simply using it for promoting another movement and wants to get recognition for it. His methods are the one of scammers that want recognition that cannot be substantiated by any decent support.

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article.

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor) unfortunately it’s not our case. You cannot call Michael Colville independent on the topic as he doesn’t have any ownership rights.

More over this article has too many conflicts of interests. There is no evidence of the Mikael Colville-Andersen like a copyright owner. Neilc Bgwhite Arjayay Helpsome Phil Bridger Avocado Green451

It just a raw facts and everyone has a right to challenge that. Any of the provided sources cannot be called reputable and recognized in the industry. Anyone can hire blog to write about him. Ottocycle — Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I stroke nom's !vote cast above. Sam ^Sing! 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In this diff nom un-stroke his auxiliary delete !vote; I stroke it once again. Sam ^Sing! 23:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally agree with all said above, person cannot call himself trendsetter without even owning copyrights on the brand, domain etc. If everyone start to do self promotion by using someone else's efforts how will we end up ? Liu75 — Liu75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment It sounds suspiciously like you know this person and the other person you mention - Nicklin - which doesn't make you a very unbiased source. Do you work for this person?

On the one side there is Ottocycle, with his personal claims. On the other side, I see links to sources from news and media outlets that include La Presse, Tages Anzeiger, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Calgary Herald, Urban Times, Esquire Magazine, Der Standard, The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Wall Street Journal, Danish Broadcasting Corporation, Danish Foreign Ministry. All of which are more credible than some man who doesn't like the person in question. A quick search brings up the fact that a company called Cycle Chic/Copenhagenize based in Denmark owns the trademark for Cycle Chic in the US and Brazil. Another search shows me that this phrase "cycle chic" was first mentioned in January 2007 in a Danish publication. But the trademark question doesn't have anything to do with this page. It is about who coined the phrase and there are sufficient links. Your personal vendetta should be taken somewhere else. This is all just vandalism and wasting peoples time. Saxovonhafnia (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In this diff Saxovonhafnia cast four keep !votes (one of which was for Luielle). I am changing the three of them to Comment. The above is the third. Sam ^Sing! 14:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don’t see any notability of the article of Mikael Colville-Andersen. The barometer of notability is whether people are independent of the topic itself. We cannot call Colville-Andersen as an independent individual to the topic, moreover self-published materials on the Copenhagenize site does not proof any ownership of copyrights. I would be happy if you could provide proof in the reference list. Regarding Nicklin, I came across her name in the same “Guardian” like the one of trend setters of the movement. Based on that it’s difficult to claim Mikael Colville notable for what he does. You can easily find plenty of information on Nicklin, who does the same thing, and even owns the copyright on the phrase itself. The entire article of Mikael Colville stands on hot air. He is not independent in the topic therefore it’s a bit too early to talk about his notability. Ottocycle (talk)

• keep Somebody who gets regularly invited as a keynote speaker to major conferences around the world is quite obviously notable. The nomination is made in bad faith by user:Ottocycle, an editor with a single-purpose account. Would the closing admin please note that the other delete vote comes from an account with an edit history of exactly one (i.e. this delete vote), possibly a sock of Ottocycle. Schwede66

• As an independent editor I have the right to challenge the notability of an article or to make edits on the articles if they are needed. Also Wikipedia is not a place to give personal comments. I found it strange why independent editors happen to be so aggressive instead of just providing proof and answering to questions. Please note that anyone has the right to challenge the article. I will repeat you once more that concerned article of Mikael Colville-Andersen has an obvious conflict of interests. Person is self-proclaiming ownership of phrase” Cycle chic” and doesn’t have any copyright on it. Infringement of that sort is an important issue. If he indeed has it, please provide me proof from an independent source, not self-published website or sponsored press, copyright legal notice will be perfect. Also I cannot manage to find proof of his education as urban designer and urban mobility expert. So far just a national film school which is really far-fetched isn’t it? Ottocycle (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - The nomination for AfD appears to be personal. The claimant keeps repeating his claims and does not repsond to the many improvments made. The article - especially with the recent improvements in secondary references - adheres to WP:GNG. The claimant has a specific issue with copyright. However, in the article it states that the subject coined the phrase Cycle Chic and there are eight secondary references to support this - many from major newspapers. Even one from as recently as 28 December 2014. If you do a trademark search with the phrase 'Cycle Chic' at the website of The United States Patent and Trademark Office - http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/ - you can see that the subject's company does, in fact, own a trademark for the phrase 'Cycle Chic' in the United States.
• This article does not violate WP:NOR - there are many secondary references.
• It does not violate WP:NPOV
• The claims of copyright do not reflect the text where the issue is quite clearly neologism.
• A copyright can be searched on the US Patent and Trademark Office website.
• The claim of self-promotion is grossly unsubstantiated.
• Personal accusations of the subject "hiring a blog to write about them", etc are unsubstantiated and seem to suggest a personal vendetta - especially when most of the sources are mainstream newspapers and media like La Presse, Tages Anzeiger, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Calgary Herald, Urban Times, Esquire Magazine, Der Standard, The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Wall Street Journal, Danish Broadcasting Corporation, Danish Foreign Ministry.
• The personal attack never mentions the subject's company, which has clearly been hired by cities and governments around the world to do the work stated.
• The user Schwede66 even suggests Sock Puppetry is at play. Saxovonhafnia (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In this diff Saxovonhafnia cast four keep !votes (one of which was for Luielle). The above is the fouth. Sam ^Sing! 14:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: all the article needs is cross-referencing to the entry on John Forester. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forester_(cyclist) Forester and Colville-Andersen are chief ambassadors for antithetical philosophies of urban cycling, each with passionate supporters. This makes both men vulnerable to attempted erasure from history by zealots from the opposing philosophical camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behoovingmoving (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC) — Behoovingmoving (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Voting by yourself on Wikipedia several times for your article is not allowed. You voted 4 times for your own article. These are spamming techniques. Also fabrication comments from other users are prohibited and unprofessional. User Schwede66 you are referring to didn’t comment on discussion. You mention his name like a proof but in fact the original source see: 02:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Saxovonhafnia

