Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 25: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josue Marquez}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Way Public Academy}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Way Public Academy}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaStella Winery}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaStella Winery}}

Revision as of 05:24, 25 January 2016

< 24 January 26 January >

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josue Marquez

Josue Marquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Real Boxer, virtually no info/coverage other than some stats.  superβεεcat  05:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I know he was a challenger, but I'm having a hard time finding any coverage of it. There are a lot of challengers, are they all notable to the point of getting their own article? (I'm not being flippant, the answer might be yes...). As far as that reference, it's just some stats, which is part of my reason for nominating. It's not exactly coverage; I can find stats of every division three college badminton player, but that doesn't make them notable... - superβεεcat  08:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Hi! Again, please look at Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Boxing. God bless! Antonio Flaco Wannabe Martin (Por aca 09:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 08:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 08:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep While the references are bad, it looks like he fought for a title at some point. Meets Boxing. Should be kept. Withdraw my nom. - superβεεcat  09:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was not helpful that the article does not even mention the world title fight and the single reference does not provide clarity. Anyway with a bit of effort I added in the BoxRec entry which lists the title fight. The article is very new so I hope more details and more references are forthcoming.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2016 (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 Federal Way School District. The article's subject is found to lack the required notability to have a stand-alone article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Way Public Academy

Federal Way Public Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a diploma granting high school, so not automatically notable, no indication of ORGDEPTH. Note that an attempt was made to redirect it to the school district, which will be the inevitable outcome here, but an IPv6 editor reverted the redirect. So here we are..... John from Idegon (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe the page should be closed. It is important for individual schools to have their own wikipedia page for incoming students can refer to it as well as for logistical purposes.
Furthermore, the school is very qualified within the district. It ranks in the top 3 college-preparatory academies when contrasted with the other learning institutions situated within the district boundaries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:200:680:1185:e233:3914:87fa (talk • contribs) 02:08, 2 February 2016‎
  • Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. Just Chilling (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • THIS IS NOT A HIGH SCHOOL[1] In the US, grades 6-10 is a middle school. And local sources do not establish notability under ORG. John from Idegon (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Grades 6-8 represent middle schools. The grade at which a leaving certificate is issued marks the boundary of a high school. In the US that is Grade 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Chilling (talk • contribs)
      • Just Chilling, Do you have a source for that statement? I have never heard of getting a "certification" for finishing middle school, and High school beginning at grade 10 is just plain false. Most high schools start at grade 9. Some middle schools start at grade 5. What is unambiguous is that when you finish high school, you are done with your basic education. Very few students leave school at the end of the 10th grade, and with only a few exceptions, the reason students leave prior to the end of 12th grade is failure. If you do not get a recognized diploma for successful completion, the institution is not a high school. Only high schools have automatic notability. Perhaps you are confusing UK practice with US practice? John from Idegon (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Search for Public Schools - School Detail for Federal Way Public Academy". ed.gov. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
  2. ^ "Age range for compulsory school attendance and special education services, and policies on year-round schools and kindergarten programs, by state: Selected years, 1997 through 2008". ed.gov. Retrieved 13 February 2016.
  • Merge per DGG. Comments about "the school-leaving age in much of the world" disregard the fact the school does not educate to the school-leaving age in the particular part of the world that it is actually in. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Rodriguez, Carrie (2014-05-21). "Students shine at Federal Way Public Academy; lottery determines admission". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.

      The article notes:

      Out of 143 students who applied for the Federal Way Public Academy (FWPA), only the first 60 incoming sixth graders that Curtis called made it into the school. The other 83 students were placed on a waiting list, again, via the lottery.

      ...

      FWPA provides students a rigorous, challenging academic program. The school’s mission is to provide a college preparatory curriculum for students in grades six through 10. About 300 students attend the small school each year and are placed through the Choice Enrollment program via a lottery. Though the school is open to all students, more than 60 percent of those who apply on average are turned away.

    2. Low, Kyra (2008-12-13). "Federal Way Public Academy celebrates 10 years". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
    3. "Public Academy not adding 10th grade this fall". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. 2002-03-13. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
    4. "Federal Way Public Academy supports Kenyan school for AIDS orphans". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. 2012-10-31. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
    5. Ciepiela, Elizabeth (2008-06-13). "Public Academy head sets goals for next year". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.

      The article notes:

      When she was in the 10th grade, a nun inspired Federal Way Public Academy’s new principal, Judy Kraft.

