Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 24: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:06, 2 March 2016

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 February	25 February >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Capital Institute

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

Not notable. May not exist any longer. Rathfelder (talk) 23:51, 24 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 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete – I have a hard time understanding why this is in an encyclopedia. CLCStudent (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noticeably promotional, no actual convincing coverage and no solid claims of notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I have been alarmed at some discussions which have suggested deleting or have challenging the validity of articles on new or emerging concepts such as Natural Capital, I think this particular article is poorly written, about a defunct group, and cannot easily be shown to be notable. I would observe that it is quite feasible that this name might well be applied in the future to a completely different and more notable/effective organisation and that, should this happen, the two should not be confused. I recommend Delete. Parkywiki (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:09, 3 March 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Teriba

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

Vast majority of sources used are either Daily Mail (unreliable) or student newspapers (unreliable and don't establish wider notability). Also despite being quoted in the press once or twice this very much seems like a BLP1E article that centers around criminal allegations. Bosstopher2 (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prior to the scandal, which received widespread coverage, she was already notable for the magazine she founded, as indicated here, and for the Rhodes Must Fall campaign she organized and was quoted on in Sky News - that got fairly wide coverage:[1][2] and a bunch of other sources. She also was quoted in The Guardian about a protest over a speaker at Oxford: [3], and for leading the Black Students' Union, which she also founded, to get the Oxford Union to declare itself institutionally racist:[4][5][6]. And then lots of in-depth coverage after the scandal including but not limited to:[7][8][9][10][11]. Depending on your point of view, it could be a BLP3E, BLP4E, or (very generously) a BLP5E. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, it's worth mentioning that no criminal allegation is mentioned in the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's not just in the Daily Mail. I fixed up the sources a little and she's in the Guardian, Huffpost, a newspaper from South Africa, the Independent. I agree that some of the sources (Breitbart!) are not reliable. The student sources just verify the information. But she's well covered in much better sources and passes GNG. She's also part of a hot-button issue right now: "regressive left" I think it's called, that may be why she's covered so well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a BLP car crash of an article, all reliant on sources of dubious merit. Sammy's supposed extra sources illustrate this problem: a couple of campaigns on which she was a media spokesperson, multiple very opinionated Daily Mail articles, a conservative magazine ranting about "dangerous delusions", and an Independent article on the unbelievably notable topic of "the 12 biggest events to have occurred at UK universities in 2015". This should be deleted post-haste as a poorly-sourced hit piece on a non-notable living person. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Guardian, The Daily Beast, and The Independent are all perfectly respectable, as is Sky News. She also wasn't a "media spokesperson" for these campaigns - she founded and ran them. And far from being a "hit piece" this article gives a far more measured presentation of the non-criminal allegations against this notable person than most of the tabloids did. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's get real: she was *quoted* in The Guardian, and the article in The Independent is so far from substantive coverage that I specifically mocked using it in my initial response. I've been quoted in The Guardian making comment on a campaign I founded too: it sure as hell doesn't make me notable, or the god knows how many thousand either non-notable activists who don't warrant hit-piece Wikipedia articles. Why are we focusing on giving a "far more measured presentation" of very serious allegations that aren't covered in reliable sources? Have you read WP:BLP? The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current sources clearly establish notability. 1bandsaw (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - good sourcing, per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:50, 1 March 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mobconf

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

Promotional. Self-referential Rathfelder (talk) 23:18, 24 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 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional article, minor coverage and overall no solid claims of notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 9 March 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 raw count is just on the edge of what would normally be considered a consensus, but looking at the arguments to keep, there's not a lot there.

The arguments from the article's creator fail to distinguish between subject has done interesting things and subject has received coverage as required by our notability guidelines. Torchiest makes a reasonable argument about coverage in the NY Times. However, I find the counter-arguments that, due to the nature of this subject, the NYT's coverage should be classified as local and routine, to be compelling. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Newell (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election. As always, candidates are not entitled to Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that they were already eligible for a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate, then they do not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until they win the election. But the only other substantive thing here is that he served as district leader of his political party's local chapter, which is not something that gets a person over WP:NPOL. And as sourcing goes, we have a little bit of WP:ROUTINE local coverage of his non-winning candidacies for office, and a lot of primary, neighbourhood-weekly and blogspotty sourcing for everything else -- which means that WP:GNG has not been demonstrated. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? He's *been* elected. A district leader is not a general term but the actual name of an elected position in New York City. Did anyone bother to read the article and look at the sources? He's up for ANOTHER position, yes, but IS CURRENTLY IN AN ELECTED POSITION. thanks.--A21sauce (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely misunderstanding what I said. Wikipedia does not confer automatic notability under WP:NPOL to every single holder of any political office at all just because that office was elected: he has to win his current campaign for election to the state legislature before he's eligible for a Wikipedia article, because that is the lowest level of office at which a person automatically gets into Wikipedia just because they won an election. "District leader" is not an office that automatically gets its holders into Wikipedia just for the fact of having been elected to it, because it does not represent serving in any legislative capacity — it's the equivalent of what I as a Canadian would know as the internal executive board of a political party's local electoral district association, which is not a notable office in its own right either. So right now, the only real notability claim present here at all is his status as an unelected candidate to a more notable office than the one he currently holds, and none of the sourcing is good enough to grant him a WP:GNG pass in lieu of failing NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being extremely technical here. Newell isn't some small-town district leader. He reps New York City's Chinatown, Financial District, and the Lower East Side, each of which have substantial Wikipedia articles of their own. He is also the subject of a documentary, and has been in the press alot for going after one of the most corrupt New York state politicians of all time, Sheldon Silver. If you'd review these articles and take step back and think a little, it'd really serve the Wiki cause, I think. Don't be so narrow minded, just because you happen not to like New York City or never visited or something;)A21sauce (talk) 08:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with me being "narrow-minded", I don't hate New York City and I have been there. The fact that the districts have Wikipedia articles does not mean that every single thing or every single person in the districts qualifies for a separate article, because notability is not inherited: each subtopic has to be independently notable in its own right, and does not get a "because of where it is" freebie. And it's none of our concern whether the incumbent politician he's running against is good, bad, corrupt, pure or any other adjective besides "incumbent" — Wikipedia is not a free hosting platform for unelected candidates' campaign brochures or a news organization. It's not our role to take any position at all on who should or shouldn't win any election — our job begins and ends at neutrally documenting who did win the election once it's over. Wikipedia's rules about this kind of stuff exist for real reasons: our entire value as a project depends on ensuring that we're not devolving into a free public relations platform for people who aspire to become notable but haven't gotten there yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 29 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 18:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is notable as having been the subject of a documentary and the first to challenge Sheldon Silver since the 1980s. Wikipedia has articles on the most minute of fantasy video game characters and it's hypocritical that we can't budge on this for someone who's been elected to a district of 500,000 people.--A21sauce (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether someone is the first, second, tenth, fiftieth or nine hundred millionth person to challenge the incumbent in one, two, ten, fifty or nine hundred million years — if they don't already have enough preexisting notability to have earned a Wikipedia article regardless of their candidacy for office, then they have to win the seat to become notable enough.

Wikipedia simply cannot allow itself to become a repository of campaign brochures for every non-winning candidate to every political office in the world. There are 435 seats in the US House of Representatives alone and typically four or five candidates for election to each seat, the elections take place every two years and there are usually a handful of special elections in between if an incumbent congressperson dies in office or resigns — thus meaning we would have to keep and maintain over 10,000 articles about non-winning candidates for election to that body per decade. Then we have to do the same thing for the US Senate, and every individual state legislature in all 50 US states, and every mayoral candidate in every city in the country — which easily gets us over 100,000 articles about non-winning candidates, before you even take into account that then we would have to do the exact same thing for Canada, Australia, Japan, South Africa, Germany, France, Brazil, Poland, India, Spain, Mexico and every other multiparty electoral democracy in the world too.