Proof of copyright and trademark unfortunately cannot be found. One simple question why this person is notable? Is he unique in what he does? With a nicely put together CV you can go to Linkedin but not to Wikipedia. Mikael Colville-Andersen didn’t invent anything, is not unique in what he does, doesn’t own any copyright, and has nothing to be notable for. From both a legal and ethical standpoint this article provokes conflict of interests, the same sourcing you can find on the person famous doing the same thing Caz Nicklin and featured in the same articles of the press list you provided. Articles written in the style of tabloid journalism and remind gossip column with obvious junk food news features, trying to make story sensational and personalized. Ottocycle (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: According to the Wikipedia entry on Jane Jacobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs, she had no formal education in urban planning or design either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewgriswold (talk • contribs) 16:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Ewgriswold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP: Colville-Andersen has been cited and published by numerous mainstream media sources.

• http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/17/travel/best-cycling-cities/
• http://www.wired.com/2014/11/copenhagenize-cycling-game/
• http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cycling-innovation-lycra-louts-green-wave-bike-bridges
• http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/sport/6489/cycling-fashion-and-style/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewgriswold (talk • contribs) 17:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I stroke the second !vote by Ewgriswold. Sam ^Sing! 13:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC):[reply]

• Keep: Person seems to be notable, article may need some clean-up. --Palnatoke (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks to User Ottocycle! Because of his personal attack and attampt at character assissination on the subject, the clean-up and addition to the references has made this one of the best referenced articles on Wikipedia. If only all articles could be this well-referenced. One man's personal vendetta has improved one little corner of Wikipedia. I like the poetry in that. It is what makes Wikipedia strong. Saxovonhafnia (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam ^Sing! 12:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sam ^Sing! 12:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam ^Sing! 12:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam ^Sing! 12:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly meets WP:BASIC. Comment: This AfD was not filed according to WP:AFDHOWTO, that's the reason it has been running for almost a month. I'll try to find someone who knows how to fix it, I donn't. And good luck to the closing admin with the above fragmentation and double votes! Sam ^Sing! 12:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - See multiple references. See also comments that nomination is based on grudge. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not sure that I understand the rationale behind this nomination but a quick Google News search turns up dozens of stories about the subject. The subject easily passes the bar for WP:GNG. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 16:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saxovonhafnia voted 7 times for her own article. It’s a scam. Also fabricating votes. Never Wikipedia editor is going to vote or give comments without signing his statement. Cannot find any edits Saxovonhafnia to other articles. Looks like sponsored work exclusively for Mikael Colville-Andersen. Also I would appreciate if people involved into conversation will not delete my vote. I made just once according to the Wikipedia rules. Article about blogger Mikael Colville-Andersen is far too much promotional. He didn’t invent and do nothing notable so far. If someone disagree with my point. Please tell me what is his notability in? Entire article build just on a wind, he doesn’t own copy right on what he is promoting, he is not alone in what he does, Doesn’t have an education in the field to claim himself Expert in the field. All stories are just fluff and press he is referring to is typical sponsored publishing which is even not dedicated to him. Article have generic topic and involve multiply personalities that have the same activity. Ottocycle (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ottocycle is case study material of a troll and I suggest that other editors don't waste their time responding to this nonsense. It's a clear-cut case, and nobody needs to give Ottocycle any further rationale. Spend your time improving Wikipedia instead! Schwede66 23:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Quite clear that Mikael Colville-Andersen is a notable figure under WP:GNG. He has been very effective in promoting active transport culture (including cycling) in multiple countries, with things he says being picked up by many journalists who work for a variety of national newspapers and other media. Drchriswilliams (talk) 01:39, 25 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. Michig (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajayi Abiodun[edit]

