Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 April	29 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Jefferson

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

Non-notable musical group: sources are mostly blogs or youtube links, those that are RS are only a brief mention of the group (trivial coverage). Fails WP:BAND. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - I'm not familiar with some of those websites but searches failed to find anything significant and notable aside from a cbc.ca bio (which lists some reviews from other websites). SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, that particular part of CBC Music is a promotional section where bands whose music is streamable from the site are able to post their own self-penned marketing bios. So while there are certainly parts of CBC Music, i.e. the daily news feed, which count as reliable source coverage for our purposes, the artist bios fall under our restrictions on primary sources and self-published content. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes no claim that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC, and the sourcing is almost entirely to primary (the band's own Bandcamp page), bloggy (Coke Machine Glow, Grayowl Point) and unreliable (YouTube) sources. Only sources #2 (The Independent) and #6 (Exclaim!) can ever count a whit toward getting a band over GNG — but in this case The Independent reference covers them in an extremely insubstantial, namechecking-their-existence way, comprising a grand total of just 15 words about them, and Exclaim!, while longer than that, still doesn't say nearly enough about them to get them over the bar by itself. Nothing here remotely resembles what gets a band into Wikipedia — it's basically a marketing profile of a band that exists, not an encyclopedia article about a band whose existence is noteworthy. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when somebody can write a version which properly demonstrates and sources that they pass NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - I genuinely couldn't find anything so rather surprised someone has so thanks Ritchie333, Clear Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Goat (bus company)

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

I'm sure I've nominated this before but can't find any prev AFDs so guess not, Anyway fails GNG + NCORP, Both GNews & Books brings up nothing. –Davey2010^Talk 22:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a search for "mountain goat" "lake district" brings back several non-trivial sources [1], [2],[3], [4]. In particular, the company's winning of the bid to take over and re-open the main tourist centre in Windermere seems to have attracted local news quite a bit, making them more than just a mere bus operator, and I've used that to expand the article. However, if consensus is that's not enough, then Redirect to Lake district#Communications is a good second choice. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suitable reasonable employment (UK)

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

Nominating per WP:NOTDIC. Furthermore, source searches are not providing significant coverage as required per WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be part of a larger article on UK unemployment policy. As it is it is just a definition. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a stub not a dictionary entry - see WP:DICDEF, which goes to some trouble to explain the difference. It is easy to find coverage which demonstrates notability - see Employment Law Handbook, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bilikere Dwarakanath

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

Merely being Scientist A, B, C, D etc is not a criteria for a Biography on WP. Article not sourced. External links included such as IUSSTF website etc unrelated. Full of Self praise and promo such a mention about some insignificant, so called "recent" editorial written by him. Notability missing. Educationtemple (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have some vandalism there under family (which I'm about to remove), anyway-I'm not sure right now but leaning towards a weak keep at the moment. Wgolf (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know I like to know how true the 150 publications part is. Wgolf (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As you can see there are no sources cited whatsoever to support the claims. External Link 2 (about papers) is dead. External link 3 about papers is also dead. External link 4 is unrelated. The last link go to this paper. I however did a quick search in pubmed and other sources using some combination of keys. Results from Europe Pubmed Central is this; and pubmed - this. Educationtemple (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like according to this [5] he has 99 publications (and 1265 citations!) and [6] lists him as working at INMAS. He looks like he usually uses the initials "B S Dwarakanath" or "Bilikere S Dwarakanath" or also "B.S.R. Dwarakanath". 203.202.246.35 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way 1265 citations are not a great number for 100 papers. This figures average 12 citation per paper. A single breakthrough research paper, if any may have several thousand citations. This itself suggest that the person has not a notable breakthrough contribution to justify a Bio on WP. Educationtemple (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FAILN, a search didn't turn up any secondary sources establisihing notability. per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend making an article on this content in WikiBios or another wiki, but Wikipedia isn't the best fit for this subject. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section listing his awards and achievements, and the last section showing his public service should be verified before trying to remove the article. They're not at all trivial and I've not seen anything to suspect anything here is wrong, I've even checked 3-4 points. The awards he's won are numerous and stretch from 1987 to 2009. He's also a chairman of the Board of Studies (Biomedical Science, ref: [7]) at Sri Ramachandra University. If his position is not notable enough then his 6 prestiges must be, where one of them is a fellowship at the Indian Association of Biomedical Scientists (website: [8]). Also, according to WP:NACADEMIC#Specific criteria notes, it looks like he (mostly) satisfies 2. Here are some quotes:

Some lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1.

Also, the page says it's a guideline with these quotes:

The criteria above are sometimes summed up in an "Average Professor Test". Put simply: when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?

Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.

Obviously he's accomplished much. Keep. 203.202.246.35 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is a trainwreck, format-wise, but the subject seems notable enough if we WP:AGF. I also added the VIAF authority control, if it helps. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didlr

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

Unremarkable social network, with no reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - A News search found some results and a wider search found basically the same results so there are links from notable websites but the information is not significant or notable. Other searches including Books (one result for building your own hair salon) found nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was created by an account which now has a total editcount of three (3). Despite the references which have since been added, the article's creator clearly paid little attention to WP:42. Promotional content is forbidden on Wikipedia. Please delete per the others and per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of unit testing frameworks. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unittest

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

I just completed merging PyUnit into here, per a six month old suggestion, but it really shouldn't exist at all. As a piece of software, it has no more intrinsic significance than any of the other modules in the Python standard library. The original XUnit code is notable because it introduced some new ideas about testing, but this is just a straight-forwared translation of XUnit into another language. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the subject of significant and nontrivial coverage in multiple reliably published books [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] it passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are published books, but they're all "how to use Python" manuals. As such, they're pretty much obligated to go down the list of modules included in the standard library and write something about each one. Such routine and perfunctory coverage does not establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~XUnit~~List of unit testing frameworks. Sure, there may be books giving tutorials on how to use the module, but I don't see it receiving any mainstream media coverage. Virtually nothing can be written on this topic beyond how to use it, and per NOTHOWTO, even that would be out of place here. APerson (talk!) 01:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC) (changed merge target APerson (talk!) 21:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Good idea, unless merging this stub to a new section on a page about Python is better. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of unit testing frameworks except it's already done. ― Padenton|✉ 08:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of TED speakers

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

This is an article listing items of web media. Per repeated deletions, some editors feel that linking to such media is inappropriate (see history and talk:). As such, this article becomes worthless and so the topic is evidently unworkable within the WP content model.

There is no point in having this article without linking to the content it refers to. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure if this list of speakers is notable per WP:LISTN requirements that independent sources exist that establish such a list as notable. However, the inability to preserve the list as an external link directory is not a valid reason for deletion. This is especially true in that the article is supposed to be a list of speakers, not a list of speeches.- Mr X 21:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy enough to find examples of coverage which satisfy WP:LISTN, e.g. this. Andrew D. (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm seeing a lot of various lists of TED speakers. It also seems like since TED talks in general receive a good amount of attention, this could be a useful navigational complement to Category:TED speakers. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with keep arguments above. useful to our readers. — Lentower (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amazonica

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

Non-notable organization, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGIN. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing any sources in the news connecting UNESCO with an organization named "Amazonica," though the word is common enough that it's difficult to sort through all the unrelated hits. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. No sources on the German Wikipedia either. I hate to see this free publicity being given to an outfit that may or may not be legitimate. There are no WP:Reliable sources to attest to its WP:Notability. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyani Potdar

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

Actor with no reliable sources and very little notability to be found (the prod was removed it appears) Wgolf (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches failed to find anything significant and notable, there's not even an IMDb. Note that the article used to have one reference (blogspot.com) for a family tree and in the time this article has existed it has not improved and her notability as well. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Kaake

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

Delete: non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 01:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-He does have a pretty good television listing it appears and he does appear notable enough. Wgolf (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Being a main character on two network shows doesn't demonstrate notability? Dwanyewest (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canada25

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

Origination tagged for notability since 2010. The site is dead it appears (or rather it looks like it has been taken over by a spam site possibly or at least a site in another language-the site is in Chinese I believe) Can't find anything on Google as all I seem to get are stuff like money articles (Like Canada 25 dollars for example) Wgolf (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found a Maclean's magazine article on them and some newspaper coverage. I will add some references and clean the article up. maclean (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added some references. I found 2 general articles about the group and a couple newspaper articles on each report they produced. maclean (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IQ Business Group (Pty) Ltd.