That is simply not tenable — which is why we have specific notability standards, namely being elected to a notable office, that politicians have to meet before they become eligible for Wikipedia articles. And "district leader" is not a notable office, and the sourcing here is not good enough to make him more notable than all the other district leaders who don't have articles. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure about the additional stipulations the nom has mentioned, as the subject seems to pass WP:GNG, which should be sufficient. From this version of the article, sources 2, 3, and 9 look like significant coverage. Additionally, I've found this Gotham Gazette piece, which is an even more significant piece of coverage focusing more closely on the subject. Notice that these sources are covering two different elections, so I think WP:BLP1E is handled as well. A big chunk of the article's current sources are extremely poor, however, and should be trimmed out. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Local media have an obligation to grant "equal time" coverage to all candidates in an election taking place in their local coverage area, so coverage of a candidate in the context of his candidacy in the local media falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot assist in meeting GNG. If that kind of coverage were enough in and of itself, then every candidate for any office could always claim a GNG exemption from having to pass NPOL. Rather, coverage of a political candidate only counts toward GNG if it nationalizes far outside of their own local area, along the lines of what happened to Christine O'Donnell in 2010. If he got to the point where newspapers in Miami or Seattle or Chicago or Las Vegas were writing about his campaign, then there'd be a case for inclusion under GNG — but if the coverage just represents local newspapers doing their jobs by covering local candidates in local elections, then it doesn't exempt him from having to satisfy NPOL by winning the seat. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your initial premise. Plenty of local candidates receive nothing more than their name being listed on a sample ballot, or being mentioned once at the end of an article about another candidate. This might be more common in local elections that are non-partisan, but it happens all the time, especially with third parties. And this is not routine coverage, specifically, the source I mentioned is a fairly in-depth profile. Outside of all that, WP:NPOL does not supersede WP:GNG, it supplements it. In other words, it provides a potential alternative to a subject simply meeting the standard GNG, which this one does. #3 at NPOL even explicitly says that: "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'". —Torchiest ^talk_edits 06:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not true that any local candidate for office ever goes entirely uncovered by any media — the media have a legal obligation to provide coverage to all candidates. Even the fringiest no-hopers do get coverage — they may not get as much of it as the major party candidates who are likelier to actually win the election, but they do all get enough coverage that they could certainly try to make a "notable because GNG" claim. And by the way, the Gotham Gazette is a blog, not a source that can count toward whether a politician has gotten over GNG or not.

And NPOL is not an alternative to GNG, either — you're correct that they supplement each other, but you're incorrect about how that works in practice. Even the passage of NPOL still has to be referenceable to GNG-worthy sources to constitute an NPOL pass — and if a politician doesn't satisfy NPOL on their role itself, then it takes a certain specific class of coverage — i.e. nationalizing far beyond the bounds of what would be normally expected, or already having preexisting notability for something else outside of politics, neither of which have been shown here at all — to get them over GNG instead of NPOL. A politician can't get over GNG just on the basis of local coverage in the local media if they haven't passed NPOL on the basis of the role, because all politicians get local coverage in the local media.

This isn't a rule I made up myself just to be tendentious, either, but the consensus position on how GNG applies to political candidates — the problem is that politics is one of those fields of endeavour in which people are especially prone to trying to misuse Wikipedia as a public relations platform or a POV agenda farm. The fact that we're so vulnerable to getting exploited as a webhost for unelected candidates' campaign brochures is precisely why we have to be so strict in our inclusion criteria for politicians. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, there are tons of categories of people and things on Wikipedia that really count as miscellany. I'm not sure why you're harping on this, and say, not EQUALLY on a fantasy video game character or a TV show that aired for a week. One wonders what your real beef is. Your repetition of the word unelected is intellectually dishonest, so please quit that at the very least. --A21sauce (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out to you before, not all political offices that exist automatically get their holders past WP:NPOL. He is a candidate for, but has not won election to, the state legislature — a level of office that will get him a Wikipedia article if he wins it — but has not held any ofice that gets him an NPOL pass today. The word "unelected" is not "intellectually dishonest"; you're misrepresenting the context in which it's being applied. And kindly read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: I can only deal with articles that I personally come across, and it is not my responsibility to go gallivanting all over Wikipedia looking for every bad article about some piece of miscellany that you don't like. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that "the media have a legal obligation to provide coverage to all candidates" has no basis that I'm aware of. If it were true, every media outlet would have to give coverage to every local candidate, yet that simply doesn't happen. I've seen plenty of elections where essentially every third party candidate gets nothing beyond their name on a list. Perhaps in Canada there are laws requiring such coverage, but this person is in the United States, which doesn't have any sort of equal coverage laws. If you disagree, I'd like you to point to a U.S. statute saying they're legally obligated to provide coverage of all candidates. Without such a statute, this is not routine coverage. Outside of that, your criteria for notability go beyond GNG: "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That's it. The reasons for the coverage don't matter, beyond surpassing WP:BLP1E, which has also been done by the fact there has been coverage spanning two elections. As for the Gotham Gazette, it's not clear why you're saying it's just a blog. It has a full editorial staff, which implies fact-checking and everything else that we generally require for a source to be considered reliable. And I've also never heard that local coverage is somehow insufficient. A reliable source is a reliable source. Your concerns about articles being political ads is quite reasonable, but if we're following reliable sources independent of the subject, and not just regurgitating primary sources, we won't have to worry about that. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For just one example, the FCC does have an "equal-time rule" for coverage of candidates — and yes, there are some loopholes to it, but the rule still exists. And you obviously don't follow our incredibly frequent AFD discussions on unelected political candidates very carefully, if you think it's difficult for a third-party or independent candidate to make a claim of passing GNG on the basis of having gotten media coverage — locating two or three or four pieces of local media coverage of a local political candidate is actually not an even remotely difficult thing to do. I have never, in fact, seen a single article about any unelected candidate for office in either Canada or the United States, major party or minor party or independent or total fringe nutter, that couldn't be referenced to enough media coverage that somebody could at least try to mount a claim that GNG had been passed and therefore NPOL was moot. And that's precisely why we have specific rules about how much, and what type of, coverage it takes to actually get a candidate over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That FCC rule only applies to radio and television, neither of which are used for this article. I'm sure there are plenty of candidates who don't meet the GNG standard; that's my whole point. And I can list dozens of candidates who no one has ever even attempted to write articles for because they received zero coverage. This is not such a case. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said the FCC's rule was one example of the fact that such obligations do exist, in response to your claim that no such rule existed in any form of media at all, not that the FCC governed newspapers. The fact that the coverage here is in newspapers, not broadcast media, does not inherently exempt it from being the type of coverage that candidates routinely get — newspapers do cover "So-and-so wins party's nomination for the next election", newspapers do cover "local political organizer does local-organizer things", newspapers do cover "independent or fringe candidate wants your vote". Coverage of that type is not hard to find for almost any candidate at all, and its existence does not inherently prove that one particular candidate is automatically more notable than all of the others who are getting the same treatment.

And you're entirely missing my point — there are plenty of candidates who don't meet the GNG standard, true, but that's because we have strict rules about the volume and type of coverage that a candidate has to get to actually pass GNG. There are lots of candidates out there for whom the coverage isn't enough, because the standards are purposely designed to require more than the normal volume and type of coverage — but there are not a lot (certainly not "dozens") of candidates for whom no media coverage exists whatsoever. And the volume and type of coverage shown here does not lift him into a higher realm of GNG-worthiness than the others — nothing here is outside of the ordinary level of local coverage for a person at this level. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Routine coverage does not equate to WP:GNG. Nom's rationale is sound. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bearcat. WP:POLOUTCOMES provides useful guidance when dealing with local elected officials . "Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." Nothing sourced to date suggests that the subject received national or international press coverage. Enos733 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, see notes #10 and 11, just added. Or here. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I guess not. Did anyone bother to do a search at nytimes.com? A21sauce (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's a local organizer and candidate in New York City, so The New York Times is a local paper in this particular context. To count as "national coverage beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected", the coverage would have to be coming from papers at a geographic remove from NYC, such as the Washington Post or the Chicago Sun-Times or the Miami Herald or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or the Los Angeles Times — but if he's living and working and running in New York City, then NYT coverage falls under "what would ordinarily be expected", not "beyond the scope of", and thus does not get him a free pass around our criteria for local politicians just because the local paper involved is the NYT. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 12 March 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Phi Society

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

Article about a university student group with no strong claim to encyclopedic notability per WP:ORG. This is written very much like the kind of "about us" profile that one might read on the group's own website, and very much not like an encyclopedia article -- and it's sourced exclusively to the group's own self-published social media content about itself with no indication of reliable source coverage shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service where any group that exists is automatically entitled to create or keep an article about itself -- we're an encyclopedia, on which notability and sourceability have to be present for a group to earn an article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Reliable Sources, no evidence of notability. Preaky (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a newly founded local group, no better independent notability claims. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 9 March 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 speedy delete. A11 coined expression Acroterion (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesomebro

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

Unsourced, and appears to be made up, as searches reveal very little. Contested PROD. Adam9007 (talk) 22:30, 24 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vitor Coutinho Flora

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

Contested prod on the grounds that the player does meet NFOOTY however, this was never in question. The original prod was made on the grounds that although sources provided indicate a solitary substitute appearance in a fully professional league, the player has since played only in minor or semi-professional leagues. As such, and as always, the subject specific guideline is trumped by GNG. I can find nothing of any detail on his career in either Brazil or Latvia, where in both instances he seems to have a bit part player that would begin to satisfy GNG, nor anything to support the claim in the article that he played more than once for Botafogo.

Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Given that this article fails WP:GNG comprehensively and only barely passes WP:NSPORT, it falls under the clause in that guidelines lede that says the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (Emphasis original). Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - comprehensively fails WP:GNG; clear consensus at AFD that scraping through WP:NFOOTBALL is not enough. Giant Snowman 18:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and yet we usually undelete previously deleted articles when the player DOES play in a single game. Not sure why a single game for a youngster then is an issue. Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played for Botafogo-SP by playing in the Campeonato Paulista Série A1 a fully professional league as per this.He has played in Latvia top league for FK Daugava Rīga in the 2014 Latvian Higher League and also played in the UEFA Europa League against Aberdeen F.C. as per this and this .Now if he was retired or injured ,I may have agreed but the subject is only 25 and has a had decent career including playing in the top tier of Latvian Football with a couple of International cup appearances and in lower divisions in Brazil.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Pharaoh of the Wizards: As I noted above, NFOOTY is irrelevant when the player has only played once in an FPL, particularly when it was four years ago. Playing in the Latvian top league does not confer notability as it is not fully pro and his appearance in the Europa league also do not count as firstly, they were not between teams from FPLs, nor were they in the competition proper, but the qualifying rounds. I am not sure you have fully understood the points being made above, this is not a question about whether a subject meets an article specific guideline, there is no question in that, the question is whether he meets the more important GNG. To claim notability you need to be showing significant non-routine coverage of the player. Fenix down (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We've created many an article after a single game in a FPL. Many examples are given above ... but going through them, they all appear to be for players who are older, often whose careers are over ... though it is difficult to check given the articles are gone. Is there an example of a player of similar age? Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure of the relevance of the age point you are making. This is a discussion about GNG. The player in question here is sourced as having played one FPL game four years ago. GNG always trumps subject specific guidelines and without that single appearance the player would appear not to satisfy any guidlines. Can you provide sources that indicate GNG? Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Qualifies for WP:NFOOTBALL as having played a match in a professional league, and having also played in the UEFA Europa League which is a professional tournament. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, there is clear consensus that GNG trumps subject specific guidelines when the subject has played only a handful of FPL games (and his Europa League appearances were in the first qualifying round - at no point is that considered fully professional). This discussion isn't about NFOOTBALL, there is no question he passes that, it is about whether this player passers GNG, which is more important. Can you indicate GNG? Fenix down (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG trumps SNG. However, when an SNG is met, we can presume sources exist to satisfy GNG. Unless that presumption is rebutted it should be keep.RonSigPi (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passing WP:NSPORT, no matter how slim the margin, gives the subject of an article a presumption of notability. That shifts the burden to the editors that think the article should be deleted (if such a shift didn't occur, then there would be no point to SNGs). While it is impossible to prove a negative (i.e., that sources don't exist), editors wanting deletion must do more work than a mere 5 minute Google search - they must show that a full effort was made to find sources. In view of WP:BIAS, it would be challenging for English speaking editors that do not live in Brasil or Latvia to truly evaluate sources. This differs, for example, from the Scott Sinclair (referenced above) where it is a lot easier for English speakers to try and find sources. Unless multiple editors fluent in Portuguese and Latvian perform truly detailed searches (more than the first few pages from Google), then I don't think the presumption is invalidated and we presume WP:GNG is met. Again, the community has set WP:NFOOTY and we should respect the standard they set until shown in this case the standard is not valid. RonSigPi (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This young player does meet WP:NFOOTBALL, and still has a long career ahead of him. The "examples" of other cases where the article has been deleted are not comparable, as noted above. Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources provided by Pharaeo of the Wizards show that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL Atlantic306 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 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 Snow Keep. Overall consensus is that he meets PROF & GNG. (Although there's a delete !vote present they had withdrawn so it's not really counted as such), Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Treanor

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

Highly promotional article written on this person by the university department he directs. Seems to have published quite a bit, but no sources that are about this person, just ones by him. Blythwood (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:SCHOLAR as per WP:NACADEMICS point 5 (named chair at major institution). WP:PROMOTIONAL tone can be fixed and is not a valid reason for deletion in itself. ~Kvng (talk)
Delete The criteria at WP:SCHOLAR and WP:NACADEMICS are meant as guidelines to quickly assess the likelihood of notability, not as measures of notability itself, the guidelines of which are WP:GNG. This individual may be a named chair at a major institution-- he still needs to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, and there is no evidence of that provided in this article. That the article was written by a WP:SPA with an institutional name (against policy) adds weight to the reasons for deletion. Changes in tone will not make the subject notable. KDS4444^Talk 11:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SCHOLAR, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." The "named chair at major institution" condition is an attempt to mechanically capture these cases. ~Kvng (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's been awhile since I read over WP:SCHOLAR in detail. Hm. My reading of the WP:SCHOLAR criteria is that if a person is a named chair, he/ she is also likely the subject of sources which would show evidence of notability— if someone went looking for them— but that even a named chair is subject to the same notability criteria as other Wikipedia articles and if a search for adequate sources doesn't actually turn up anything that qualifies, even a named chair wouldn't have met the notability criteria and therefore wouldn't warrant an article. I get concerned that the subject-specific notability guidelines (WP:SCHOLAR et al.) sometimes appear to circumvent WP:GNG when they are meant to be quick-assessment tools, not independent notability criteria. KDS4444^Talk 18:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am noticing thatWP:Prof#C5 states, "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments. Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability" (emphasis added). Loyola Marymount has an undergraduate acceptance rate of 52%, which only qualifies it as "more selective" according to US News & World Report. I am not sure how to quantify "excellence" here, however. My personal sense (as an academic and as a resident of Los Angeles) is that it's considered a "good but very expensive school", on a completely different tier from UCLA or USC. KDS4444^Talk 18:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KDS4444 -- you're right that there's a range of possible agreement levels for what "excellence" or "selectivity" means. While the "chair = full prof. chair, not career development chair" part of the criteria has an almost universally accepted meaning, the second part is far less accepted. I think that looking at invocations of the rule in the past will show that Loyola Marymount is clearly in the realm of schools that have usually been accepted, but consensus can change and there hasn't been support for clarifying this part of the rule. Generally US institutions rated "more" or "most" selective in US News have been held to qualify and I would be hard pressed to find a school called "Selective" that hasn't. It's generally schools that were established within the last ten years, very specialized institutions, and institutions in parts of the world that don't have international standards for selectivity that have been borderline or problematic. Another thing that is sometimes a factor is what % of the department has named chairs (are they given out willy-nilly?). Here he's the only one of about a dozen professors in the department. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C5. Also, adequate cites for theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- named chair at major seminary/school is sufficient. WP:PROF, like all subject specific guides, is an alternative to the General Notability Guideline; if it is satisfied, that is sufficient. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Named chair at a major university should be enough. His Google scholar citations are low [12] but I think that's mostly a function of his field, and in any case it is not needed to pass all WP:PROF criteria, only one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the wool falls over the eyes of another set of onlookers. This piece was written by the university itself to promote its faculty. Who knew the criteria were so easily met? Or could be written by the university staff? Consider my delete vote to be withdrawn. It serves to purpose here. KDS4444^Talk 22:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence of this, present it here as a justification for deletion, edit or delete material to improve neutrality, add a tag to the article or bring it up at WP:COI. Certainly WP:PROD is not appropriate for dealing with these issues. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 1 March 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Welsh (rugby union)

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

Did not make a professional appearance, only on the bench. Played amateur rugby, and did not make a senior international appearance. JTtheOG (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But since my intention is to have an article for every Glasgow Warriors player; it would seem very churlish indeed to leave him out on that basis. Every squad player in all the previous seasons has an article, his omission would raise more questions than answers.Aedis1 (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete narrowly. This is a very tricky case I think. Welsh came as close as possible to playing for a pro team without actually doing so, if a prop had been injured during the game he'd have got his run on and the discussion wouldn't be taking place. However, he didn't get that run on and from the Scotsman source it appears he wasn't a full signed member of the Warriors squad ("East Kilbride’s Andrew Welsh in the stand-by squad of emergency front-row cover, in line with ERC rules.") so it's difficult to make a case for retaining the article despite the completeness angle. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pages for Glasgow Warriors on wikipedia are the most complete early history of the club. If wikipedia claims to be encyclopaedic then this entry should be maintained in the spirit of completeness. It would be difficult to justify his exclusion particularly when he was named as part of Glasgow's Heineken Cup squad at the start of the season.