Ajayi Abiodun (edit | 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 WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The one source in the article mentions that the player was returning for an Under-15 tournament in June 2012, meaning that they are still under 18 now. All other references that I can find are similar to this reference - from 2012 and mentioning that they are under 15. There is no evidence that Abiodun has played for a professional or even semi-professional club. Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 12:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (confer) @ 18:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:48, 18 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) 16:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above !votes. Darreg (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. 13:23, 21 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. Michig (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Najeem M Illyas[edit]

Najeem M Illyas (edit | 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. Strip away the puffery and what remains is the CV of an ordinary IT professional. Sources are all self-published or don't mention the subject at all, and searching the web and Scholar I couldn't find any mentions in independent sources. Kolbasz (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (drawl) @ 18:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (notify) @ 18:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -With all those self-made claims removed, the article is a perfect A7 material. I'm unable to find even a single reliable source that would at least have passing mention of the subject. It simply fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Anupmehra. No reliable sources discuss the subject. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. -- 120.23.42.25 (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lots of promotional claims, without any independent, reliable or reputable sources to support any notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO and is promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:55, 21 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 Arjun Rampal. Michig (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing Ganesha Films[edit]

Chasing Ganesha Films (edit | 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 company plus just one film and a source barely in 2011. No new film material established after 2006. Fails Notabilities of Film productions Derevation^{Give Me Five} 09:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 18:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (parlez) @ 18:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (yarn) @ 18:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Arjun Rampal -Well, the company has received quite a few passing mentions in multiple independent reliable sources but they simply are not enough to help subject to meet the WP:NCORP standard. Also Notability is not inherited. However, a redirect to the founder Wikipedia article appears to me a good alternative to deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. A sourcable organization may at least be spoken of in the article of its founder, even when lacking notability for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Arjun Rampal. The company has produced only 1 film. Though it has received some coverage in news source, it is because of its founder. It would be worth mentioning in its owner's article.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:02, 24 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

El Uali Mustapha Sayed Special School[edit]

El Uali Mustapha Sayed Special School (edit | 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 a speedy renomination. My previous concern was: Non-notable school. Most sources are either blatantly unreliable or non-independent Mr. Guye (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless some reliable sources can be found. The only even remotely acceptable one at the moment is the last one, which just mentions the 36th anniversary notice of its namesake's death and doesn't specify what type of school it is: primary, secondary or something else. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not seeing anything reliable in the way of sources. Neutrality^talk 05:09, 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 redirect to After School (band). The one delete !vote asserts "per nom" of which the nom requested redirection to After School (band). That, combined with the rest, leads this to a redirection. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Kim[edit]

Rebekah Kim (edit | 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 have individual notability per WP:MUS. Should be redirected to After School (band). Random86 (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Redirect as per nom. No evidence of notability outside of her group. Her one solo song charted poorly, and the only semi-notable song in the collaborations table was done as part of her group, not individually. Sources are sketchy and include a tabloid and the artist's own SMS. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Shinyang. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to delete this artist's individual page. She is a legacy member of a notable band where individual members are purposely rotated out of the band as "graduating" members. No member is retained in the band indefinitely -- the band is a non-nuclear unit with "outside" contributors. All, members are, in essence, "contributors" to a band designed by Pledis Entertainment. As such all members, including Rebekah Kim contribute to the brand, the dance, and often the songwriting of "the band." Additionally, each current and member and past member have their own pages regardless of individual successes outside the group. We are not weighing noteworthy-ness based on the number of successful singles when it comes to citing contribution, or many band members would never be cited outside of the band page. More importantly, fan appreciation of such works does not factor into notability either. Outside of the band, this artist has also started her own jewelry company and appeared in a variety of media, including this September 2013 article in Billboard magazine [7] which talks, in part about a future return to music. She has also been interviewed on camera at KCON2013 [8] referring to her recent in-studio work. She hardly lacks notability, nor has she been unproductive since her departure from After School, and this individual page should remain in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dockane (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – per nom. She appears to be utterly non-notable outside the group. The Billboard article was interesting, but it was about her experiences in the group. If former members have notable careers in acting etc. after "graduating", OK they can have their own articles. But they have to be notable on their own. Having a section for former members in the group article seems like the most natural way to handle it. The Billboard interview could go there. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This does not bar anyone from redirecting the page. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jungah[edit]