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

no evidence of notability; no reliable sources given. Amazingly, it's been here in this condition since 2007. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few passing mentions and press-releases are insufficient. Pax 07:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page to Dibar Dighi which is the spelling used in all sources. Kraxler (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dibor Dighi

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

All of the sources used are unreliable blog, forum etc and failed to prove significance of the place. Rahat (Message) 20:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete unless greatly improved with reliable sources. Even the map in the article fiels to conform to the text as to where the place is. I cannot imagine what an archaeological pond is. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of WP:NGEO, as locations are generally kept. Book link above yields some hits, so assume an actual dig site ("archeological pond", I presume, means under water). Tourist-trap fluff text will have to go. Pax 07:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It pains me to say so. The article should have been speedily deleted on day one as a copyright violation. It only got worse as the author copied in (without attribution) irrelevant material from Somapura Mahavihara. Almost everything in the article was wrong, including the location. All that said, it is a notable historic tank (manmade pond or reservoir) as evidenced by the sources I've added to the article: A chapter in the encyclopedia Banglapedia, two scholarly books, and the announcement of its protection under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act back when it was part of British India. Worldbruce (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources that have been added, which definitely seem to indicate that it is an archaeological site of regional significance. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ConFused5

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

1st AfD closed only because it attracted no responses. I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. No German-lang article for me to look at. Has been tagged for notability for seven years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Band lacks the notability for an encyclapedic entry, They have an entry on WikiBands.Wikia.com which is more appropriate. Bryce Carmony (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Charlotte County, New Brunswick. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte County Archives

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Charlotte County, New Brunswick, which presently has no mention of the archives. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I certainly wouldn't object to such a merge. Boleyn (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A municipal (city, town or county) archive is by all means a thing that can be mentioned in the main article on the city, town or county itself — but with the potential exception of a few very large cities, is rarely a topic that needs or can be reliably sourced enough to support its own standalone article. Redirect to the county per NorthAmerica1000. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- In UK most record offices have an article. Though Canadian history is shorter, I do not see why something similar should not apply there. At worst, the core of this article should be merged to the county article. The article has little real content, so that there should be little difficulty in adding a short archives section to the county article. Oppose plain redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solaris Live Upgrade

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY, or what would be the most appropriate merge or redirect target to suggest. This might be partly due to my lack of expertise in this area. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, multiple issues since 2008, and merging to Solaris (operating system) is not really necessary. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aruna Dhathathreyan

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

Could not establish notability. Streesakthi Science Award is not a national award in India for science and technology. Fails WP:ACADEMIC Educationtemple (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:PROF: only 572 citations with a h-index of 13, and no other significant impact as covered in reliable sources, thus failing WP:PROF#C1. WP:PROF#C2 isn't fulfilled because the awards are not highly prestigious. The subject also most likely doesn't meet any other WP:PROF criteria. The subject also fails WP:BASIC, no coverage in reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 00:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 00:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I Killed the Prom Queen. If the redirect gets reverted I suggest going to WP:RFPP. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cameron (musician)

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

Fails WP:Music, page has been re-created after previously being a redirect. RF23 (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated by the subject, no less. As it stands (no sufficient sources for him personally): Redirect again, and lock the redirect - David Gerard (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Killed the Prom Queen, since the subject does not have any notability independent of the band - WP:MUSICBIO states that "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band. — sparklism ^hey! 14:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crookhurst Farm

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

Article is basically nothing more than a scary ghost story with almost no encyclopedic value. A quick search revealed the existence of something known as Crookhurst Farm, but there's nothing that indicates that the rest of the article isn't a very obvious WP:HOAX. Pishcal — ♣ 20:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and possible hoax. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches turn up nothing more than an old farmhouse now available as holiday cottages. Article is woefully under-referenced, thus unverifiable. Verifiability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia! — Hebrides (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I grew up in the area and heard nothing about this supposedly haunted farm. However, I'm willing to change my opinion if sources can be provided. Perhaps we've been too quick to jump the gun and it would be beneficial to give the original author time to find appropriate sources? Pitipaci (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poacher's Relish

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

This does not seem to be a particularly notable product. Unsourced for nine years, and probably destined to be a permanent stub since there are no sources to base any content on. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any relevant content can be added to Gentleman's Relish, a similar product made by the same manufacturer. Dabbler (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a propriety name for a somewhat unremarkable commercial version of potted salmon. Despite having had the marketing advantage of a Wikipedia article over the last nine years, it has still gained no particular notability. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no significant coverage of this product in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- Sadly no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Very clear consensus for delete here apart from the article creator. Davewild (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prasant Maths

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

The article appears to present as fact a technique for using numerology to predict the scores of cricket matches in advance based on the dates on which they will occur. The topic appears to be a piece of original research and fundamentally unverifiable; all searches for the phrase "Prasant Maths" turn up no hits other than the WP article, and the only source listed on the article appears to be a self-published blog post. As such, the content seems to be unencyclopedic and unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I am also nominating the following related page (by the same editor treating the same topic, also supported only by self-published sources):

Comment: the same author also worked on Prasant Score Calculator, which seems similar in subject matter. Praemonitus (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I'll nominate Prasant Score Calculator, as well. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is original research and is not discussed in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The source is 'news site' which publish the contents independently in the name of original person. So, the reliable source condition is fulfilled,

As per wiki terms, six months are allowed for the development of articles. Both the articles are like stubs, no violation of wiki. An author can highlight and create multiple pages related with a methodology of the third person, no problem in it either.

I expect co-operation from all in the construction and development of both the pages, rather than destruction. Both are rich with latest knowledge based content, purely maths...nothing occult. I demand patience from the wiki team. Till 6 months [minimum], allow the pages to exist in happy mood...without any warning msgs etc.

Our team is working day and knight to collect the most accurate facts and links related with this new method. Thank you. SillyLilies (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SillyLilies (talk • contribs) 09:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles linked on that "news site" were written by "Prasant," making them primary sources and unsuitable for verification of encyclopedic content. And, again, there are literally no hits for the phrase "Prasant Maths," leaving no realistic prospect that any verifiable sources will be found.

As for the "knowledge based content" of the articles, they explicitly promote a system of numerological divination using astrology and calendar dates to predict the future, presenting the methods as fact. At best, if this system of "predictions" were wide-spread and much commented-upon (by independent, reputable sources), then an article could be written documenting the beliefs as a social phenomenon like any other superstition. Notice, however, that the articles on e.g. dowsing or triskaidekaphobia do not advocate those beliefs, but merely document them. In this case, since there is no evidence of any reputable sources independent of "Prasant" saying anything about this "system," it will not be possible even to salvage these articles into a form more like those on other, established superstitions. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply As already stated, our team is working towards finds more reliable sources. And there is no mention about numerology in both the articles. The method has been treated by the creator of these pages, i.e. me, as Maths. And my mind is finding sources in that direction.

One big question, you are saying 'Prasant Maths' is unseen on net, anywhere. Then, how did you land/come across specifically this page, amidst more than 1 lac newly created pages in past two months?SillyLilies (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that the topic is "unseen on net, anywhere" , SillyLilies, as that is an exceptionally low hurdle which has nothing to do with whether or not an article should exist on Wikipedia. We have articles about topics which have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I do not know where your "six months" comes from. You have one week to produce such sources, though that time may be extended if enough editors don't chime in. It is the immediate obligation of any editor advocating keeping the article to furnish the needed sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for how we came across the article, we have volunteer teams of editors called "new page patrollers" who when appropriate, take action to nominate articles for deletion. We also have other volunteer editors (such as me) who work to review articles nominated for deletion. I have participated in thousands of such discussions, and argue to keep some articles, and delete others, based on my knowledge of our policies and guidelines. This is a routine maintenance function of this encyclopedia, and your article is receiving routine evaluation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Original research that isn't backed up to any reliable sources. Also, frankly, a load of rubbish. Harrias ^talk 06:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exception to self published source I think news sites are exceptions to the self published source. Wiki has further stated this 'Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field...' Could this help my cause, gentlemen?

Another thing, when I checked the genuineness of the patrollers of my pages, I found that most of them seems to have been freshly created to harm my pages. I felt that you and few others have been appointed by an enemy of mine or any competitor of the person Prasant, am I wrong?