Furthermore, it is not as if Heriots and Watsonians are not big enough clubs in their own right. Many player biography articles list these clubs as 'senior' teams. If Heriots and Watsonians were listed as 'senior' teams - as others have it - and Glasgow listed as a provincial team, which it is, would this article even be proposed for deletion?

Welsh was a Scotland Under 21 internationalist. Many professional players don't reach any international level, yet they are listed! I'm quite prepared to relist the article once the other Warriors players - that currently are not on wikipedia - are added, if that helps. There are only around 30 players left which need edited and the entire Warriors squads from 1996 season onwards will be listed. That shouldn't take too long to do. Welsh would be very conspicuous in his absence indeed!Aedis1 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 25 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 18:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he has played with teams but none of this has claims for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 13:15, 11 March 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) 00:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanathdeva Murutenge

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

Blatant promotion of The internationally known Philosopher, Theoretical High-Energy Astrophysicist, Cosmologist, Cognitive Scientist and System Theorist. No independent references, just own website Staszek Lem (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable independent sources provided establishing notability.Fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find evidence of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources as required by WP:N. I concur with the nominator's assessment of this article as a blatant promotion. Astro4686 (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. His website is the only source given. I agree, it appears as blatant promotion. JimRenge (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Theoretical physics is a high-citation field, so the people notable in that field generally have many highly-cited publications listed in Google scholar. Murutenge has none. So WP:PROF is out of the question, and I see no other claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be your average crank, albeit one with a medical degree. This could almost have been speedied. Blythwood (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 28 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 keep. Article's been improved and sourced since nomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murakami (music group)

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

Sources lack independence and reliability. Non-notable Russian band. KDS4444^Talk 15:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added authoritative sources--Кориоланыч (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, needs in some cleanup, but I added a couple of sources, and I believe the notability has been now demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability verified. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:15, 24 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, discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindrakirti Swami Ji

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

Notability asserted, but not supported. —swpb^T 21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 21:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 21:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about a very highly followed Jain Guru. There should be a wikipedia article/page about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktsema (talk • contribs) 13:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Swami Ravindrakirtiji is a very renowned Jain Guru. His sheer dedication towards the development of Jain pilgrimages and temples is emphatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKasliwal (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There should definitely be a page about Swamiji. His work speaks volumes about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZAngami (talk • contribs) 14:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This page deserves to be on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrAPatni (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above comments are confirmed sock puppets, and have been blocked. —swpb^T 14:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find only passing mentions in a couple of newspaper stories. Fails WP:BIO. utcursch | talk 22:45, 27 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 18:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 2 passing mentions in news stories -- and the rest unsourced -- does not notability make. The sockpuppetry doesn't help, either. GAB^Hello! 21:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 3 March 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) 02:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Academy School

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. —me_and 18:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5, created by a confirmed sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user. --Finngall ^talk 15:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Finngall: The article had been tagged by another editor for speedy deletion under G5, but that was declined as the article creator wasn't blocked at the time of creation. —me_and 22:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the article and reverted the good faith close. As me_and correctly notes, the CSD G5 criteria does not apply in this case. Sorry for the confusion folks!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can someone explain more why you feel it does not meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES? If it is a secondary school with proof that it exists, this is normally enough to show notability. I also note that there is some confusion on the page with links to Oasis Academy, which redirects to an unrelated school chain in the UK. JMWt (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I missed the bit where high schools are usually kept; I saw no evidence of this place being a degree-awarding institution and so assumed it fell into the first bullet as not having a clear claim to notability. Nonetheless, I can't actually find an independent source that even establishes the school exists, so I think the "when zero independent sources can be found" clause applies. It's neither of the Oasis Academies listed in Google Maps in Nepal, the only source in the article is the Facebook page of Pashupati Academy, where I can find no mention of Oasis Academy, and I can't find anything about this school on Google. —me_and 12:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this school isn't listed in the school district's table of examination results, which would strongly imply it doesn't exist, at least not as an independent institution. —me_and 12:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we'd need someone who speaks the appropriate language to be absolutely sure that this is a hoax, but I'm generally tending to think delete. JMWt (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unlikely to be a hoax, but "unlikely to be a hoax" isn't "there is independent evidence that it isn't a hoax", which is the requirement here AIUI. —me_and 18:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable private school. no independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no confirmation that this school exists, and even if it does, the article does not claim to be a secondary school. (With a staff of 12 and a student body of 200 I think it's unlikely to be a secondary school.) If it is not a secondary school it fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES even if it does exist. Note also that the article claims it is a subdivision of Sainik School and is located in Jhapa District, but neither of those articles mention it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 3 March 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zveri

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

Yet another Russian rock band without appropriate links to reliable, independent sources to show evidence of notability. Failing the appearance of these, I propose it be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 15:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Arved (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, that convinces me. Nomination withdrawn. KDS4444^Talk 21:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that more sources would be better, the band has an article in 10 languages, awards and song appearance in a video game so it is oviously notable Arved (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - notability confirmed. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 24 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 23:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Jet

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

Non notable blogger, advertisement. Bobak (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Agree on both counts, though I note it's only notability that's grounds for deletion. AdventurousMe (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 26 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 18:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this guy is actually notable enough to be on Wikipedia. He appears on radio shows, and in over 3,000 publications. CLCStudent (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there's not a large amount of solidity to this as none of it suggests solidly satisfying the applicable notability or otherwise anything else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft and Userfy if needed as searches found expected mentions but nothing else solidly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
My closure of this discussion was queried so I am relisting for further comments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly to call this person is "blogger" is factually incorrect when in fact he's a very in-demand travel writer, most notably with the Huffington Post. [13] Is a weekly guest on Leo Laporte's enormously popular show The Tech Guy not to mention hundreds of other television and radio shows and news articles (being a guest on a secondary source is being the subject of and is coverage of a secondary source]]. Looking like an advert is a surmountable problem. --Oakshade (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a regular blog on Huffington Post is not evidence of notability, as none of those posts are helpful in creating an article about Jet. I can see he occasionally gives quotes to news media about travel topics, but I cannot locate any in depth coverage of Jet himself (being quoted is not helpful to establish notability or write a WP page about him). On this basis, I don't think he meets the WP:GNG or WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I see are this guy's own site, facebook, twitter, instagram, pintrest, etc. He knows how to work the social networks, but that doesn't meet our standards. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You'll find that the published internet searchable sources do not well document this individual's notability (Although he does have some 84k twitter and 36k facebook followers). However, it appears he has had wide-spread exposure on television, and other means; especially under his birth name: John Einar DiScala. Aeonx (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Social media presence does not equate notability. Significant coverage of the topic is required. SST flyer 07:17, 27 March 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Joseon

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

The article about an online neologism that does not seem to be backed up by appropriate secondary sources describing the definition or notability of the term. Instead of explaining this specific term (i.e. The origin, clear definition, history, public usage, influence of the term), the article is more focused on addressing the socio-economic problems of South Korea.

Also, rather than neutrally describing the term, the article is written in quite persuasive tone as if the authors of the article are tyring to convince the readers regarding the validity of the term. The authors also regard their personal opinions about the term as the "conclusion" of the article. Although these two points are not valid reasons for article deletion, I believe such problems must be fixed if we decide not to delete this article.