Kim Jungah (edit | 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 have individual notability per WP:MUS or WP:ENT. Should be redirected to After School (band). Random86 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Or redirect. No notability outside of band. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to After School (band). Source searches are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article about the subject as per WP:BASIC. Redirect as a functional search term. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This artist has been in two other bands and on a television show. She is also the stated "leader" of the band "After school." As separate items the make her notable, together, they clearly make her notable. This individual page should remain. Additionally, "After School" is a non-nuclear group in that all of the members "graduate" from the band and are replaced by new members. As such, the "band" isn't technically a band at all, but an amalgam of incoming and outgoing contributors. Excluding individual pages effectively wipes out any history of the band, because the band is not a band in the technical sense at all. WIthout background on the individuals that band is just a creation of Pledis Entertainment. Of the requests for deletion for individual pages assigned to members of After School, this one, in particular, is rather curious as notability is quite clear already.Dockane (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All that band history can go on the band's article. I don't see where anything you've said relates to notability by Wikipedia standards: significant coverage about the individual in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the artist. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into After School appears to be a reasonable compromise. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 26 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 13:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islam College of Engineering and Technology[edit]

Islam College of Engineering and Technology (edit | 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 was nominated (result Keep) a few weeks ago, to light comment. However, noting that the article has been edited by the same user who created Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Wah) (also see for current AfD), an apparently (my analysis) fraudulent non-entity also nominated some weeks under a slightly different name (result: Delete), I decided to check a little deeper...and all we have to work with here are a website even less polished than the "Swedish" one, and an address (which Google map's satellite zoom centers on a dirt field; there are some multi-story buildings nearby, but the surrounding area is agricultural, not urban). Google has no news, book or scholar matches (the only "hit" was a PDF with a false-positive to similarly named but different school in India). Given these reasons, I feel extra vigilance is warranted, and that all Punjab-related institutional articles merit close attention for fraudulent claims. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found this job offer from the college. I reckon it's a clue for its existence because the [9] seems to be ranked among the relatively visited web sites in Pakistan. So it should be kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Mhhossein (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 05:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I want evidence this place actually exists, and isn't just another diploma mill (let alone one for H-1B visa fraud). Show us the alumni. Show us scholarly output. Show us something notable.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The advert noted above by User:Mhhossein is WP:Original research and is not WP:Reliable source. Basing an article on it would be WP:Crystal because it appears the school is not yet operative. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GeorgeLouis: How did you find it as an original research? Mhhossein (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original research policy dictates article content contributed by Wikipedia editors. It has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of different types of sources. I don't see what GeorgeLouis is talking about. CtP (t • c) 17:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Are you suggesting this college does not exist? It is ranked here (http://www.webometrics.info/en/asia/bangladesh%20) and here (http://www.4icu.org/reviews/7601.htm). They even list some phone numbers on there website if you wanted to call and verify they are in fact an extant college (http://www.iutoic-dhaka.edu). Piboy51 (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The links you provide seem to point to Islamic University of Technology. Is that the same as Islam College of Engineering and Technology? Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I didn't notice. I rescind my comment. Piboy51 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article has no evidence of Notability, the article has no sources for verification, therefore the article does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines, Secondly there may be also a Wikipedia Conflict of interest on this very article, According to what the article says - Islam College Of Engineering and Technology (ICET) is a higher education institution located in Sialkot, Pakistan. ICET has been established at Sialkot in 2013. Samat lib (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It seems an accredited degree-awarding institution and should be kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Mhhossein (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accredited by whom? Link? PianoDan (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:ORG) --Anders Feder (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability. School outcomes does not apply as there independent sources indicating that the school exists, or that it is accredited, or that it has conferred any degrees.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:51, 25 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. —Cryptic 13:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditari i Ëndrrave[edit]

Ditari i Ëndrrave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now per failing WP:NF. Apparently this is the first of Xhulio Joka's two films, and has won an award at the Tirana Film Festival, but lacking coverage we lack notability. If it gets some, even if only Albanian media, the author may ask for WP:REFUND to be considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yo may wish to also look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamland (2014 film), the AfD for the other film by this filmmaker. Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient (no) coverage in reliable sources to support notability.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:36, 25 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure)  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quaid-e-Azam College of Engineering & Technology, Sahiwal[edit]

Quaid-e-Azam College of Engineering & Technology, Sahiwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Pursuant to other nominations of Pakistan/Punjab-region school articles, I want evidence this place exactly exists and is not a diploma mill.

Concurrent AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Wah)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam College of Engineering and Technology (2nd nomination) Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is actually affilated college of UET Lahore listed at list www.uet.edu.pk/affilated/colleges/index.html?RID=list and has its presence..I recommend check it on its Facebook Page..It's a Engg College located in Pakistan --Preceding unsigned comment added by article-creator Absakomal (talk)

• Author is sock of blocked user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Taimurijaz97/Archive, so Speedy G5 probably applies. Crow^Caw 00:47, 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. Michig (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Lazar (rabbi)[edit]