The phrase "self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" indicates that an article written by Prasant could perhaps be used as a source for non-controversial information about Prasant, for use in an article about Prasant. Self-published sources are never acceptable to support controversial claims about a topic that the writer openly advocates (or opposes). And, no, no one here was appointed by an enemy of yours; as Cullen328 points out, you'll notice there are hundreds of other articles being evaluated alongside this one, as part of the content review process that keeps this encyclopedia working. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarding any subject, serious offence Your patrolling team and new additions are abusing 'numerology' and 'maths methods'. This is a serious offense, nobody can treat any subject of knowledge as inferior, rubbish, unscientific etc. Lack of links doesn't mean the subject/content is bad. The contents of Prasant had been published in many local newspapers in many cities across India, but the only problem is getting its online version for links.SillyLilies (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't see anything to suggest that Prasant's observations have been published in the sort of source that would meet WP:NUMBER and there is nothing appearing when I searched at MathWorld, for example. Currently the article only has a single primary source- although appearing on a news site, the author is not an independent journalist. As such, I would agree with the analysis presented by Bryanrutherford0 that − in terms of how Wikipedia content is categorised − this is original research and unverifiable. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I explored your recommended site MathWorld, i found strange things there. Mathworld is carrying sponsored contents- numerology 26 articles, too much discussion on Christian community's favorite 'beast' number. Is that site scientific then?

And the site is carrying 'baseball' and '10 pins' maths topic, multiple times. Clearly, sponsored contents. How could a simple less wealthy mathematician Prasant could get his maths uploaded there?SillyLilies (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No DeleteBut how could WP numbers criteria be met when the mathematician Prasant has developed maths methods superior than the professional mathematicians? They won't include his methods, or review it.. Ego problem. Wiki rules are quite unnatural. Why would Sachin copy or use the batting techniques of Dhoni? Or mention about it in his books n writings? Are there any professional mathematician, devoted exclusively to this cause...reviewing maths methods of an Indian person? SillyLilies (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete. Mathematically incoherent, unsourced and likely unsourceable, fails WP:NFT. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Occasional Exceptions NFT - If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. SillyLilies (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NotabIlity only for the Rich? When you search google news, you will find news injected by highly wealthy persons only. More than 100-500 news related with bollywood film. Check those articles, they are nothing less than promotional pamphlets. My question is- wiki demands notability, this comes from news articles, but the media covers news only related with rich persons, does that seriously mean the contents of an ordinary scientist/mathematician is not notable?

Wiki should not be too much mechanical, it should see through the tactics of these news sources. All the wiki articles related with bollywood films, to the count of 3000 above, are having reference links of such promotional nature. They are purely sponsored news articles. Wiki should reject such paid sources and accept the honest contents even though unsourced.SillyLilies (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probe the identity of wiki moderators I want the wiki owners to probe the genuineness of the members who have put my article into deletion list. They haven't given a satisfactory answer to- how did they spot my pages, beginning from P letter from 20,000 under-construction articles? Isn't it somebody's planned move to harm me, my pages and mathematician Prasant's works?

I want wiki owners to probe the real identity of the persons who have 1. patrolled my pages 2. recommending their deletions? What are their real names, are they genuine living persons or just 'identities' created for this purpose? In this fashion, they might try to harm my future pages too. Anybody could create an account in wiki and start harming my pages for one reasons or the other. SillyLilies (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should read Wikipedia's policy on Ownership of articles They are not "yours" by any stretch of the imagination. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And also read WP:OUTING. Demanding real names from editors who haven't already provided them is a violation of Wikipedia policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then how could we/wiki expose their fraud, if they are free to hide their real identities? Editing other members's page should require the establishment of the genuiness of the editor. And why none of my quieries have been answered in a satisfactory manner? And the moderators haven't yet submitted their written apology for treating 'numerology' 'maths' and 'prasant' as rubbish, superstition etc. Why not yet?SillyLilies (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Patently fails WP:OR and WP:GNG. Only defender of the page has clear WP:COI PianoDan (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nice comedy, what about the 2000 or more bollywood movie pages. Maths is never for income, but yes the movie pages definitely are. Gabbar is Back Promotionary nature of Gabbar's ref links. It is just a wordpress blog made to look like a news site. They tricked easily and the film has already amassed 45 crores. Were were you, your detailed rules, long brigade of moderators?SillyLilies (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now no delete needed Proper reference added Now, the process of adding proper reference has begun. Already a strong source has been added, the AIFAS link. It is the all India national level reputed institution for astrology research. And why none of my quieries have been answered in a satisfactory manner? And the moderators haven't yet submitted their written apology for treating 'numerology' 'maths' and 'prasant' as rubbish, superstition etc. Why not yet?SillyLilies (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new link that's been added appears marginally more credible than the previous ones, but the publication seems to be an astrologers' trade magazine (however much it wishes to present itself as an academic journal), and the article is, like all the others, written by Prasant. What are the criteria for the inclusion of articles in this "journal"? What sort of peer review have its articles undergone? What sort of attempts are there to replicate the "research" published in this magazine?

In any case, what remains absent is any indication that reputable sources independent of Prasant are devoting significant coverage to these ideas. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRINGE/PS. It's hardly worth debating the references when the whole article is blatant nonsense. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multijurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force Training

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

This article was accepted in this form from being an AfC draft despite objections as the topic is entirely sourced with non-INDEPENDENT sources. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

~~Not to mention after a check it is a spliced together copy and paste copyright violation. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. The article could certainly use more independent sources, but with respect to Technical 13 I disagree strongly with his interpretation of "independent source." The article in the Bangor Daily News is most definitely a reliable secondary source. WABI-TV is a reliable secondary source. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is a reliable secondary source. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The WABI-TV link never mentions the MCTFT, The Bangor Daily News article is mostly about the specific officer and only makes a passing mention of the MCTFT (so I'm not sure it counts as WP:SIGCOV), and the UN link is an entry in an indiscriminate list of all NGOs, which isn't significant coverage, and the text there was taken from the MCTFT website, which makes it not independent. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete since it's also a G12. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent a couple hours and it's not a copyvio anymore. Still largely unsourced and lacking in independent reliable sources. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per T13. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain, potentially Stubbify. No-body is suggesting that this programme isn't notable or important; we appear to be arguing about the sources used. Therefore the article should not be deleted outright. At the very most, this should only be reduced as far as a stub, and a mention included at Florida Army National Guard. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain to me how the sources I have listed are not 'reliable' or 'neutral'. How are 3rd party TV and newspaper sources not reliable or neutral? How is a United Nations source not reliable or neutral? I used a unique source for every single sentence in this article. Please give me a hypothetical source that would satisfy all the requirements. If you google mctft you will see hundreds of different sources that can be listed, I just don't seem to be finding what you all are looking for.Briansmith451 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The TV station never mentions the MCTFT, the newspaper only mentions it in one sentence, and the UN link is a directory entry that uses text provided by the MCTFT. The first two aren't significant coverage, the third isn't independent. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bangor Daily News article has several paragraphs discussing MCTFT. As for the United Nations page, MCTFT didn't provide them any text. They copy/pasted the text themselves and we had nothing to do with it. Regardless, how is it that when a highly respected organization like the UN decides to use our words, they are suddenly not a reliable source. They are still choosing to discuss/advertise MCTFT. If President Obama got up in front of Congress and used our exact words to praise MCTFT, would he also not be a reliable source? Is there no common sense applied in these cases?Briansmith451 (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The UN is a "reliable" source, but if they are using text taken from the MCTFT website they are not an independent source. It's no different than when a respected news organization such as Forbes reprints a press release on their website. It's reliable, it's just not independent. It's not enough just to have reliable sources, notability needs to be shown through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So basically if I had been smarter and created this page with words that were different from what the U.N. listed (ie my own writing), this would all not be an issue because you would never have known that what they have on their page is my writing? Is this not true?Briansmith451 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Briansmith451: No, not at all. The fact that the UN page is a directory entry prevents it from being significant coverage in a reliable source. If you look at WP:ORGDEPTH, you will see that "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" is not considered significant coverage (you will also see that "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization", as in the Bangor article, doesn't count either).

But beyond that, the text on the UN page sounded as if it had been written by the organization (per WP:ORGIND, "works in which the ... organization ... talks about itself—whether published by the ... organization ... or re-printed by other people" are not considered independent) and a quick search of the text on the UN page showed that the same language appeared on the MCTFT website. I didn't even realize that you had written that text in the article as well.