      Sister Matthew Walker was a strict disciplinarian who taught Kraft how to write, introduced her to Fyodor Dostoevsky and Walt Whitman and quizzed the class each morning on the nightly news.

      "I had to write. I had to think. I had to speak. I had to work. And I loved every minute of it," Kraft said.

      Today, Kraft brings her private school education and her career as a teacher and assistant principal with her to her new job as principal of Federal Way's Public Academy.

      Kraft began July 1, following the footsteps of Ray Griffin, the school's founder and first principal.

    6. Broom, Jack (2013-03-24). "We Day concert/rally expected to draw 15,000". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.

      The article notes:

      That’s already happening. Federal Way Public Schools, which is sending more than 1,200 students and chaperones to We Day, has a districtwide focus on service, which includes raising money for an adopted village in Sierra Leone.

      In addition, individual schools have projects of their own. Federal Way Public Academy, an academics-focused alternative school, is sending about a third of its 306 students to We Day.

      Projects at that school include the fashion show to benefit homeless teens in the Puget Sound area, and an annual carnival to help build a school in a village in Kenya.

    7. Maynard, Steve (2004-02-02). "Federal Way academy to dedicate building - 'Success': Public prep school uses Socratic style". The News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.

      The article notes:

      The warehouse-type building once was home for the Deluxe Check Printing Co.

      Now it's the deluxe $6 million home of the Federal Way Public Academy, an intensely focused college preparatory program for sixth- through 10th-graders.

      The public can view the new campus at a dedication ceremony Thursday night.

      Founded in 1999 by Federal Way Public Schools, the 285-student academy had been meeting in portables on the Illahee Middle School campus. It moved into the 34,841-square-foot renovated building in early October.

      The academy stresses math, science, technology, Spanish, writing, speaking and leadership skills. Its 13 teachers focus on Socratic, seminar-style teaching which emphasizes discussion. Sixth and 10th grades were added in the fall.

      Test scores for academy students are far higher than state averages.

    8. Sullivan, Paula Lavigne (1999-08-30). "New school to challenge gifted children - Federal Way district's academy will offer immersion learning". The News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.

      The article notes:

      The Federal Way Public Academy opens for the first time Wednesday to about 120 students. It is a public junior high school for smart students who want to be immersed in learning.

      Students take advanced lessons in math, science, English and computers along with their choice of foreign language. There's no football team. No band. No drama club. The school is three portable units chopped up into five classrooms and one office in a parking lot behind Illahee Junior High.

      Its creation was tinged with controversy from those who called the academy elitist and suggested instead the district improve honors courses at the six junior high schools.

    9. Cafazzo, Debbie (1998-09-16). "Idea For Rigorous Federal Way Junior High Academy to Get Hearing - Proponent to Share Views About Controversial School at 2 Public Meetings". The News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.

      The article notes:

      The Federal Way School Board gave tentative approval to the academy concept in April. But the board asked academy proponent Charles Griffin to return in November with more details on what would be taught in the school, where it could be housed and other issues.

      Griffin said he's been working on those details over the summer.

      Griffin, an administrator at the private Annie Wright School in Tacoma, developed the idea for a public school academy for high achievers while he was working on a doctoral degree in education at the University of Washington. He proposed the idea to the Federal Way School District, he said, because Superintendent Tom Vander Ark has a reputation for innovation.

      Griffin said he wants to offer the same kind of rigorous, high-standard academic work available in many private schools to public school students whose families might not be able to afford private schooling.

      Federal Way Public Academy would be a small school, likely located in a portable classroom building on an existing campus. It would not offer the full breadth of classes and activities available at traditional junior high schools, but it would instead appeal to students who want to focus intensely on high-level academics.

    10. Pemberton-Butler, Lisa (1999-09-01). "Shh! It's Almost A Charter School - Federal Way Academy Sets Its Own Curriculum". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.

      The article notes:

      Freshly painted and surrounded by towering Douglas fir trees, three portable buildings are home to an unusual school that will be one of the most aggressive experiments with education reform in the state.

      The Federal Way Public Academy, a rigorous college-prep junior high that opens today, joins a growing network of community initiated schools. But there's a striking difference between it and the dozens of other alternative, or "choice," public schools in the state.

      In exchange for extensive freedom in how they do things, academy officials have signed a contract giving the School Board the right to close the school in two years if it fails to meet the high standards it has promised to attain.

      ...

      Under its contract with the district, the Public Academy will handle its own budget, staffing and programs - a practice becoming more common across the district as it strives to form a system of choice schools, officials say.