David Lazar (rabbi) (edit | 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 rabbi. Having a kickstarter project is not notability DGG ( talk ) 10:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if it's enough for GNG, David, but there is some media coverage in the Swedish press, in connection with his role as the rabbi of Stockholm's main synagogue. See e.g. here -- Y not? 14:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- His founding of RIKMA was a major event (regardless of what you think of the organization) and he has been involved in politics. - http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-rabbi-the-gay-and-the-arab-await-the-judge-1.27470 and http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/for-conservative-movement-new-guard-it-s-all-about-community-1.142489--Jayrav (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Some older sources, from HighBeam Research, include "Arab, Gay, Rabbi Blocked From Jerusalem City Council" (The Forward, 2002); "Rabbi May Meet With Lesbian Inmates" (The Forward, 2003); "Conservative rabbi: I'm being punished for same-sex weddings. David Lazar says his movement is discriminating against him", (Jerusalem Post, 2006). --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with nominator that this person fails WP:N. Article seems also to violate WP:NOTFACEBOOK & WP:NOTPROMOTION. Maybe five or ten years from now, but not now as things stand. Keep [per WP:SNOW & WP:CONSENSUS that this article is now up to speed.] IZAK (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject appears to be a prominent rabbi in several countries as well as an active philanthropist. Looks notable to me. Keep and add more in-line referenced info.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets the GNG for the repeated coverage on his rabbinate in Stockholm (especially appointment and dismissal), in addition to the sources mentioned above. See nrg Maariv, Times of Israel, Haaretz, etc. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep* seems to meet notability on the basis of the news articles. neon white talk 22:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 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. —Cryptic 13:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Machine (Exo song)[edit]

Machine (Exo song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Song fails WP:GNG. Once again, this is a song from Exo's Mama (EP), every single track of which was given an article on Wikipedia. The song was not a single, was not released promotionally, has no music video, and received no significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Of the sources listed, thrr are record reviews by the typical kpop fan machine (of the entire EP, not independently of this song), three are people's profile pages (not articles), and one is a youtube video belonging to the artist. Shinyang-i (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Mama (EP): Not even a hit single that charted. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no independent notability Asdklf; (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Teaser section is unnecessary. Allkpop is a fanblog, not a real review.--TerryAlex (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient (no) coverage in reliable sources to support notability.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:54, 25 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. —Cryptic 13:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Online 3[edit]

Metal Gear Online 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Original research, since none of the references provided show any sign that the online multiplayer part of the upcoming video game Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain will be called Metal Gear Online 3. Metal Gear Online was an actual spin-off, also avaible separately from main game MGS4, if that happens later one, we can have an article for it in due time. Soetermans. T / C 20:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any sources that are notable. We don't even have a Metal Gear Online 2 article. If the apparently commonly abbreviated MGO3 doesn't appear under that name in any of the sources, then we can conclude that this article isn't the right place to put it. ~Mable (chat) 11:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No indication that the content in the article will indeed be called this. I'd argue for redirect, but I don't really think its a viable search term. Any content/sources could be used to flesh out its information at Phanton Pain though. But as long as it doesn't have a real name, and is largely sourced by first party twitter posts, it shouldn't be a standalone article. (Though I'm all for recreation down the line, it's just too soon at this time.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - the first Metal Gear Online was the online part of Subsistence, the Snake Eater expanded edition for the PlayStation 2. For MGS4 it was also called Metal Gear Online and released separately (which has its own article), the servers of which have shutdown in June 2012. Rrp13121989 (talk · contribs) linked the first Online to Snake Eater and changed the actual Metal Gear Online to 2 in the Metal Gear template, which I've reverted. While Kojima has stated Metal Gear Online is in development, it isn't clear whether this will be part of The Phantom Pain or released separately, but one thing is for sure: it won't be called Metal Gear Online 3. --Soetermans. T / C 12:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The sourcing in this article is abysmal; there isn't even a source for the supposed name. This should be deleted. --TS 13:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sourced to primary source tweets—nothing to merge. No indication that "MGO3" is an official or even unofficial name, so it's not a useful redirect. The emphasis the nom puts on whether the game is actually called MGO3 doesn't matter so much as whether the topic would be notable by another name (article can always be renamed). Our main question is whether the topic is notable. Even so, it won't, and there are no important sources or text to merge. Article topic doesn't pass the search engine test for notability (the GNG). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 13:43, 18 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 no consensus. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 18:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Century[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And the sources are either out-of-date or do not indicate notability at all. Most of the sources say nothing about the term "Indian Century" except for sources that are not independent, such as the "Rediff India Abroad" source being an Indian source, and therefore not independent of the subject. The article is better off being a redirect to Asian Century since it's obviously not enough to be a standalone topic by itself. All the sources either fail to mention the term "Indian Century" at all, are by Indian authors and not independent, or are dependent on the Chinese Century as well and not enough to be a standalone.