Every article on Wikipedia must be about a notable subject, and in this case that means that it must pass the standards of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This means that, among your references, you should have citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Having sources that are not independent is okay for making the article verifiable in some cases, which is also important, and you don't get any "points off" for having them in the article. However, this deletion discussion is centered around whether or not notability can be shown for this organization, which needs significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Before I declined your original draft I had gone through the steps at WP:BEFORE and looked for significant independent coverage of the organization itself, and it didn't seem that such coverage existed. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. One more question. We have a reporter for ABC-7 news Tampa that's coming out to do training with us and US Marshals in mid-May (forcible entry & search/seizure stuff). She will be doing a newscast on her experience. She doesn't know us any more than you know us right now. How should I play this so that she can be considered an independent source. By previous explanations, as soon as she participates in the training, she's no longer an independent source since she will be "involved with us" as you once said.Briansmith451 (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no conflict of interest there, so the reporter would be an independent source. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 13 didn't seem to think so. He wrote "Needs to be sources that aren't the topic and have not interacted directly with the source." It would really help if there were a list of concrete examples that are and aren't independent sources because several of you all have differing opinions. Briansmith451 (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think T13 was oversimplifying a little. The definition of an independent source is covered by WP:INDY. "Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)." An organization planning an event with MCTFT has a conflict of interest, a reporter, as long as there's editorial independence, does not (T13 can correct me if I'm wrong here). I wouldn't expect that one news report to save the article, however, as per WP:ORGDEPTH "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was the reporter was part of the agency/department that was being trained and as such was not their independently as "only there to report" instead of "reporting since they had to be there to participate anyways". — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahecht Can you please edit this sentence, I can't understand because of the grammar. "An organization planning an event with MCTFT has a conflict of interest, a reporter, as long as there's editorial independence, does not."Briansmith451 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An organization planning an event with MCTFT has a conflict of interest, and is there not an independent source. A news reporter that has editorial independence does not have a conflict of interest, and therefore would be an independent source. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A program that has trained more than one million people is manifestly notable: [14]. The actual rubric of N is that GNG and SNG create presumptions of notability. They do not work in reverse. A topic that is clearly "worthy of notice" within the ordinary meaning of that expression is not excluded merely because it fails to satisfy GNG and the (hopelessly incomplete) SNG. In any event, the article cannot be deleted because the nature of the topic is such that adequate sources are likely to exist, perhaps offline (WP:NRVE). And deleting this article would, in view of the nature of the topic, violate WP:IAR, which is the main policy of the project. In any event, as the school is located at the campus of St. Petersburg College, Florida, it is a plausible redirect to that college and ineligible for deletion on grounds of notability (WP:R). James500 (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11.(non-admin closure) Pishcal — ♣ 17:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake Relief and Rescue Campaign Nepal

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

WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTADVERTISING. Pishcal — ♣ 16:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam per WP:CSD#G11. Spam for a good cause, but blatant spam nonetheless, and tagging as such. --Finngall ^talk 16:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7'd. Wily D 09:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanz

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

Unsourced article about a brand. I am unable to find sources to establish WP:GNG notability. - Mr X 14:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Esquivalience ^t 00:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just Between Us (disambiguation)

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

Page nominated for deletion at MfD, but disambiguation pages are typically discussed at AfD. The nominator's rationale at MfD was as listed below (verbatim). The procedurally-closed MfD discussion can be seen here. I am presently neutral regarding the disambiguation page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little unnecessary to have this disambiguation page, as the primary subject is the only item in the list that actually has an article. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, so long as there are multiple entries that satisfy WP:DABMENTION older ≠ wiser 14:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Bkonrad above. Someone could also remove the nominator's problem, by adding a few articles, and linking them at this dab page. Dai Pritchard (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this dab should be kept, as it contains several links to other relevant articles. --Surturz (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Erpert, please see MOS:DABMENTION. Many valid entries here. Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DABMENTION and obvious usefulness. PamD 08:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually has 2 articles. Just Between Us and Just Between Us (Ray Charles album)― Padenton|✉ 08:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. User pages are discussed at MfD. A discussion has been created at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PRADEKa6. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:PRADEKa6

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

This page, I would not say it is BLATANT WP:PROMO, I feel as If this is most likely a attempt to promote GLADIUS TECHNOLOGIES. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 13:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Red (short film)

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

Non-notable film lacking independent non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete or Userfy. Short films have a tough road, and this one is more difficult because it has not yet released, giving us issues with WP:NFF and TOO SOON. After it releases and IF it gets requisite coverage, a return is worth considering. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Creator Understanding the reasons above- The film is due for release and to have more notable press coverage in conjunction with the director. Notoriety also with Andy Gray as a well known Scottish actor and with Helen Mackay whom is 'up and coming' in television roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.19.179 (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF and TOO SOON. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon, No objections to recreation once more info & sources pop up. –Davey2010^Talk 17:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invenergy

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

relatively minor wind farm company; no reliable secondary sources d for notability. DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12], ^[13], ^[14], ^[15], ^[16]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "U.S. Bancorp invests in Invenergy's Bishop Hill Wind project". The Register-Mail.
^ "How a Chicago energy entrepreneur is resolving Michigan's power crisis". chicagobusiness.com.
^ "Invenergy open house draws protestors". tuscolatoday.com.
^ "Invenergy offers look at wind farm development". Pontiac Daily Leader.
^ "Invenergy proposes community host money for Jessup". thetimes-tribune.com.
^ "Invenergy won't burn Keystone landfill gas". thetimes-tribune.com.
^ "Group gearing up for power plant fight". thetimes-tribune.com.
^ "Cherokee Chronicle Times: Local News: Highland II Wind Farm in advanced developmental phase (12/22/14)". Cherokee Chronicle Times.
^ "Invenergy gets ICC nod for renewable energy contracts". chicagobusiness.com.
^ "Invenergy Gets PNC Financing for Concentrating Solar Power Plant". Bloomberg.com.
^ "Chasing the Wind: Inside the Alternative Energy Battle". p. 49.
^ "Renewable Energy: A Common Sense Energy Plan". p. 36.
^ "Invenergy Wind dedicates Prairie Breeze wind farm". Lincoln Journal Star.
^ "Invenergy applies to build wind farm in Illinois". chicagobusiness.com.
^ "Invenergy secures financing for Orangeville Wind Farm". The Daily News Online.
^ "SDG&E, Kumeyaay Tribe Join Invenergy Wind Farm Project". cbs8.com. 11 June 2009.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many sources that add up to the subject's notability under WP:CORP. Esquivalience ^t 00:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alan Barry (disambiguation) has been moved to this title per Boleyn's request. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Barry

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

A music band I'm not sure if it reaches notability or not (this is technically a orphan as the only article that links to it is a sports person page) Anyway I'm having a hard time finding refs as I'm mainly just finding pages for people with this name. Wgolf (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is found nn, then Alan Barry (disambiguation) should be moved to the primary page. Boleyn (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything except this page, where the entire article seems to be lifted from: http://www.mtv.com/artists/alan-barry/. valereee (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn (nominator removed AfD template from article after agreeing here to a merge with no dissenting opinions). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defective interfering particle

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

The article is quite poorly written, badly referenced and I don't think entirely accurate. I propose it instead redirects to the Defective Interfering RNA article, which covers the points in better detail and is essentially the same thing, although could itself do with some expanding. Having just covered this as part of my degree, this current page appears to serve little purpose when compared to the better written Defective Interfering RNA one. More generally, I think the concept needs to be re-written to include the idea of DI-DNAs - which also exist - not just DI-RNAs. rhodesj971 (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a merge case. Question for @Zecrah: Would the current title be a reasonable one for an expanded article covering both RNA and DNA? The result would be to a) merge the superior content currently in Defective Interfering RNA into this article and redirect its title here, b) edit the resulting article with new information about DNA examples, and c) create a new redirect from Defective interfering DNA to this article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh apologies, I didn't consider that this is more of a merge topic - bit new to this. Yes, I think that's a good idea. An article titled Defective interfering particle encompassing both RNA and DNA aspects, with redirects from both, would be a good. I'll try and do that and close this up when I have? Many thanks @Opabinia regalis: rhodesj971 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zecrah: No problem; merging is a possible outcome for a deletion discussion too. Your plan sounds good. Feel free to ping me if you need help with any of the closing or merging templates. (Since there's so much material being merged in, I suggest using {{copied}} or similar on Talk:Defective Interfering RNA to make sure attribution is clear.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jonathon Green. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of Insulting Quotations