Thus, I suggest this wikipedia article to be deleted. And I also recommend for the editors of this article, who seems to be interested in addressing Korean socio-economic problems, to make their contributions to the relevant pages about South Korea instead. Just You Know (talk) 21:10, 24 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) 00:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SLFFVII

(Find video game sources: "SLFFVII" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable game per WP:NVG; no significant coverage other than self-published sources. Drm310 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the topic of the page is noteworthy as per WP:NVG; the page now lists multiple independant sources which have blogged/discussed the game in question, which has existed for close to a decade, with a significant history in Second Life as 1 of only 2 Second Life roleplays to exist for that long.. FloydGilmour16 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: FloydGilmour16 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Note to closing admin: FloydGilmour16 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Comment - Notability is established through non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Reliable sources have an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Blogs and other sites with user-submitted content are self-published sources and generally not considered reliable sources. One of them (Engadget) appears to have editorial control, but the others don't. SLFFVII's own website is a valid primary source but won't count toward establishing notablity. --Drm310 (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking through WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I found a piece by Destructoid (essentially the same as Engadget's) and nothing else. Does not meet notability, could be mentioned in one sentence at Final_Fantasy_VII#Legacy. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable fan video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. No meaningful hits in custom RS search. Engadget and Destructoid is not in-depth and covet only a narrow aspect. Other sources in the article are not reliable or in-depth. The available sources do not provide enough material to write a meaningful article without WP:PLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT and with WP:WAF in mind. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as none of the listed coverage suggests convincingly for the applicable video games notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 1 March 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Sphilbrick, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (پارسا آملی) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Junior Wrestling Championships

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

Fails notability, do we really need an article for a continental age group competition for an amateur sport ? Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For context please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Junior Wrestling Championships and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Junior Karate Championships.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:46, 24 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Sphilbrick, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (پارسا آملی) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Masters Athletics Championships

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

Fails notability, this is a "masters" competition, also poor-written article, lacks proper references. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Terrible article with no sources to prove it's notable. You should also consider nominating similar recent articles like the Asian Yoga Sports Championships that fall under this category. JTtheOG (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are right abut that Yoga article but this user is a sock, and I already reported him, if they ban him as a sock I will nominate all articles he created for speedy deletion which is easier, if not I will nominate that one for afd. Mohsen1248 (talk) 12:03, 25 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 speedy delete per WP:G5. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Armwrestling Championship

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

Lacks notability, looks like an amateur competition, also lacks references. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:16, 24 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 keep. If a merge is still desired, start a discussion on the talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empower Playgrounds

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

Subject does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are old; only independent one is 2008 Statesman article, and technology does not seem to have caught on. Nothing found in Google News archive or Google Scholar searches, and only Google Books hit is passing mention in possibly-POD book. If kept, should be merged to Brigham Young University. Miniapolis 21:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge to Brigham Young University. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I've found a few sources:

Daily Fail;

USA Today (behind paywall; accessible without Javascript).

Le Figaro (en Francais)

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Merge as this is still questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 7 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 18:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a number of reliable sources to the article. Meets GNG. See this page for a starting place. Articles about the company have appeared in USA Today, ~~Grist~~ (just a rehash of the Fast Company article), Fast Company, and many other reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:14, 27 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Steffen

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a businessman and philanthropist whose notability is exclusively local to a single area. Every single one of the 12 sources here is either a primary source which cannot assist notability at all, or a glancing namecheck of his existence in almost-exclusively local coverage that isn't about him -- the one source here that gets closest to being about him is a 62-word blurb in a "10 consultants who avoid the BS" listicle, but even that doesn't actually say anything genuinely substantive about him and is being cited only to support the assertion that he was named in the listicle. (But neither "named in a listicle" nor "avoids the BS" is a claim of encyclopedic notability either.) He might be eligible to keep an article that was sourced a lot better than this, but this is not the article or the sourcing that gets him in the door. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 24 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 18:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His notability is not wide-spread enough for it to meet the standards of Wikipedia. CLCStudent (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies the applicable notability, none of this is convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 2 March 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) 23:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Kim

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

Fails WP:BASIC with no in-depth secondary sources. (Sources at the time of nomination are an article that doesn't mention Kim, a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview, a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview, an article written by Kim, a passing one-sentence mention of Kim as being a popular quora.com user who is "not famous", and an article that doesn't mention Kim.) I was unable to find any viable sources myself. McGeddon (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some of the sources are legit. unsourced sentences should be rvmoved. but the person seems notable. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those six sources do you think are "legit"? --McGeddon (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Serious notability concerns here. Fdssdf (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure if these links are notable enough or not but references to Forbes, INC, Fortunte, LATimes can't be ignored. Review some of the news links where the subject is covered:

http://www.inc.com/aj-agrawal/5-things-you-can-do-to-build-a-powerful-personal-brand.html http://fortune.com/2016/01/23/personal-brand/ https://techdayhq.com/news/handouts-aren-t-for-people-like-richard-branson-warren-buffet-or-leonard-kim http://iambrunocoelho.com/mhmsales/ep6-leonard-kim/ http://blog.employtown.com/post/82725150627/our-interview-with-quora-master-leonard-kim http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-obama-answers-questions-about-affordable-care-act-on-quora-20140324-story.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2015/09/03/10-business-lessons-from-the-success-of-the-kardashians/#1cf69dc497ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.126.97 (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References from Forbes, LA Times, etc can be ignored for the purposes of establishing notability if they are written by Leonard Kim or are WP:NEWSPRIMARY interviews with Leonard Kim, as is the case here. --McGeddon (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Passing mentions and interviews don't really give us the sources or substance of an actual biography, even a biographical sketch of this person, as opposed to a self-promotional resume. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply of this actually suggests solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 15 March 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 no consensus. Clearly no consensus to delete, but views are split between keep and merge. I recommend pursuing further discussion to see whether a consensus to merge (in a reduced form) can be arrived at. Personally I don't imagine this having lasting importance outside the context of the campaign. Sandstein 09:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash

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

Simply not notable. A Facebook group with some weak references does not make a Wikipedia article. Compare with the deletion of Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club (which I back then supported keeping, now having changed my mind) a similarly non-notable Facebook group with a similar range of sources. Stamboliyski (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the group has made news multiple times. I think it should stay.Zamorakphat (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
probably delete the WaPo article is certainly the strongest source, a lengthy profile of the site in a major national daily. One or two more articles on that level would probably put this in to keep range. And since that article is just up, it may happen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject matter has received credible news coverage multiple times (WaPo, Vice, Yahoo, Telegraph, and local papers as well) and meets the notability guideline for WP. Should be kept. Jason Spriggs ^chat 19:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Telegraph article, this one? [14], ah, no, you must mean this one[15].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we need another article or so in something weightier than Yahoo or Vice, on the other hand, I suspect that such an article will appear before 7 days go past.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surprisingly at that. One would look at the title and write it off, however this has had notable coverage as stated earlier. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it notable coverage, though? The deleted article I cited above had basically the same references, replacing the WaPo article with another of similar nature, including flimsy student newspapers and Vice. I think this content is superfluous, and better included in either Sanders' own page or his campaign page. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why don't we just trim this significantly down and merge it into Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes? Steven Walling • talk 19:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I honestly wouldn't be opposed to that either. There is enough here to warrant inclusion. Didn't think of that at first. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Come think of it, that may be a superior solution. A trimmed version would be good. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's best to delete the page and move its contents to the Internet memes section of the campaign? I mean the group is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia but not its own page. Winterysteppe (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the group is substantial enough with many subtopics to warrant its own article. Including it in the main campaign article in its entirety would be a possible solution but I believe there is enough of a separation for it to stay as is with another page. Jason Spriggs ^chat 20:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep satisfies WP:GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an index of stupid facebook groups. I support the merge. Sparse article could easily fit here. -- Kjerish (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BSDMS is widely recognized as a major contemporary cultural phenomenon, certainly on the scale of many other such communities indexed elsewhere on Wikipedia [16] (talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as it stands, this article could quite easily be merged into the campaign article. My concern is that this article is so new that it's hard to tell how big it can get. We could merge it now and end up splitting it again in a week's time. I think for now, it may just be best to let the dust settle. Certainly no case for speedy deletion here. I will keep this on my watchlist and probably advise again at a later date. Jolly Ω Janner 09:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge And heavily redact all the bullshit. Looks like something a middle schooler would submit to FunnyJunk.com. And Jason Spriggs's examples for what he considers to be notable is ridiculous. It's like saying, "Hey! RedState covered it! Therefore, it's notable!" Vice is a stupid tabloid that publishes junk. Yahoo publishes whatever fucktard bullshit they come across, with no journalistic integrity to check them. Furthermore, the sources aren't nearly as ridiculous as this article, for a reason. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 18:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mention that it exists on his campaign page. Possible keep if more notable coverage is found other than the aforementioned WaPo article. --Windy Hands (Frozen Wind public account) (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like it to be noted that the "BernieBros", if you will, are doing some canvassing to prevent a proper consensus from forming here, against Wikipedia rules. Example. Stamboliyski (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately doesn't look like anyone followed through with it. It was posted 24 hours ago and only received two "likes". User:Bedno's appearance is a little odd, but there's nothing here that prevents consensus. Jolly Ω Janner 00:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Might this be a case of NOTNEWS? In any case arguments for GNG being met is weak and there are few credible sources that cover it extensively. A trivial Facebook page which might endure the test of the future (when potential RSes about it pop into existence) but for now it does not merit a standalone. I agree with sentiments echoed above; this should be merged (and heavily trimmed) with the campaign article. Of course if this were a Trump article... Hm... Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is highly relevant documentation of a major cultural shift away from Silent Generation, Boomers, AND Gen-X toward the Millennial Generation that currently dominates labor markets and our cultural core. To delete this article would be a terrible waste of information, not only content specifically but everything about the framing and construction of this article have extremely high cultural relevance and is exactly the kind of thing that Wikipedia was constructed to capture.
Keep: This is a highly influential cultural phenomenon with a substantial amount of press coverage, and represents political and social change taking place in the United States today. Z10987 (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge with the campaign article. There isn't much depth to the coverage of this, and about half of the article's sources can be discarded as tangential to the subject or simply as unreliable sources. The subject of the article probably fails WP:WEBCRIT because the coverage is mostly superficial. I believe this material could easily be condensed down into about three sentences which would fit snugly in the section already in the campaign article.- Mr X 18:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tally, the numbers stands at 7 keep, 3 merge and 4 delete. Winterysteppe (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes. General Ization ^Talk 19:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tally, the numbers stands at 7 keep, 5 merge and 4 delete. Winterysteppe (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend ignoring the two above merge votes as they did not provide rationale. That said, I don't have an opinion on this myself. Dustin (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though this is an unusual topic, I don't think it should be deleted as it's pretty significant to the campaign. It ain't 2008 anymore, a Facebook group has much more notability in 2016. Buffaboy ^talk 03:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also recommend against keeping a tally. That may influence the outcome (whether people support or oppose deletion / merging). Dustin (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the tally is pointless. These are discussions, not polls. All, but one of the "delete" votes actually include some sort of merging. Rest assured that a closing admin will read all the comments on this page and will probably ignore any votes that have no rationale. This seems to have turned into a discussion on whether to merge with the Bernie campaign article anyway. Jolly Ω Janner 03:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes. I wasn't aware that I had to provide a novel rationale for my !vote here, and I don't intend to, as I think the case was made very well by others above. General Ization ^Talk 03:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes. I agree about the tally, but I fail to see the point in excluding votes unless they include their own reiteration of what's already been said. I think it should be condensed and merged into the section I've linked to. I don't believe it can stand on it's own as an article, as it has less than 20 lines of actual content. And ok, it has lots of sources. News articles. A Vice article doesn't automatically bestow importance onto something. And ok, I get the thing about cultural shift millenial meme stuff. But that sounds like the kind of thing to be written about in Internet memes, and not just implied by detailing every Facebook group that breaks 250k. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes until it becomes such a stand-alone marvel that we can safely say it's WP:NOTNEWS but a long-term standalone topic since notability isn't something temporary. Also, please do not make tallies. LjL (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Anything but delete Although I'd like this to be it's own article, it is influential and the Bernie v. Hillary meme has become popular. It can stand as its own article, but for now maybe a merge into Bernie's campaign article would be ok for now and wait and see for the future. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. As such, it passes WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG, and qualifies for a standalone article. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Can Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash Swing the Election?". Vice.
^ "How Bernie Sanders became the lord of 'dank memes'". Washington Post.
^ "Bernie Sanders is Going to Win (Because of the Internet)". Daily Kos.