It also looks like Synthesis and original research, as one of the citations is about being a basketball superpower. And the references in an entire section also mention nothing related to an 'Indian Century', at all. Xharm (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock of Supersaiyen312[reply]

• Withdrawn I also withdraw my deletion nomination of Indian Century. If someone else wants to nominate it, then go ahead, but I withdraw it. So please close the discussion now as withdrawn. Xharm (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[15][reply]

In that case, I'll vouch for this AfD since the discussion is still ongoing and we're still having a consensus as to what the outcome of this article ought to be. Having nominated the article twice in the past, I'll take responsibility as the nominator this time too. Mar4d (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep and close Nominator doesn't even have an idea. WP:WIKILAWYER. Every third party source is considered as an independent source as long as it is representing a non-primary source, even though the nominator has failed to figure out the usage of the term outside these sources, he should know that WP:RS has nothing to do with the nationality of the source. AfD is not for cleanup. Contrary to nominator's claim that this URL is used as a source is also misleading, it is not even added anywhere in the whole article. "External links" are not sources, but the links that are related with the subject of the article. Nomination is not just riddled with faults, it's a massive failure of WP:BEFORE. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -- The article (also Asian Century and Chinese Century) fail WP:CRYSTAL. Since about the 1980s (or even later)India and China have experienced great growth, but that is only 30 or so years ago. WE have noi idea what may happen in the other 2/3rd of a century. Quite clearly both countries have undergone industrialisation and urbanisation on a scale similar to UK in the Industrial Revolution and Germany 1860-1914. If anything a title such as "the emergence of India as a great power" might cover the content and make a useful article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:BEFORE should have been done. [16], [17], [18]. The notion that we cannot use a reliable source published in a country to write about the country is absurd and not based in policy (try removing American sources from articles about the United States). It would be helpful if someone could find coverage of Paul Krugman's "The Indian Century: Opportunities and Challenges" speech made this week. [19] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep -Sources are out-of date or do not indicate notability? Really! WP:Notability is not temporary. If there really are some WP:OR, Edit the article and WP:FIXIT. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. See also, WP:BEFORE. I do not mean to invoke OSE here, but by nominator argument we really should have no article on Earth. This is just ridiculous. I'm sorry if my words read rude. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Redacted sock comments]

• Comment When the first source cited in the article, supposedly referring to "the possibility that the 21st century will be dominated by India" actually turns out to be referring to the period 1914-2014, [20] it doesn't exactly inspire confidence. AndyTheGrump (talk} 04:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Replaced. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - replaced with a source that uses the phrase 'Indian century' once, and then goes on to discuss China in depth. [21] Though no longer a completely bogus source, it reeks of desperation, and if that is the best you've got, I have to suggest that the article title at least needs revising. How about "The Indian Century if the Chinese don't beat them to it"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the best source, "India Century" is also a common term. For Indian Century, I have found another source"Indian+century" that describes both India and China and their development, and the author ends his statement, claiming that in the longer run, 21st century can be a Indian century. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this both ways: we can broaden the scope to include both centuries if needed to add some historical context to the projection for 21st C based on failed 20th C projections, or just replace the source. It's not really damning or relevant for the AfD. V not truth. Widefox; talk 11:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Source examples include:

• ‘India’s decade could pave way for an Indian century’. Hindustan Times.
• 21st century is going to be Indian century: Alagappan. OneIndia.
• Real India: A Historian's Cautions on "The Indian Century". Huffington Post.
• Is this the Indian century?. The Guardian.
• Is it the dawn of the Indian century, asks Wharton forum. India Abroad.
• Action: the Indian Century and China-India relations. SBS.