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

Most google hits I could find were for stuff like "Buy this at Barnes and Noble" Completely unreferenced page with just a short description as well. I am trying to find any notability so far no luck. Wgolf (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jonathon Green or delete. This article looks like a review, but I can't read the full text. Besides that, there's about 50 hits on Google. It's a valid search term that should probably redirect to the author, but I can't find any real evidence of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange that I didn't see those other Highbeam articles, because I obviously did check Highbeam. Well, I'm not convinced yet, but those links throw enough doubt that it's probably not worth arguing over it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Here's the Heavy Roller". The Mercury. 2013-07-16. Retrieved 2015-04-14 – via HighBeam. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The article notes:
  
  Here's the Heavy Roller The Mercury (South Africa); July 16, 2013; 700+ words YESTERDAY we looked at the rapier thrusts. Here now is a bit of heavy roller stuff contained in Cassell's Dictionary of Insulting Quotations (compiled by Jonathan Green).
2. Hunt, George W. (1997-03-29). "Cassell Dictionary of Insulting Quotations". America. Retrieved 2015-04-14 – via HighBeam. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The article notes:
  
  America; March 29, 1997; Hunt, George W.; 700+ words ...Churchill: "Nancy, if I were your husband, I would drink it." These gems can be uncovered in the Cassell Dictionary of Insulting Quotations, edited by Jonathon Green (Sterling. $24.95 3 11p.), which will soon be published in the United...
3. Bevis, Hillier (1997-01-11). "Expressing hatred and contempt". The Spectator. Retrieved 2015-04-14. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The article notes:
  
  The Spectator; January 11, 1997; Hillier, Bevis; 700+ words ...Green Kyle Cathie, 14.99, pp. 383 DICTIONARY OF INSULTING QUOTATIONS by Jonathon Green Cassell, 16.99, pp. 311 YOUR MOTHER'S...metaphysical order... Jonathon Green's Dictionary of Insulting Quotations has a more potboilerish feel...
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Dictionary of Insulting Quotations to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.
The reviews in America and The Spectator clearly establish that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All of the quotations are from http://business.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=+Cassell+Dictionary+of+Insulting+Quotations.&searchType=Article&currentPage=0&orderBy=. Cunard (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are some mentions in reviews, but I do not think they amount to significant, in-depth coverage on the work. Note that the Spectator link is a "group review" dealing with 3 different books. Neutrality^talk 18:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Spectator link provides significant coverage about all three books. This does not diminish it from establishing notability for Dictionary of Insulting Quotations. Cunard (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept that merely being reviewed automatically confers notability, particularly if the review is a "group review" in a minor publication. Such reviews are routine and run-of-the-mill. Neutrality^talk 04:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - Changing my vote to 'redirect per suggestion below. Neutrality^talk 00:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Jonathon Green - The links above do not, to me, provide enough substantive coverage of the book. The first takes a quote from it but isn't about it, the second is not a review but a mention/musing/I don't know what (I certainly wouldn't say "substantive", to again use the word used in the notability guideline), and the third is a bit better but, for me, not enough to see notability here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality (talk · contribs) and Rhododendrites (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Jonathon Green (with the history preserved under the redirect) over deletion? Cunard (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Sounds good to me. Updated my !vote accordingly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Since this a short stub, a redirect to the author's article probably would be better than a stand-alone article. I have struck out my "keep" vote.
I ask the closing admin not to delete the history so that the redirect can be easily undone if editors in the future find more sources about the subject that could be used to expand the article significantly.
Cunard (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a compromise, I would support a redirect. Neutrality^talk 00:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unless someone is going to expand this current-one sentence useless article, just redirect to Jonathon Green. There are hundreds of notable novels from the early 20th and 19th centuries we don't have articles on yet, i wouldn't want us to have one sentence stubs for all of them, its of no value to the reader.-Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1467 Mashona

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worth merging, but possibly worth a redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 as is usual procedure if asteroid is found to be non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is research using this one as a particular example [15], studying it as one of a small group of asteroids [16], and considering close encounters between it and other asteroids [17]. I'm not sure whether they're enough in-depth coverage of this object to pass WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per the usual procedure with asteroids. Neutrality^talk 18:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: A somewhat difficult call; it's on the edge in terms of Wikipedia notability, but I'll go with a redirect for now. Praemonitus (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Chronicles of Narnia. Sandstein 15:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lioncon

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY; has been tagged for notability for 7 years. Pinging Brewcrewer. Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Or redirect to Chronicles of Narnia. Wgolf (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a merge could be a good idea. Wgolf (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom. Not yet notable enough. When it become, we will get it here. Educationtemple (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge When I made this article seven years ago, it looked to me like it would be notable in time. But after all these years...I tend to agree with Wgolf that a merge might be the best idea for this. - Alternativity (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet notability requirements. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 05:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a suitable Narnia article. Does not meet WP:GNG. Appears to be a one-off. Google search brings up notices advertising the 2008 convention and some fan blog mentions only and a podcast of one of the seminars at the convention, no reviews or discussion of it found, no further conventions after 2008 found. Convention website listed in the References section brings up a nothing found message (see [18]). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Icelandic New Business Venture Fund

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

A company that I'm not sure if it meets wiki guidelines or not. The website is in Icelandic which if anyone knows that be great. My only results on google seem to be linked to some books but that's it. Wgolf (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one statement without 3rd party reference, that could be anything, e.g., spam, or malware, or adware, or SEO, or spam. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only link is to the firm's website. I nominated it for a WP:Speedy deletion because it does not make a claim to notability. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Wgolf, Be..anyone, and BeenAroundAWhile: WP:BEFORE, anyone? There are now six references, most to books/journals. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is about nominating, and with issues listed for six years anyway not applicable. What you found suggests that this was something real, not a mere hoax. But "no hoax" is not the same as notable. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete the sources merely confirm what this fund does but nothing indepth. zero hits in gnews archives. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the sources? At least two, possibly three, are significant coverage. Since this is heading towards delete for some bizarre reason despite being obviously notable, I'm requesting that it be userfied. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the sources appear to be primary or brief mentions as indicated by @LibStar:, however these two[19][20] from Google Books contain exactly the type of biographical content we need to source a good article. Since they are books, rather than press, they would not have come up in Libstar's searches. CorporateM (Talk) 01:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I told you I looked up before-but couldn't find info. Wgolf (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf: Didn't you admit that you found "some books"? Anyway, since it's now been improved, would you consider switching to keep? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Meets WP:GNG weakly. Source examples include book, book, book, European Commission. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Northamerica1000. I had not seen that last source. I will try to incorporate it into the article. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A governmental company with ample reliable sources (books listed above) is notable. The fund is still active, owning a large part of a hydrogen demonstration company with Icelandic New Energy. Mamyles (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of tool-lending libraries. Split decision. Merge Sudbury, all others keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tool libraries in Canada

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

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

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

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

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

Series of articles about tool-lending libraries in Canada, none making any substantive claim of notability per WP:ORG and all relying almost entirely on primary sourcing to the libraries' own websites — except for the occasional citation to census demographic data for the city that the library in question happens to be located in (which is not coverage of the libraries), the only reliable source anywhere in the entire set is a single article about the Sudbury library in the city's local community weekly (which would be acceptable as one source amid a diversity of sources, but is not widely distributed enough to confer WP:GNG by itself if it's the article's only source.) "Notable because it exists" is not a thing we do on Wikipedia — notability must be earned by meeting specific criteria that none of these claim to meet, and/or referencing the topic far better than this. (And for what it's worth, while I can't actually prove anything, something about the fact that these all happened at once is pinging my conflict of interest radar.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely disagree with Bearcat but I'm seeing some surprisingly news significant coverage, just by clicking on the "news" links above, from major papers like the National Post, Ottawa Citizen, Toronto Star... not little mentions in many cases but actual articles. Sudbury's the weak link, to be sure, but that one aside, the other cities' tool libraries may well have garnered enough coverage to meet notability minimums.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only recently set up the Tool Library sites, and fully intend to include links to various newspaper (National Post, Ottawa Citizen, Toronto Star) accounts to establish notability minimums. Although most of the news coverage is for the major city tool libraries e.g. Vancouver (1st), Toronto (most branches), Halifax; Sudbury was interesting as an outgrowth of the public library system. I set up the sites, after reading about the Ottawa tool library and in a similar style to the other Canadian public library sites I put together. Victoriaedwards (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So you did create [21] and the sibling sites? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should also point out that since Bearcat created this group nom, she continues to spawn more articles, or at least, this one, anyway: London Tool Library. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the following four below. Meets WP:GNG. Sources below.