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. czar 01:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Wilkinson

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

Well, he exists, he has a lot of followers on Twitter and he appears in some articles calling him a 'social media influencer' or noting that he attended a charity event to raise awareness of AIDS. What I haven't seen is any profiles of him specifically or who he is or why he matters. I think fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:PERSON, at least for now. Blythwood (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete He appears to be someone who does things, without any details. Article has one ref which is a blog post hosted at forbes. He may weakly pass GNG, but with such weak substance articles mentioning him I just cannot see it warranting an article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:37, 11 March 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 redirect to List of food days. Redirection instead of merging as the target list has very little space to incorporate the extra information. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 03:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Burger Day (United kingdom)

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

Seems to fail WP:MADEUP. Event organised by a men's lifestyle website and a few minor food retailers. Some media coverage, but certainly not any kind of well-known event. Blythwood (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, however appreciate that since the day was originally created by Mr Hyde its difficult to separate the two. There is mainstream media coverage^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] and national restaurant chains taking part.^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] --Ibwannet (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "National Burger Day". Telegraph.
^ "National Burger Day". The Sun.
^ "National Burger Day". Timeout.
^ "National Burger Day". Perez Hilton.
^ "McWhopper Campaign on National Burger Day". Metro.
^ "Byron Burger".
^ "Gourmet Burger Kitchen".
^ "Shake Shack".

delete blatant PR trick. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PR Trick by whom? --Ibwannet (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep WP:GHITS 233k Google search results for a single day event is notable.^[1] --Ibwannet (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "national+burger+day" "Search Results". Google.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 25 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 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible evidence that this is a notable event. Even the mainstream press sources do not engage in any substantive discussion of the event itself, but are largely given over to presenting recipes for burgers. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Merge to List of food days. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there. How would you feel about a simple redirect? NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer a merge, per WP:PRESERVE. It is presently just a mention at the list article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as there are no serious needs for deletion but there are also no convincing signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 3 March 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald W. Barden

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

Couldn't find much over the internet about him, seems promotional, Single purpose account Savourisblue (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:45, 24 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 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found only expected sources and the currently listed sources are not convincing. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not even a real claim to notability. His books are privately published, (byWest Bow Press, which describes itself as "a Christians self-publisher," and, not surprisingly, none of the three are in any WorldCat Library. This is a press release, and I suggest G11. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 3 March 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Booger Swamp

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

I'm not sure if there is any such place exist called Booger Swamp, even there is nothing verifiable at Google Maps, possibly coined by author. Fails WP:GEOLAND, however, there is a street called Booger Swamp road, but it appears to be a minor street and such streets are generally not considered notable. Jim Carter 17:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Cannot find any sources on Google, Google Books, or Newspapers.com (historic newspaper site) establishing the notability of this location in North Carolina. Only found two passing mentions of "Booger Swamp Road". To the extent that a number of sources discuss a location named "Booger Swamp", that location is in the state of Tennessee and is therefore different from what's discussed in the article. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment probably not notable, but I wish it were. There really is a Booger Swamp Road near a Yadkinville, NC. [17] 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because whether or not it exists, there are no convincing signs of an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 3 March 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 charts are actually templates so can be incorporated into other articles if desired without requiring a merge. I have placed a list of them on the talk page here should anyone wishes to follow this up. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population (graphical)

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

A fork of List of countries by population that I don't think adds anything to the project, other than providing another venue for facts to be updated. I'm very happy to be convinced otherwise, but right now this page is hard to read, out of date, and superfluous to the data that already exists on the list page. — foxj 19:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, the graphs seem pretty useful for visual comparison and can be merged into the other page without the page becoming too large.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, the charts include a mishmash of more than just countries - continents, territories, the West Bank and the European Union - and are thus unsalvageable (and out of date). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 12 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 17:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like written above, this is fairly unsalvageable. It even says the numbers are from the year 2005. In addition the graphs are hard to decipher. All we can utilize is the knowledge that such a graphical template exists on Wikipedia. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:19, 21 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 17:29, 24 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Bandung

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

Non-notable music genre/movement. Only mentioned in self-published sources; no coverage in reliable, independent sources. Drm310 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:43, 10 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 17:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a machine-translated WP:SOAPBOX for indiebandung.com (article creator is indiebandungcom). - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:27, 22 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 17:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete incomprehensible , unreferenced. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 24 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:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chebolu Seshagiri Rao

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

No independent sources to indicate this person meets the criteria for inclusion. Provided sources only mention Rao in passing, or are mirrors of the Wikipedia page about Rajahmundry, where Rao's name has been added as a "notable resident". Although the text mentions the Padma Bhusan, there is no indication that Rao has won this award, but rather, perhaps, a similarly named award (the "Padma Bhusan Moturi Satyanarayana Award") from the Andhra Pradesh Hindi Academy; an award of unknown notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC, with no significant coverage online from WP:RS. As nominator Wikidan61 suggest, the article actually stated that he won a Padmabhushan Dr. Moturi Satyanarayan Award: I previously incorrectly linked this to Padma Bhusan, but have since corrected my error. It's difficult to tell just how notable the Padmabhushan Dr. Moturi Satyanarayan Award is: its domain has been squatted for some time. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:33, 13 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 17:43, 17 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 17:28, 24 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Max Keenlyside