      With an annual operating budget, including staff salaries, of about $1 million, the school will receive the same district funding per student as other schools, Isaman said. It just has more flexibility in the way it spends it.

    11. Cafazzo, Debbie (1998-11-24). "College-Prep School OK'D in Federal Way - Board Votes 3-2 To Set Up Academy For 120 Students". Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.

      The article notes:

      A divided Federal Way School Board granted approval for a small college-preparatory academy Monday night.

      The board voted 3-2 to approve the Federal Way Public Academy, which is to open to 120 seventh- and eighth-graders in September 1999.

      Board members Holly Isaman, Linda Hendrickson and Jim Storvick voted to approve the school, while board President Ann Murphy and board member Joel Marks were opposed.

      The school is designed to offer a rigorous curriculum to high-achieving students from throughout the school district. It was proposed earlier this year by Charles Griffin, an administrator at the private Annie Wright School in Tacoma.

      He developed the idea for a public college-prep school while working toward a doctorate at the University of Washington. He has said he wants to offer the same kind of high-standard academic work available in many private schools to public school students.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Federal Way Public Academy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Seattle Times article hat still does not show notability beyond the immediate region. This is a perennial problem for the local coverage by major newspapers, The other articles are press releases wherever published. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 16 February 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaStella Winery

LaStella Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company exists, but sources are mainly from the website of the business, and sales links. G-hits are mainly user reviews, etc... The article is very advertorial, and just lists products and staff; no assertion of particular notability. Creator posted multiple wineries, similar issues.  superβεεcat  04:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:20, 8 February 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Le Vieux Pin Winery

AfDs for this article:
Le Vieux Pin Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company exists, but sources are mainly from the website of the business, and sales links. G-hits are mainly user reviews, etc... The article is very advertorial, and just lists products and staff; no assertion of particular notability  superβεεcat  04:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McConnell Johnson Innovation Center

McConnell Johnson Innovation Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The tower does not exist. I am not certain if this should be a speedy deletion or not. Please correct as needed. 🍺 Antiqueight chat 04:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2016 (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. The article is found to be original research, and is therefore not suitable for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muwahhid Muslim

Muwahhid Muslim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure WP:OR spiced up with a helping of chutzpah. There's a source saying that Muwahhid is one of the terms Wahhabis use for self-identification, but it's anyone's guess what the article is about. The text includes such blatant examples of WP:SYNTH (trying hard to assume good faith here) as this: "Since Muwahhids predominate in Sunnicentric centers of worship, some Muwahhids questioned the hadithically derived sunnah that had little to no feedback from ayahs in the Quran as well as the tendency among masjidgoers (mosquegoers) to give undue weight to non-tafsir elucidations that have no Quranically derived roots." The cited reference says: "Muwahhid 'Unitarian'; one who believes in God's unity (tawhid). Term used by Wahhabis and Druzes (among others) to describe their beliefs." Eperoton (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another egregious example: "Furthermore, their arguments against the excessive emphasization of intermediaries between mankind and God was primarily based on a fear of giving leeway to overzealous mosquegoers who might possibly exploit and manipulate less religiously grounded mosquegoers." The cited reference says: "The storytellers recounting the stories of One Thousand and One Nights to Muslim generations of the post-al-Muwahhid centuries, did instil a little oblivion in the spirit of their listeners who went to sleep, closing their eyes on the enchanting vision of a sumptuous past." (from an article by Malek Bennabi, who coined the term "post-al-Muwahhid era" in reference to the Almohads [3]). Other attempts of source verification also failed. Since the article was mostly written by a single editor, it is doubtful whether one can trust any of the sourcing there on an assumption of their good faith. Eperoton (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to Muwahhid (term). The term has mutiple variations of spellings because it is transliterated differently by each author. Howver I saw many search returns, but there does not seem to be a fixed definition with each author having his/her own meaning on the term. 92.10.226.159 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page covering different uses of the term already exists at The People of Monotheism and it provides a reasonable inventory, aside from the OR relating to the article under discussion. Eperoton (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I change my vote to merging the salvageable bits of this article to The People of Monotheism.92.10.226.159 (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TNT Delete. It concerns me that the article is supposed to only focus on the conglomeration of non-political and primarily theological Muslim revivalist movements that grew in various intermittent periods including the early 19th century. While there may be grounds and sources for an article about the ideology of muwahhidism (including its historical versions, such as the Almohads), the current article is really a bunch of synthesised original research. Add to that the misrepresentation of sources and you got yourselves a delete. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the flag that is said to be a muwahhidist symbol, is actually the flag of the Almohad (al-muwahhid) dynasty. → More proof of OR. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Louis (musician)