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge There seem to be a bunch of these articles including Asian Century, Pacific Century, Chinese Century, BRICS, &c. Doing these by individual country seems too speculative and prone to soapy boosterism, as we have here. Merge it into a more general article where a balanced overview will be more likely to result. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into Asian Century per WP:CRYSTAL. It's a purely speculative concept that isn't going to become a reality any time soon and is probably as much meaningful as a Brazilian Century or for that matter a Somali Century. We may as well have articles like The end of Earth and the Reign of the Martians. Just because a couple of sources speculate a concept that is itself nothing more than speculation (I say this after having thoroughly reviewed sources available on the topic) does not translate into being notable enough for a standalone article. Mar4d (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Mar4d Knowing that you had proposed the 2 previous AfD and this one was proposed by a blocked trolling sock, it was always a massive failure of WP:BEFORE. Term is by far very notable, and well used in academia, that's how it passes WP:GNG, not that we would need to evaluate your personal astrology. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Andrew D. 'Soapy boosterism' seems to sum it up nicely. We don't need a POV fork on every possible country predicted to be the next superpower. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the nominator has been blocked as a sock of Supersaiyen312. [22] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Andrew D. and TheGrump 'Soapy boosterism' - I like it. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some scholars have mentioned the term and that's it, there's nothing substantial about the term like the origin or the debates and criticisms about the term. There is nothing to merge since all the contents are already present in the existing articles like Potential superpowers, Asian century and BRICS. This article should be deleted straightaway. Xinjiang guy (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)— Xinjiang guy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. Looks like synth and crystal ball. (It's also embarrassing. This is just not a topic for an encyclopedia.) Srnec (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Srnec: How it is "synth" when each of the sources are supporting the provided statement without WP:OR? How it is crystallball when it is used as a term for the future projection, based on the past and current performance rather than the original research? How it is not encyclopedic when it is actually covered by a fair amount of WP:RS? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Because statements like "According to scholars, media sources and economic historian Angus Maddison in his book The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, the polities of India constituted the largest economy in the world from ca. 1 CE to 1000 CE" have nothing to do with the concept of an Indian Century. And others like "It is also often referred as South Asia's natural hegemon because of its overwhelming dominance of the region in all aspects – political, economic, military, cultural, and demographic", which says nothing about India being to this century what Britain was to the 19th or America to the 20th. Regional hegemony has nothing inherently to do with "the possibility that the 21st century will be dominated by India". The term around which the article is built is for pundits and for scholars' offhand remarks in their introductions. It is a rhetorical question ("Will the 21st century by the Indian century?") and not an encyclopedic topic. Srnec (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Srnec: You don't have to cherry pick a few lines for making a WP:POINT. Synth applies only when the information is not supported by the provided source. These statements are related with the subject, I can find that there are a few sources that refer to both, the tally of economical history and the term Indian/India Century. If you have some actual concern, you are always allowed to bring such sources to the article. You are talking about the quality of the content which was not even asked for. Read my question again, I didn't asked you to review this article, I asked you to address that how it fails WP:CRYSTAL, how it is WP:SYNTH and how it is not encyclopedic when it has been covered by so many in academia. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SYNTH does not required any OR. It is an improper synthesis because it synthesises various sourced statements to give an impression that is not reliably sourced. For example, the final two statements in the article—"Many industries are established in the country due to investments in technology and in the professionalisation of manpower, in addition to its tradition of Exact Sciences. However, several problems such as economic, political, and social problems need to be overcome to be considered a superpower."—have nothing apparently to do with a present or future Indian century. Sources like Colonial Power, Colonial Texts: India in the Modern British Novel (1997) cannot possibly tell us anything about a future Indian Century that isn't non-notable speculation. Newspapers make bad sources—unreliable sources would be the Wikipedian term—for speculation about the next 75+ years. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are still talking about the quality of the content and not about the policies that you had mentioned in your !vote, and how they are an important part for this particular AfD. Now if you are looking for the sources that would mention, "Industries", "superpower" etc. and also the term India Century, you simply add any other source, like → [23]. Finding faults in the sources cannot be established as a criteria for deletion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• [Redacted sock comments]
• OccultZone we dealt with the sockpuppetry issue disrupting the AfD, that disruption has been replaced by you disrupting the AfD with badgering of comments you disagree with. I'm asking you to please stop badgering those who disagree with your opinion and allow the AfD to conclude in a calm, mellow, orderly fashion. Remember, disruptive and argumentative posts dissuade those who agree with you just as much as they dissuade those who disagree with you from commenting on AfDs. I would also ask that you allow administrators to adjudicate on what is and isn't a topic ban violation and leave them to remove any material that should be removed. Thanks, Nick (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are allowed to reply those comments that you disagree with. There are always two sides, (1) You can convince others, (2) You can be convinced. If your argument is not policy based and if it is against the obvious consensus or if it is misrepresenting any of the related essence, then it is surely disruptive. I am replying to only a few comments, not actually all. Whether it violated his TBAN or not, it is no more pertinent, I have now removed those comments because they were made by a blocked sock. Check WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Redacted sock comments]

I can understand the concern expressed, it's sensible if you refrain from commenting further here, given there's some military content in the article, but I don't believe it's sufficient to remove your existing comment. Hope that's acceptable. Nick (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Redacted sock comments]

• Delete: in addition to the reasons posted above, there is a lack of WP:NPOV (I am referring to the "Criticism" section of Asian Century, which this article contains none of). Primefac (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: per NorthAmerica1000. Votes opposed to keep are not talking about the general notability guideline and the subject meets it. SamuelDay1 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "It takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." NorthAmerica1000's sources do not amount to more. Srnec (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep & Procedural Close Keep: I checked two sources, they were WP:RS. Passes GNG. While I have sympathy for merging as there may be many notable projections, a merge can be done separately away from this AfD crash. That aside, let's not conflate WP:V-truth.
  • Comment to closer AfD by blocked sock, adopted 2nd nom's (User:Mar4d's) vote needs striking. Widefox; talk 10:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an absolute trainwreck of an AFD. On one hand you have a blocked sock who's nominating it and then someone else picking up the nomination after the withdraw. On the otherhand you see that WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed and there are some clear reliable sources that push this past WP:GNG. Those who are !voting merge and delete are citing the quality of the sources instead of the policies those sources are satisfying. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:46, 24 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. Michig (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Stock Exchange[edit]

Cricket Stock Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Article has no references and lacks notability. It is about a defunct temporary website that had, at best, only peripheral relevance to cricket. Should be deleted because it is not a notable subject. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nomination PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination--Alza08 (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the nominator. It would be very difficult to establish any notability for this website. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Johnlp (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 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. Michig (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Foothills SC[edit]