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

Subject does not meet any Notability requirements as stated in WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc; sources too closely associated with the subject Maineartists (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In an effort to salvage this article I attempted to research the subject for citations that did not fall back to primary sources. The few that came up were only local media that do not claim notability requirements. The subject has already been absorbed into the article for List of ragtime composers and should suffice in keeping with other contemporary, non-notable subjects listed. There is no claim to fame; and the article seems to be fan created or closely related to the subject. There are no notable publications to back Biographical statements (composer) and the Discography is not sourced. References are YouTube linked and/or directly sourced to primary sources to the subject. There is no doubt this talented young gentleman will go far in his field; but for now, this article is not Wikipedia notability worthy. *Delete Maineartists (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Max Keenlyside

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as still questionable for the solid applicable notability. Notifying tagger Shirt58. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 11 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 17:43, 17 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 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE It is clear from the above comments and study of both the article and its subject that there is no contest regarding non-notability and guidelines not met. MERGE with ragtime composers. Amiamy1995 (talk) 15:59, 26 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 redirect to Nanabhai Bhatt. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of redirect to Nanabhai Bhatt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaalbaaz (1958 film)

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (for now) to director Nanabhai Bhatt, being sourcable as one of his works. IF better sources come forward, I'm okay for its resurrection. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:41, 17 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 17:43, 17 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 17:28, 24 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 no consensus. It's already been listed twice, so I'm hesitant to relist it again. Apparently, the large list of references were added after this review started, and may not have gotten a proper review. I admit, this certainly has all the hallmarks of a position paper, but, even ignoring the WP:SPA comments, I just don't see sufficient arguments in favor of deletion to call this a consensus to delete. No prohibition against immediate re-nomination if somebody feels strongly about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agrarian Bonds in Peru

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

the article (which, incidentally, lacks sources almost completely) is clearly written by an advocacy group to right a claimed Great Wrong. (Not my words; other editor just reverted to something that didn't have this tagged.) RotubirtnoC (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page on "Agrarian Bonds in Peru" was previously a very brief article that lacked sources, and a deletion request was in order for the page. However, upon adding 57 sources and a lengthy amount of factual information, I removed both the request for citations as well as the deletion request, since I believed both issues to have been addressed. Many factual and unbiased sources have been added as citations and the accuracy of the information presented has greatly improved. Since the deletion request was submitted when the page was scarcely cited and only very brief, I believe it is now irrelevant. — PagoJusto (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now because the article currently has no signs of actually looking like a better encyclopedia article, WP:TNT at best or draft and userfy if needed as this is not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 17 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 17:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself discusses a topic which is not mainstream and the addition and volume of source material serves to strengthen the points made therein. 73scooty (talk) 23:23, 17 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 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. AfD WP:NOTCLEANUP. Huge parts of the text are factual. 'Advocacy' may be fixed much more easily than the 'Great Wrong' which look like it was. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 24 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 merge to VFA-82. And redirect. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attack Squadron 82 (United States Navy)

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

VA-82 was renamed VFA-82 and a far more detailed page exists Mztourist (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 05:18, 14 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 17:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 24 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 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: probably the best course of action, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per the above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:28, 2 March 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cristobal Model 3

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

Non-notable firearm. English and Spanish language searches turned up no reliable sources. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:17, 10 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 17:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just an obscure prototype. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either an article on the Armory, or into one of their more successful designs. This is in Smith and Smith, if memory serves. Anmccaff (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment...No such article exists. The only successful weapon produced by Armería San Cristóbal was the Cristóbal Carbine a .30 Carbine copy of the Hungarian Danuvia 43M submachine gun. You would need to rename and completely rewrite that article to make to Model 3 fit. Even then, the new article would have notability problems of its own.--RAF910 (talk) 18:26, 24 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 17:28, 24 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. Sandstein 08:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Variara submachine gun

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

Non-notable firearm. No English-language reliable sources found, but possible that an Italian speaker could help (or verify that the current reference is valid). ansh 666 08:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article and I managed to find two more sources (in English) to improve the article:
Daniel D. Musgrave, Thomas B. Nelson The World's Machine Pistols & Submachine Guns - Vol. 2 - Ironside International Publishers Inc., 1980.
Ralph Riccio Italian Small Arms, Schiffer Publishing, 2013. -----The Hollow Man2010 (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2016 (EST)

The references have to establish "notably" not just that they were made. In other words...What is it about these guns that merit inclusion on Wikipedia? The answer is nothing. The article itself leaves the reader with more questions than answers. How many of these guns were made? Were they all the same? Where were they made? Who made them? Who designed them? There were many homemade weapons used during WW2 none of them are notable on their own. At best they should be redirceted to Insurgency weapons and tactics.--RAF910 (talk) 18:10, 11 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 17:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Hollow Man2010: how in-depth do the new sources you've provided go about this weapon? If it's just a passing mention (e.g. a name in a list) then it wouldn't be enough, but if there is a reasonably sized entry on it, then that would be acceptable. ansh 666 23:27, 17 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 17:27, 24 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. As no policy backed reasons for this article's retention have been made, the article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Type 79 mini rocket launcher

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

Non-notable weapon; search in English turned up nothing and I'm not really sure what to search for Chinese. Created by a User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:20, 10 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 17:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or else Merge with Paramilitary forces of China, since it seems to have been specifically designed for the various militia forces and the like. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at adding a mention of it to Type 69 RPG but it didn't fit and it's a very obscure weapon. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:17, 21 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 17:27, 24 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 redirect to McGraw Hill Financial#Corporate history. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of redirect as agreed by the two participants. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GradeGuru

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

Non-notable website which no longer exists. No reliable sources are present in the article. Possible merge with McGraw Hill Financial but again lacks notability for this. Polyamorph (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:09, 10 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 17:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Already mentioned at McGraw Hill Financial. I'm having a hard time trying to think what of this article is worth adding to the mention already existing at McGraw Hill Financial. Maybe the citations? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:12, 21 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 17:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added the refs from this article to McGraw Hill Financial#Corporate history where a small paragraph about GradeGuru already existed, like I mentioned. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is good and a redirect would be the most sensible option in my opinion. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 17:47, 26 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 redirect to List of Dutch & Benelux Formula Ford champions. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Dutch Formula Ford Championship

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

Low level motorsport championship left unsourced and with little indication of notability since creation. I'm struggling to find anything more than trivial mentions of this championship's existence, let alone anything regarding this individual season, so fails WP:GNG. QueenCake (talk) 21:23, 17 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 17:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep look up "Van Uitert Nederlands kampioenschap Formule Ford" and you'll find more results. Seems notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dutch & Benelux Formula Ford champions. The sources that the above user added recently, would not exactly pass WP:RS. Apart from those ordinary Google hits, I cannot find any reliable sources (0 hits on both GNews and GBooks for "van Uitert" "Jaap van Lagen"), so it seems to fail WP:GNG. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:16, 25 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 18:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as questionably notable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 3 March 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Jaiswal

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:CREATIVE or WP:COMPOSER. News sources are limited to passing mentions. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 20:53, 17 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 17:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited contain only passing mention of the subject. Fails WP:BIO. utcursch | talk 22:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The currently tossed amount of links and information is not satisfying the creative entertainers notability and this is best restarted later if a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 19:11, 28 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. Consensus is now clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Lines

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

Does not meet WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding Memory Lines Blog to this nomination, since the article was moved to that title. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as none of this seems enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I am the page contributor and working for Wikipedia to make it a better place of Information Encyclopedia.user:stalinsunnykvj.This article on memory lines blog is made for the people who are in search of this project work.This is a non profit project.Also notability is clearly given in the following newspaper daily Mathrubhumi and Deccan chronicle.These are the local dailies and these help inspire each writer to go beyond their dreams.Everything starts from blank page.Wikipedia must not Contain any Irrelevant or Fake information and I being a contributor wish to keep that on but editors should verify the requirement of articles to be included in wikipedia which helps local people and natives.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalinsunnykvj (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 February 2016‎

Stalinsunnykvj For this to be notable and acceptable, this would need solid in-depth third-party sources overall, not trivial passing mentions and press releases. If need be, we can draft and userfy. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:26, 24 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 18:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at most of the cited sources. None meet our requirements in WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The total lack of third party sources points to no major notability, which violates WP:GNG. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:12, 14 March 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SFS Homes