Tim Louis (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician and politician, featuring exactly zero reliable sourcing. A non-winning election candidate does not get a Wikipedia article on that basis, but may have an article only if you can properly source that he was already eligible for an article for some other reason before he became a candidate — so we have to entirely discount the political run, and evaluate him solely on the basis of whether he passes WP:NMUSIC or not. But the musical career is sourced exclusively to his own self-published website, his three albums were all self-released as far as I can tell from the info given on the website (thus not satisfying NMUSIC #5), and the claims of having performed for political dignitaries are entirely unverifiable in any reliable source coverage of him. I just did a ProQuest search, using extra search terms such as "jazz" or "musician" to weed out hits on Tim Louis the Vancouver city councillor — and that got me five hits, of which four were still about Tim Louis the Vancouver city councillor, and the one hit left over that was referring to Tim Louis the jazz musician was just a glancing namecheck in an article that wasn't about him. So the RS coverage of his music that it would take to make him eligible for a Wikipedia article simply is not there. A musician does not get a Wikipedia article just because it claims notability for him — a musician only becomes eligible for a Wikipedia article if and when you can properly source that they pass NMUSIC for something. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.timlouis.com/newsarchive.php?cat=news - His website shows more than a sufficient amount of performance pieces, showing his fame as a Canadian Jazz Musician. This article should stay... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalObserver (talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not notable. By the way, there's some very close paraphrasing in the personal life and early music career section. For example, the cited source contains this sentence, which appears almost word for word in the WP article: "Born in New Jersey, Louis first studied under jazz great Kenny Barron, earning a BA in Music from Rutgers University before moving to the New York scene, eventually working alongside the iconic Teo Macero." HazelAB (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. North America1000 15:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Pakistan Super League

2018 Pakistan Super League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2019 Pakistan Super League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2020 Pakistan Super League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2021 Pakistan Super League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's much to early to have an article about a 2018 season for any sport. No games will be played for two years, and there is almost nothing we can say about this season at this point. I'd be open to userfy for future article creation. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user who has created them has been blocked. I believe those articles can be speedy deleted under WP:G5.Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Delete all the ones added to the AfD post my original comment too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Soccer's Greatest Players of the 21th Century

World Soccer's Greatest Players of the 21th Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ranked list of association football players, with no explanation whatsoever given of what the ranking criteria are or who's doing the ranking. Might just be creator's own self-selected favourites or might be WP:COPYVIO from some other unspecified source, I can't tell — but either way, it's not a thing we should be keeping. I would actually have speedy deleted this, but it's already been speedied once and then got recreated a second time. Still a delete regardless of whether we go with speedy or AFD though. Bearcat (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:26, 31 January 2016 (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. The arguments for delete are stronger than those for redirect though any editor may create a redirect after deletion if desired. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Filsaime

AfDs for this article:
Mike Filsaime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NOTABILITY - see note below Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My attention was called to this article by this discussion at WP:COIN. I just did several searches and found no good sources:

As far as I can see the subject of this article fails WP:NOTABILITY. The AfD from 2009 linked above had only 4 respondents and I don't think this would survive today. The article has been subject to a bunch of COI editing, per the tags at the top of the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2016 (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) 03:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licking Heights School District

Licking Heights School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not meet criteria for notability. Glenzo999 (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2016 (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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universities medical assessment partnership

AfDs for this article:
Universities medical assessment partnership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. I took it to AfD last year, but only two responses and ended in no consensus. I'm re-nominating to try to get a consensus, one way or the other, after eight years of being tagged for notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:45, 1 February 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 02:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martina May Martin

Martina May Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find evidence that she meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. At best, worth a redirect to her husband. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Fram. Boleyn (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 11:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 11:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 11:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There doesn't really seem to be any coverage of her archived anywhere. It's entirely possible that there's offline coverage that hasn't been digitized, and the article can be recreated with better sourcing if this exists. A redirect could work, too, but I'm not convinced it's necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 02:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poulos family

Poulos family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unremarkable subject on an unremarkable group of characters from a television program. Delete or possible redirect. No independent notability. KDS4444Talk 06:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 07:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added two closely related articles. No vote on the deletion but any arguments would apply.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the two articles listed directly above have also been nominated for deletion. North America1000 02:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Google results look like fansites and Wikipedia mirrors. I opened up my searches to find more results but still got pretty much nothing. It's a slightly older TV series, but the details should still be documented somewhere on the Internet if it was on during the late 1990s. My reading is that the characters are not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2016 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Under Fire