Toronto Tool Library: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]

^ "Toronto's first Tool Library gears up to open in Parkdale". thestar.com. 5 February 2013.
^ "How-to books and tools to do the job: Soon, Downsview library will offer both". thestar.com. 9 April 2015.
^ "Tool Library's Alternative Gift Fair lets you swap your items, land free gifts". thestar.com. 12 December 2014.
^ "The Toronto Tool Library Brings a New Model of Resource Sharing to Parkdale". torontoist.com.
^ "Thousands of loans later, Toronto Tool Library turns one in Parkdale". insidetoronto.com.

Vancouver Tool Library: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]

^ Tristin Hopper (10 April 2013). "Vancouver at forefront of sharing revolution". National Post.
^ Naoibh O'Connor. "Vancouver tool library builds success in first year". Vancouver Courier.
^ "SFU's Certificate in Community Economic Development takes aim at corporate monoculture". The Vancouver Observer.
^ "Tonight's Steele on Your Side: Tool library". British Columbia.

Halifax Tool Library: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]

^ "Effort to launch tool library in Halifax underway". cbc.ca. 29 December 2013.
^ "Make. Do. with Halifax Tool Library". The Chronicle Herald.
^ "Halifax Tool Library nails its grand opening". Metro.
^ "Look under 'T' for table saw: Group trying to start Halifax's first-ever tool library". Metro.
^ "New tool library". CTV News Atlantic.
^ "Tool time". The Coast Halifax.

Calgary Tool Library: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]

^ "Calgary Tool Library open for business and already growing". Metro.
^ "Courtney Hare - Community Economic Development - Simon Fraser University". sfu.ca.
^ ,Bruce Weir. "Home improvement improved with a Calgary tool library". www.calgaryherald.com.
^ "Calgary's Tool Library offers an affordable option for the handy at heart". 660News.

Sudbury Tool Library – Merge to List of tool-lending libraries. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to warrant a standalone article.

– Also please note that on Wikipedia, the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable. Topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, Keep all but Sudbury. As for the new London tool library article, I see a London Free Press article and some sort of London community paper article. 22:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian leaders

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

This list is an unsalvageable anachronism. A significant propoprtion of people currently listed does not meet the inclusion criterion of having been "the most senior official with the role of heading the region in the southern Levant while it was titled Palestine or a variation thereof", with the reasons ranging from "not most senior" via "not an official" to "not titled Palestine". Besides, that criterion would make for a list of leaders of Palestine, not Palestinian leaders. All of that possibly could be fixed, but the basic problem cannot: This list presupposes a continuity of leadership from antiquity to modern times that simply does not exist. Huon (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added an improve tag. i think improving would be prefarable to deletion. This is a notable topic but I am not an expert on it. I plan to leave a notice on a wikiproject for a more knowledgable editor to improve it. Palestinians are a people of 16 million people. It is lacking if this encyclopedia assumes that such a large number of people have not had any leaders in their history. Hhplactube (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs major work. The topic is notable and there are plenty of sources. Defining the topic precisely is more difficult than with most lists like this, but that doesn't mean it can't be made into a useful article. The difference between "leaders of Palestine" and "Palestinian leaders" is something that can be worked out in a naming discussion. Zero^talk 02:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a reasonable topic and debates about content can be discussed through normal procedures (talk pages, etc). Lots of similar articles are also problematic and there's no consistency - List of British monarchs is restricted to post-1707 (which is rather restrictive considering Leir of Britain, English kings who defeated and claimed Scotland, etc); in contrast List of rulers of China includes mythical ancient rulers and even gods. Colapeninsula (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creativism

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

When all the original research is removed, there's three authors discussing completely different things, and barely using the term at that. Does not appear in any tertiary sources. Attempts to find academic sources only pulled up yet more authors having to define how they were using the term in a new and unique fashion (indicating that there is no unified concept of Creativism) while primarily focusing on something else entirely. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDICT, still kinda WP:NOR. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a WP:DICDEF. The article is explicit in that the subject is a term and not a concept. In fact it's also explicit in stating it's a term that means different things to different authors. Best case scenario is WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article contributes nothing useful, since it is only a collection of scattered attempts to define the word in different ways. Maybe one day a consensus will develop, but there is clearly none yet. The author followed up by posting many equally useless "see also" links to the article. --Blainster (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Creativism is a term used by a few authors in different ways" says it all - there is no single, notable subject here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and that's the version with reduced WP:OR. The original version was "Creativism, not to be confused with creationism, is a term with various meanings, each of which however relates in some way to creative process." It never demonstrated that it was the same creative process, or that the distinct terms were in any way related beyond being homonyms. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted G7 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Nosta

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Now, on the surface this looks nice. But if you look at the refs in more details, it falls apart - this is a professional vanity bio, authored by the WP:SPA User:NomiStature. Refs either mention him in passing, or are promotional, likely self-written or paid-for PR pieces. The "Shorty Interview"? Self-written SNS-like entry. The nuviun profile looks great, but nuviun itself seems to be a PR company, or some other form of marketing entity. Ditto for Cox Blue. The "Reuters" piece is a traditional PR tool, note the " Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." A bunch of other elinks sound "great" only to reveal short self-written profiles and such. I am not seeing any reliable, independent sources here, just a lot of PR hot air. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I Looked at first 10 screens of google search and found no independent sources to reasonably establish notability. 00:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nice find, this is a good one. If I ever need a puff bio written, I would totally hire this user. Manages to make spending a year as a lab tech after undergrad, having famous high school classmates, and once giving a talk at a TEDxNowheresville almost sound like actual achievements. (Cleverly, the publications list is misformatted to include the institution, but not the author list, which would reveal Nosta was never even first author.) There is absolutely nothing here that constitutes a serious claim to notability. Just a big pile of self-publication and self-promotion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So much for my attempt at article creation. It sounds from the comments that I am some type of infiltrator who came to Wikipedia to introduce spam. This I am not. However, I can see from the comments that the article is not up to par with the notability requirements. I read through them carefully, but obviously did not apply them correctly. I also read that I can request deletion of the article which I would like to do as I do not want anything on the site that can be taken as spammy. I will keep the article in my sandbox until I have a chance to work on it more. There are many references that you are all missing, including numerous books where he and his works are covered, but I can add that later when I have time. Sorry for wasting everyone’s time. --NomiStature (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NomiStature: My comments above sounded grumpy, but it is actually a well-written article; it's just that the subject seems not to meet the notability requirements as far as we can tell, and we get so much spam that people tend to be skeptical of this sort of thing. You can move or copy it back to your sandbox and request that the mainspace version be deleted by adding the {{db-author}} tag to it (but bear in mind that we don't indefinitely host content that won't be suitable for mainspace eventually). We have many missing biographical articles for people broadly involved in the medical field; maybe you'd like to try one of those? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NomiStature: I do apologize, if in fact you wrote this for a non-promotional reason. Unfortunately, your activity - creating a well-written, well-formatted article on a person of dubious notability - meets exactly all the features associated with a paid-for, spammy edits that are plaguing this project. If you want to show us that we mistakenly prejudged you, for which I'll again apologize in advance, I'd encourage you to do things that said spammers never do: improve content on topics that no spammer would work. Missing bio articles from the field of medicine that Opabinia regalis mentioned would be a good start, for example. Spellcheck an article. Heck, just upload a few images of your hometown/vacation spot/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:, @Opabinia regalis:, Thanks for the comments and no need to apologize. I can understand being suspicious but I actually thought it was a well-written, well-sourced article. I will pass on creating the additional pages for others. I created this one as I heard him speak recently and when I went to look him up in Wikipedia there was no article on him. I thought that to be strange based on the sources that I found talking about him and his work. Anyways, I requested the deletion and will hopefully have time to work on the article in the next couple of weeks, keeping the comments here in mind. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to dedicate to Wikipedia on a regular basis. If I am unable to get to it in the next couple of weeks, I will simply remove it from my sandbox and hopefully someone else can pick up the work. --NomiStature (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - think the comments about this user have been overly harsh, they've obviously tried hard. However, not enough really good reliable sources about them, seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Also, quite a bit of WP:PUFFERY. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing that looks close to a reliable in-depth source about the subject, of a type that would be needed to pass WP:GNG, is the Irish Times story. But that one only has two sentences that are actually about him (amid a larger number of quotes by him about other things) and it's only one source. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO and lacks indepth references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Tate (author)