Calgary Foothills SC (edit | 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 notably guidelines and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – No evidence of meeting the WP:FOOTYN guidelines or WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Club fails WP:FOOTYN as has not apparently played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 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. Deletion nomination withdrawn. WP:POL clearly covers the subject. Tgeairn (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Picard[edit]

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

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

BIO article, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN (narrowly), and does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Tgeairn (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Tgeairn, she was a member of the National Assembly or France, was she not? WP:NPOL - members of a national legislature. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Meets WP:POLITICIAN criterion 1 as an elected national politician; also as co-author of a law which itself has an article on this Wikipedia. The subject is also a recipient of the Legion of Honour. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Useful for academic purposes that elected/previously elected officials remain on wikipedia. - Gaming4JC (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Balayev[edit]

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

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined without a reason being provided. The underlying notability concerns remain. He has still not played in a fully pro league or for the Azerbaijan national team, and he has still not received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Until he actually plays in a WP:FPL or for Azerbaijan in a Tier 1 match, Balayev fails WP:NFOOTY. A search on Google finds only WP:ROUTINE coverage and other non-reliable sources, thus WP:GNG is not met. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - you're wrong, it actually plays and became the official German Bundesliga player of the club, in the club's official website here - Profile on official club website -- Nicat49 (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORT explicitly says that it only applies to footballers who have played matches in a fully pro league or for their country's national team. Simply being signed to Eintracht Frankfurt is insufficient. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The page was already deleted once, and nothing changed since. He is registered with Budesliga club Eintracht Frankfurt, but he has not played a single game for the club. WP:NFOOTY says that the player is notable if he "has played in" in a "fully professional league". But, this player did not play. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:16, 17 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) 16:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 21 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. Michig (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edwards Mill Road[edit]

Edwards Mill Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP not a directory Gaff (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Zero indication that this road is notable enough for inclusion. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above, does not establish notability and lacks sufficient context to provide any useful information. Dfadden (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above - Putting it bluntly there's nothing here that's of encyclopedic value so thus nothing of value will be lost!. –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MILF (slang)[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTDIC It is a definition of a slang term. There is already another article MILF pornography that actually has content Bhny (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is really a merge discussion, and I oppose such a merge. I can see that the MILF slang exists as a separate entity than MILF porn, with an earlier origination and different usage. Of course, MILF-style porn existed without that moniker long before the slang word was coined, but that fact just gives more credence to the separation of the two topics. Regarding whether we should have an article about slang usage, I think we can if the sources give us adequate material to describe how it's used, with examples. In this case the sources exist. My AfD vote is Keep. Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - There are things that deal with and relate to the term "MILF" that have nothing to do with Porn. Then of course there is a genre of Porn that involves MILF themes. This seems like a fairly obvious and blatant distinction. This article serves a purpose and that is to provide a place for MILF related content that isn't porn. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep MILF and MILF porn are not one and the same. This passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What is the topic of the article? If it is the word MILF then this is a slang dictionary entry and has no purpose and should be deleted as per WP:NOTDIC. Otherwise the topic is "sexually attractive older woman", which is too vague for an article. Bhny (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we understood it the first time you stated it, we just don't agree with your assessment. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Both "MILF" and "MILF porn" are obviously different so IMHO they should be kept seperate. –Davey2010^Talk 20:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC),[reply]
• Keep - the term "MILF" is both slang and an abbreviation, but it has gotten a socio-cultural meaning as well. It and its usage has become somewhat culturally significant. Therefore it's larger than merely "language" or "porn". -- fdewaele, 19 January 2015.
• Keep, the page isn't about the genre, but the word itself and it has quite a lot of significance to it and has surpassed being just some obscure slang word. ShawntheGod (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep enough said. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It should be kept, but expanded. It has become culturally ingrained at this point. It should be kept away from the MILF porn page (I don't even know why that one merits notability...) Wikimandia (talk) 23:31, 21 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) 10:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of specific crimes in Sydney[edit]

List of specific crimes in Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sprawling unsourced mess. Doesn't belong as a list, raises BLP issues on top of generally being an inappropriate article topic. Nominating per budding consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of specific crimes in Newcastle that the other three existent articles along that line should have been nominated too. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bduke (Discussion) 02:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unnecessary WP:COATRACK. Everybody at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of specific crimes in Newcastle is absolutely right. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (drone) @ 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unspecified criteria for inclusion ("specific"), vague definition and scope, WP:COATRACK for author to indulge personal interests. WWGB (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is claimed to be being coatracked? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC).
    
• Rename to either List of major crimes in Sydney or Timeline of major crime in Sydney. Any coatracking should be addressed by removing inappropriate material, or filling gaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talk • contribs) 20:03, 19 January 2015‎
• Delete Lacking specific criteria for inclusion list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]