Earth Under Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed, from non-notable book. Coverage is all from book sales websites or conspiracy theory websites with little or no evidence of peer review, thus failing reliable sources. Can't find a signicant enough coverage in something that would pass our WP:RS requirements. Sadads (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I have been around Wikipedia for a while (and this is my first post in several years), I am new to the idea the of "notable book." I get notability, but I have not heard until now of its application to books. -- RayBirks
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google searches reveal that it's on sale at Amazon.com, and that's pretty much it. No independent results returned on a Google Scholar search. I don't think this made any impact, nor does it seem to have gotten any reviews in the obvious places. It shouldn't have been deprodded. A {{trout}} to the person who did that and added a citation to Goodreads. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Payroll Professional

AfDs for this article:
Certified Payroll Professional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product that lacks significant third party coverage. Product is a so-called professional designation issued by a private company for a fee. Over half of the article was a copy-paste copyvio. Half of what is remaining is a big quote from a single book. The whole thing reads (or read) more like a commercial than an encyclopedia entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 25 January 2016 (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, a clear consensus following relsting. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Ng

Wilson Ng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR according to the article's own filmography section. Played bit pieces, nearly an extra, in the notable films. NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films" which are absent. Other than that, sources are really about the films, not about the person. Brianhe (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Grabowski (journalist)

Gene Grabowski (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very clear non-notable PR company bio. Sourced links are journalist quotes in high-profile publications rather than anything notable the journalist did himself. RolledAestri (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:11, 25 January 2016 (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, closing in favour of the nomination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Rupert Opie

Dr. Rupert Opie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Appears to be a trivial character with little outside coverage. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:11, 25 January 2016 (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 21:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Mansor Shah Secondary School

Sultan Mansor Shah Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searching on Google does not give any reliable sources for this school. The proposed deletion was previously declined by Necrothesp. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:11, 25 January 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krampus (musical)

Krampus (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musical staged last month, referenced only by the blog of the local theatre where it was staged. There are a few local press articles on it online, but not the sort of in-depth coverage required for WP:GNG. Deleted by prod a month ago on grounds of notability. WP:SPA creator appears to have a conflict of interest, though the tone of the article isn't promotional. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:09, 25 January 2016 (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, technically, expired PROD--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Hargrove

Abigail Hargrove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a teen actress "known" only for a minor supporting role in a single film. This is not how an actress gets a Wikipedia article; reliable source coverage must be present to demonstrate a valid claim of notability per WP:NACTOR, which is not the same thing as simply being able to verify that they exist. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when her notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 02:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abel James

Abel James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a blogger and podcaster, with no strong reliable sourcing to support it. Almost everything here is a primary source or a commercial sales page for his products, and the only one that's actual media is a blurb's worth of coverage in People — which isn't a good or substantive enough source to get a person into Wikipedia if it's the best source on offer. There's also been sourcing stripped from the article, on the order of his own self-published blog, Hulu and circular referencing to other Wikipedia articles — none of which are valid sourcing, so restoring them won't help. He might qualify for a properly sourced article, but that doesn't mean he gets to keep this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alen Simonyan

Alen Simonyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failure to establish WP:NOTABILITY / WP:NBIO, no WP:RS. As currently written, it falls substantially short of being a good encyclopaedia article, it is little more than a very quick info sheet. Murph9000 (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 02:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lindsay (actor)

Ryan Lindsay (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. The second citation in the article, from The Globe and Mail, doesn't even mention him by name. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RotoQL

RotoQL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The individual Maxdalury is barely notable, I don't think his RotoQL venture passes WP:N; refs have passing mentions.  superβεεcat  01:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:19, 8 February 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under-16 Ball Hockey World Championship

Under-16 Ball Hockey World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a lower-level championship in a minor, non-professional sport. Doesn't appear to satisfy general notability requirements or any of the topical notability guidelines for sports. RL0919 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:19, 8 February 2016 (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. WP:QUORUM (I have disregarded SwisterTwister's !vote as the argument is not clear). Closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Salem Sugui

Khalil Salem Sugui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. No suitable coverage online found via Google. Every one of the online sources given in the article is either a dead end, a work by him or associated with him, a passing mention, or else has no mention of him at all. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:19, 8 February 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_January_25&oldid=701547769"