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

Reliable sources aren't available to demonstrate the notability of this dude or his print-on-demand books. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator.--Mishae (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability, and promotional claims that a book is selling well on Amazon are meaningless. 2602:302:D88:E9B9:A53E:478:C58B:2E69 (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. There's just nothing to show that this author is ultimately notable enough to have an article. The thing about selling on Amazon is that this is something that is so easily manipulated (especially since Amazon can have so many subcategories that a handful of sales will make a huge difference) and so difficult to verify (since these rankings are continually changing with each sale, there is really never any permanent record of this anywhere on the site), Amazon rankings will not be used to show notability. Unless they change something in the future it's unlikely that this will ever become something that will give notability on that basis alone. Selling well can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's not a guarantee and I can't find enough coverage to warrant a keep. Since this was quickly re-created after it was A7'd on the 23rd, this may need to be salted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this could qualify for an A7 and even a G11 (the EL section and several portions of the article are fairly spammy), but this should go through a full AfD since this will help prevent re-creation before he passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence found to indicate that the subject meets any WP:AUTHOR or broader WP:BASIC notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Area News Group

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

Non-notable local publisher, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seeing good deal of potential for sources at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Lloyd

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

Delete: non-notable. Only notable in relation to father. Quis separabit? 02:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs more sources than an obituary (featuring on her as a daughter of a notable father) and an IMDb entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not heritable. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-admin closure)--Antigng (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Sheng-Yao

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

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

Other than the two F-News Magazine articles, there seems to be little that I can find online that gives anything verifiable about this "master," and it appears that the coverage all but died after those two articles. The article itself is filled with superlatives and unverifiable claims from what appears to me to be a promotional Web site. Not my area of expertise, but it seems like that there is something pretty wrong with the article. Delete unless something else is developed during the discussion. --Nlu (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is over-the-top and needs a major cleanup, but the subject is definitely notable. See Michael Sullivan's Modern Chinese Artists: A Biographical Dictionary. -Zanhe (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the primary contributor of this article and a PhD in Chinese Art History, Chan Sheng-Yao is considered as a significant artist in the field with many publications dedicated to his artwork in both Chinese and English. As mentioned above and in the article, many notable scholars in the field of Chinese Art History such as Emily Tsai, Chu-Tsing Li, Michael Sullivan, Philip Wu, have written about his work. Unfortunately, many sources of Chan’s work and publications are not available on the Internet and I tried to connect as many links to online articles and mentions of his work that I could, including recent events such as his lectures at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and Loyola University. To further compensate, I had reproduced some of the prefaces (in Chinese and English) written by others from publications that I was unable to find online links for. Taking into consideration reviewer comments, I have removed these reproduced prefaces. All remaining content and links are now verified and direct links have been drawn from these third party articles and publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjso (talk • contribs) 06:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain - These two books are the only references I'm seeing, though I'm wondering if there are references available in Chinese that I can't read. This seems strange. Regardless of the question of notability, the article is a mess, as per the above description. Giving a lecture at SAIC is not really something that is appropriate for an entry.Theredproject (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Theredproject: Several books have been published about his art in Chinese, including Tsai 2003 mentioned in Sullivan's book cited above. Another was published by Providence University in 2004. PU has a page about him, see here (in Chinese). -Zanhe (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient reliable Chinese sources out there to establish notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. I was going to withdraw this earlier today but I am now since the article has improved. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creamy Kate and Trailer

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

It appears to be a non-notable rail car, multiple Google News, newspapers and Books (I even tried at Google New Zealand) found nothing aside from a Wikipedia mirror book. Now granted, this car is from the 1930s but I simply don't see any improvement or a chance to redirect or move. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lot of information in the article, but the lack of sources is concerning. Rcsprinter¹²³ (drone) @ 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an extensive page on The Rail Motor Society Incorporated's webpage that includes a useful and reliable references list, and another on the trailer. From my brief look I think there is enough in these links to adequately backup the article. There are unlikely to be many online sources - libraries are your friend for subjects like this. this link shows there is coverage in the Australian Railway Historical Societies 1971 bulletins. The book Railmotors and XPTs (David Cooke) ISBN 0909650233 will also cover this unit.- Peripitus (Talk) 12:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit, that is much better and at least is now referenced like the other related trains. SwisterTwister talk 17:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has been copy edited, smaller than it was but now cited Mo7838 (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit, that is much better and at least is now referenced like the other related trains. SwisterTwister talk 17:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even a single-instance railway vehicle class is probably notable, and reliable sources exist. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mo7838's massive improvements - The sourcing isn't perfect but like with any other pre 70s articles sourcing isn't the easiest to find which is why leniency is given, Anyway Keep. –Davey2010^Talk 02:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Harper

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

A young author who has been fairly prolific with his contributions to specialist publisher McGraw's "Evil Genius" series. His other books are co-authored. Apart from the cited Independent article (2006) I can't see any other coverage about him or any of his books. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Sionk (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wait, can there be 2 Gavin D. J. Harpers in similar tech fields, both the same age? Because there is this [22], and I presume that he is the fellow interviewed here

[23]and described in 2014 as working with the "West Welsh Energy Sector Training project at Glyndwr University, Wales" If it is the same chap, and he paid the rent while earning the PhD by writing Evil Genius books, then one understands why thThe Telegraph profiled him and it's probably a keeper. If.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's the same guy.[24]E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

more: [25], [26],

Really? And surely you realise source 5 is his own self-published CV. WP:GNG requires strong evidence of multiple reliable news/book coverage about the subject. Sure, he was the subject of the news article in The Independent in 2006. The Daily Mail article (source 2) above is about an explosion at Luton Airport where Harper was passing by, so not about him at all. Someone has to do more than write/co-write some books before getting a Wikipedia profile. Sionk (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course it's self-published. It's a CV. Look, I didn't mean to imply that the article about delays at Heathrow contributed to notability. I started with the page, which made him sound like a self-taught buff who wrote popular books. I ran a routine search just to make sure, found the Heathrow thing which made me look harder. As in, with all of his initials. And he became noteworthy. A young technology expert with an unusual back story (attested by that 2006 profile in The Independent) Whose popular books got some attention (and sold) And who is now embarked on a career of significant accomplishment (attested by the CV, but also at the veritably published articles), although still very young. He looks notable to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found one other article on him - an interview in a small eco publication [27]. The Independent article is not terribly strong, IMO. I can find links to online book sites, and a few blog posts, but nothing substantial. Although an interesting character, I'm going for weak delete but it's not far from weak keep. LaMona (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshana Rudiakov

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

Last 2 AfDs closed as no consensus due to poor participation. Can I please ask that it is repeatedly relisted if it doesn't attract comments rather than just closed. This is the 3rd attempt to get a discussion about it, and it has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; it really needs resolution. Pinging those who have commented before: LaMona, Wikimandia, Kingturtle, 24.151.10.165, Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Probably notable but the article is a blatant COPYVIO of http://www.eroica.com/sr-artist.html so if the copied contend were removed there's nothing much left worth salvaging. On the other hand, ifsomeone were interesed in rewriting it and finding other sources, it could easily be kept. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve by (1 - repairing the citations, which are good, reliable citations any way; 2 - By adding some more content) The subject is notable and historical now. Educationtemple (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This pianist is notable and the topic is worth an article. Reviews in the New York Magazine indicate this. The article content however will have to go. It is both copied and promotional in terms of word choice. However it is not a candidate for deletion. It is adequately sourced and it indicates notability. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its a borderline case at best, which is no doubt why its been stuck in AfD purgatory forever. One would expect that some obituaries would exist if she was notable (like her relative did [28]), but I can't find one even in the Stuttgarter Zeitung.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it stands does not make best use of the available material. We can get more biography from the existing refs, we can get a list of recordings, and here is a death announcement from the Stuttgarter Zeitung: Noyster (talk), 14:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes (application)

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this article passes WP:GNG. It hasn't been the subject of reliable, significant, in-depth coverage. Most of the article isn't sourced. In fact, of the seven sources in the article, three of them are published by Apple itself, and only one is exclusively about the application (the Macworld article). As far as the application itself, there's nothing very special about it: not enough to warrant its own article, in my opinion. I also think it's telling that at the moment, the article isn't listed on the Note (disambiguation) page. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 09:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because I don't see that anything has changed since the discussion at the first AfD, where this was kept based on valid arguments by several editors.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep - per above ... the one argument that might be worth talking about is if every app made by apple on the iPhone is notable, simply because there's millions of them. On that note though, it doesn't require references, everyone knows there's millions of "Notes" on the iPhones, so references are needless too. -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only is the previous discussion still valid, but some people seem to forget that this is also an application for OS X, just like Dictionary (software) etc. It is not clear why this app should be removed while keeping the others.--5retf (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Liberal

I think term itself is popular enough. So don't see any reason to delete it.

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

Seems to be some Twitter-based nonsensical meme. No reliable sources outside of the initial incident. Nakon 07:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sorry, but that is a Viral Internet phenomenon, covered in detailed in national newspapers, which are considered reliable. Similar Internet phenomenon had also been considered an a valid entry here. Why not this? - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I support the deletion. This is a very recent meme which appeared in March 2015, after the Twitter account by the name AdarshLiberal was created, which currently has only 8700 followers. This article serves mainly to promote the Twitter account. The interest seems to have died quickly. According to Google Trends, "Adarsh Liberal" was zero compared to other news of the period. Search for "Adarsh Liberal" alone shows insufficient data. Also, compared to the recent meme Tsundere Sharks, the Tsundere Sharks are far more notable. These memes belong on sites like Know Your Meme, not Wikipedia. It may be deleted and re-added only if interest increases in future. -Kenfyre (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nakon and Kenfyre twitter based meme not much coverage after the initial incident .Not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Gone today, gone tomorrow. Non-notable meme. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Has received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, albeit on the weak side, and also keep as per WP:NTEMP. While some of the articles listed below are short ones, overall, the topic is mildly notable as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Indian liberals mocked - and mocking - online - BBC News". BBC News.
^ "Adarsh Liberal, Adarsh Bhakt, Ideal Boy or Bad Girl – which is your favourite poster?". India.com.
^ "Adarsh Liberal vs Adarsh Bhakt: Hashtag war on Twitter". http://www.hindustantimes.com/. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help)
^ Adrija Bose (11 March 2015). "Viral Memes: A War Between 'Adarsh Liberal' and 'Adarsh Bhakt' on Twitter". NDTV.com.
^ "Twitter war breaks out between Adarsh bhakts and liberals". Deccan Herald.
^ "Adarsh Liberal vs Adarsh Sanghi: The battle of ideologies on Twitter". IBNLive.
^ "'Adarsh Liberal' hits again with a family poster". Deccan Herald.

Delete - There is clearly some conflation here between notability of the meme and notability of what's behind the meme. I would say that this article is based on the former, when in fact it is really just an expression of a larger political issue. It should therefore be a blurb in the context of a larger (appropriate) article, as it clearly has no staying power. NTEMP doesn't address keeping the article; it addresses the need for significant coverage, and I'm not seeing it - a few articles repeating the same things aren't significant. MSJapan (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per North America1000. Subject has generated more than sufficient news buzz specifically about the subject, thereby passing WP:GNG, e.g.:[29],[30],[31],[32],etc. Pax 07:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Given the views expressed, there's no point in continuing this. I hope someone will think of a better qualifier than "adventurer" DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike O'Shea (Adventurer)

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

Promotional article for non- notable traveller. Most of his accomplishments have no been firsts, but "One of the first"s, or unsuccessful attempts DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -the article needs some work to cut down promotional tone etc, but the topic is covered in the referenced publications and the attempts are notable S3venevan (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is not determined by importance of accomplishments (which is largest subjective), but rather depth of reliable source coverage (whcih mostly is not). Here, significant coverage by Mike O'Shea The Irish Times and The Irish Examiner, among others, makes the subject notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable as per WP:BASIC. Source examples: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Flying from Mizen to Malin by paramotor makes history". irishexaminer.com.
^ "Irish adventurers trek 640km along Siberian frozen lake". Irish Times.
^ "Injuries force Irish pair to abandon North Pole ice attempt". irishexaminer.com.
^ Christine Bohan. "Irish North Pole duo forced to turn back after facing €120k bill". TheJournal.ie.
^ "Mike O'Shea Talks About His Latest Adventure". Today FM.

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

[1] "U.S. Bancorp invests in Invenergy's Bishop Hill Wind project". The Register-Mail.

[2] "How a Chicago energy entrepreneur is resolving Michigan's power crisis". chicagobusiness.com.

[3] "Invenergy open house draws protestors". tuscolatoday.com.

[4] "Invenergy offers look at wind farm development". Pontiac Daily Leader.

[5] "Invenergy proposes community host money for Jessup". thetimes-tribune.com.

[6] "Invenergy won't burn Keystone landfill gas". thetimes-tribune.com.

[7] "Group gearing up for power plant fight". thetimes-tribune.com.

[8] "Cherokee Chronicle Times: Local News: Highland II Wind Farm in advanced developmental phase (12/22/14)". Cherokee Chronicle Times.

[9] "Invenergy gets ICC nod for renewable energy contracts". chicagobusiness.com.

[10] "Invenergy Gets PNC Financing for Concentrating Solar Power Plant". Bloomberg.com.

[11] "Chasing the Wind: Inside the Alternative Energy Battle". p. 49.

[12] "Renewable Energy: A Common Sense Energy Plan". p. 36.

[13] "Invenergy Wind dedicates Prairie Breeze wind farm". Lincoln Journal Star.

[14] "Invenergy applies to build wind farm in Illinois". chicagobusiness.com.

[15] "Invenergy secures financing for Orangeville Wind Farm". The Daily News Online.

[16] "SDG&E, Kumeyaay Tribe Join Invenergy Wind Farm Project". cbs8.com. 11 June 2009.

[17] "Toronto's first Tool Library gears up to open in Parkdale". thestar.com. 5 February 2013.

[18] "How-to books and tools to do the job: Soon, Downsview library will offer both". thestar.com. 9 April 2015.

[19] "Tool Library's Alternative Gift Fair lets you swap your items, land free gifts". thestar.com. 12 December 2014.

[20] "The Toronto Tool Library Brings a New Model of Resource Sharing to Parkdale". torontoist.com.

[21] "Thousands of loans later, Toronto Tool Library turns one in Parkdale". insidetoronto.com.

[22] Tristin Hopper (10 April 2013). "Vancouver at forefront of sharing revolution". National Post.

[23] Naoibh O'Connor. "Vancouver tool library builds success in first year". Vancouver Courier.

[24] "SFU's Certificate in Community Economic Development takes aim at corporate monoculture". The Vancouver Observer.

[25] "Tonight's Steele on Your Side: Tool library". British Columbia.

[26] "Effort to launch tool library in Halifax underway". cbc.ca. 29 December 2013.

[27] "Make. Do. with Halifax Tool Library". The Chronicle Herald.

[28] "Halifax Tool Library nails its grand opening". Metro.

[29] "Look under 'T' for table saw: Group trying to start Halifax's first-ever tool library". Metro.

[30] "New tool library". CTV News Atlantic.

[31] "Tool time". The Coast Halifax.

[32] "Calgary Tool Library open for business and already growing". Metro.

[33] "Courtney Hare - Community Economic Development - Simon Fraser University". sfu.ca.

[34] ,Bruce Weir. "Home improvement improved with a Calgary tool library". www.calgaryherald.com.

[35] "Calgary's Tool Library offers an affordable option for the handy at heart". 660News.

[36] "Indian liberals mocked - and mocking - online - BBC News". BBC News.

[37] "Adarsh Liberal, Adarsh Bhakt, Ideal Boy or Bad Girl – which is your favourite poster?". India.com.

[38] "Adarsh Liberal vs Adarsh Bhakt: Hashtag war on Twitter". http://www.hindustantimes.com/. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help)

[39] Adrija Bose (11 March 2015). "Viral Memes: A War Between 'Adarsh Liberal' and 'Adarsh Bhakt' on Twitter". NDTV.com.

[40] "Twitter war breaks out between Adarsh bhakts and liberals". Deccan Herald.

[41] "Adarsh Liberal vs Adarsh Sanghi: The battle of ideologies on Twitter". IBNLive.

[42] "'Adarsh Liberal' hits again with a family poster". Deccan Herald.

[43] "Flying from Mizen to Malin by paramotor makes history". irishexaminer.com.

[44] "Irish adventurers trek 640km along Siberian frozen lake". Irish Times.

[45] "Injuries force Irish pair to abandon North Pole ice attempt". irishexaminer.com.

[46] Christine Bohan. "Irish North Pole duo forced to turn back after facing €120k bill". TheJournal.ie.

[47] "Mike O'Shea Talks About His Latest Adventure". Today FM.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]