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:CORP: Dubious claims of notability, coupled with a bunch of spurious sources. Most are reprints of press releases or real estate listings. Some of the ratings, such as the CRISIL ones appears to be legitimate, but they do not seem to be of a significance to accord notability. They appear to be more akin to a Chamber of Commerce membership or BBB rating than a particularly significant journalistic or industry distinction. In essence, this is a promotional linkfarm masquerading as a legitimate article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article have many credible news citations like hindu, business line, muscatdaily, kuwait times. Hope it is retained. — 185.89.218.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as this is another company article made to seem like it has convincing enough coverage when it's actually still questionable, delete for now as this is questionable for companies notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 21 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 17:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SFS homes is a noted real estate developer in India. They are in the papers both nationally and internationally on a regular basis. Hope that solves the notability issue. They recently got the best residential property award in South India. Hindu, Business Line, Yentha, Kuwait Times and Muscat Daily are top tier newspapers. — 202.83.47.52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Business Line is not a newspaper, it's a press release syndicator. Those few articles that are in actual newspapers about this company are merely reprints of press releases. That's not enough to secure notability. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Business line is a business newspaper owned by the renowned Hindu group in India. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.47.52 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah quite, I seem to have mixed Business Line up with Business Wire. Nonetheless, the rest of my comment still stands. None of the articles here are substantial coverage, and all or virtually all are reprints of press releases. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:41, 26 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 18:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources in the article:
1. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-business/crisil-rating-for-sfs-homes/article216848.ece
2. http://news.kuwaittimes.net/great-opportunity-invest-home-kerala/
3. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/night-shopping-for-sfs-homes/article3710255.ece
4. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/sfs-homes-enters-hospitality-sector/article2823158.ece
5. http://www.technoparktoday.com/sfs-homes-ties-up-with-hdfc-bank-home-loans-for-a-home-expo-in-trivandrum/
6. http://www.centralmarketingsyndicate.net/newsroom.php?id=4
7. http://softsolutionslimited.com/news/component/content/article/98-real-estate/2114-sfs-homes-project-sfs-grande-awarded-gold-rating-by-the-indian-green-building-council
8. http://www.m.muscatdaily.com/Archive/Oman/India-Property-Show-in-Muscat-to-feature-Kerala-s-best-real-estate-companies-3n8r
9. http://www.yentha.com/news/view/4/Real-Estate-Boom-In-Trivandrum
10. "SFS Crisil Rating DA2". sfshomes.com. Retrieved 2016-02-02.
11. "7 star crisil rated award". sfshomes.com. Retrieved 2016-02-02.
12. "Best residential property, South India". sfshomes.com. Retrieved 2016-02-02.
13. "IBGC Gold rating certificate". sfshomes.com. Retrieved 2016-02-02.
Cunard (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article (which I have listed above) are press releases and trivial coverage.
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SFS Homes to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough independent coverage in reliable, independent sources to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 14 March 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. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. G. George

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

There is a lot of puffery in this article, but nothing that indicates the subject passes either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. He was Principal of a seminary, but there is nothing that indicates it is the "major academic institution" described in WP:PROF #6. St Anselm (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have had only a small impact on the world of scholarship. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- I agree there is a good deal of puff, which needs pruning out, but he sounds like a major figure in an indigenous denomination. I accept that theological schools tend to be small, because they are typically not part of a multi-disciplinary university, but that does not make them insignificant. Dean and Principal are higher than professor (using that term in the British sense. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a waak keep,but we need to compensate for our difficulty in finding sources on this subject.I did some cleanup. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 23 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 17:25, 24 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 18:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per DGG's argument on difficulty of finding sources and Peterkingiron's notion of the level of Dean and Principal. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the clean-up efforts, no longer has such a high degree of promotionalism. Barely meets, but does meet, notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 10 March 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 redirect to Online memorial. Nobody seems to be very convinced that this should stay an article, but not a very clear consensus for straight deletion either. Sandstein 08:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital estate memorial

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

I'm not sure what to do about this article. "Digital estate memorial" seems to be a neologism; I can't find anything on Google (24 unique results) that's not a blog or a copy of the Wikipedia article.

The sources provided don't talk about "digital estate memorial" as a general concept, but some talk about digital memorialization. Maybe the answer is to rename it to "digital memorialization", or to move any useful information into other articles like digital inheritance. In any case, the phrase "digital estate memorial" implies a legal concept, which the article does not address except in passing. ... discospinster _talk 03:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then draft and userfy if needed as this article is still questionably solid. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or merge - rename if a better, more commonly used term for this exists. If there are many references on the issue of this article all using different names the most descriptive one should be chosen via another poll on the talk page. Otherwise merge into online memorial, memorial or digital inheritance#Memorial. --Fixuture (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 17 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 17:19, 24 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 no consensus - No objections against speedy renomination - AFDs been up 3 weeks and has been relisted twice and so I think relisting for another week won't achieve anything in terms of discussion so closing as No Consensus - No objections against speedy deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Court

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

I can't see much evidence of notability for this organisation, that would prove it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. A Google search for articles or books reveals little, and several refs on the page don't mention it at all. — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article exists for two years and it's original form included some references from New York Times and some other serious sources. I definitely can't stay as is, being overloaded with non relevant and misleading references. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:25, 17 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 17:19, 24 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 18:08, 2 March 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 no consensus. Only one person arguing to keep, but he presented sources which nobody explicitly refuted, so I'm assuming they're valid. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Ocasio

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Has an interview in a teen magazine, but nothing else in-depth. Is in the main cast of a television show but has otherwise had bit parts—doesn't meet any part of WP:NACTOR. I'd entertain a redirect to Sam & Cat, if needed. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 10:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar 10:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no signs of better satisfying the creative entertainers notability, and I would've also suggested adding a redirect to Sam & Cat as 35 episodes may be enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes criteria 2 of WP:NACTOR of having a large fan base, as he had third billing in all 35 episodes of Sam & Cat, which was shown worldwide.However, WP:NACTOR are only guidelines that indicate whether reliable sources are likely to be found, so will look for RS to pass WP:Verifiability Atlantic306 (talk) 03:05, 20 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 17:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For NACTOR#2, I don't see any reliable source evidence of a fan base specific to Ocasio. czar 05:36, 28 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 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a lot of web activity on him, with a lot of interviews including The Huffington Post. An example of his popularity here [18] picking up an award for the show at an awards ceremony voted for by children. The interview here [19] is followed by some decent prose which could be sourced to the article . I'm still looking for more sources but iI think it should be remembered that there is nothing contentious or even personal in the article.Atlantic306 (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment more examples of coverage of the actor [20] and [21] (talk) 18:53, 10 March 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 no consensus. Sandstein 14:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haruka Kohara

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

No evidence of independent notability outside of AKB48 and SDN48, neither of which she now appears to be a member of. The article basically consists of a list of singles and events in which she participated - all sourced to Studio48.net pages, which are fan-edited and wiki-based. No biographical details and no in-depth third-party coverage, so this does not pass WP:GNG. DAJF (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I would've suggested moving to one of the band articles but, obviously since she's not part of any of those, there's unlikely solid chances of that and this is vulnerable to being restored again so, with no better convincing signs for the applicable entertainers notability, delete at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think she loses the notability just because she is not a member of the popular band. I don't really follow the band, but it seems she was popular when she was a member. She might be less so now but in Wikipedia, a person cannot lose notability after she retires or (god forbid) dies. We don't delete the article after the subject of the article is dead even though there will be no new reliable sources. Yes, the article should have more just lists, but that's not an argument for the deletion. -- Taku (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's actually been on a number of radio programs and television variety shows as a guest (most guest spots are cannon fodder really) and for the last three years she's had a decent run playing the titular character in Anne of Green Gables on a stage production [22] but there is nothing to suggest she meets the requirements of WP:N. She's not in the spotlight for much. Jun Kayama 07:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She clearly meets at least WP:MUSICBIO #6 ("is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles"). --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:45, 23 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 17:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Google News search [23] shows many news articles about her (25 at least). I think she passes WP:GNG. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Calling most of those links "news" is a bit much. Reading through them, most are name drops of stage productions she's been cast in, or a few photobooks events she's held. Considering the tags mostly consist of this type of content [24] does she really qualify for WP:N? She doesn't have an independent music career, she's not on Japanese TV, she does stage productions which would have difficulty meriting their own articles on Japanese Wikipedia and if it's not photobooks, it's puff pieces like this in Sponichi [25] which are not carried elsewhere. Jun Kayama 17:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A JaWiki user gave news:

"Searched by Google News. After AKB48,

One Anime news site reported , In this year, she was acting as 'EIKO' on the stage of Pripara. And another news site said she appears on fishing TV program in 2013." - ja:利用者‐会話:Strangesnow

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Subject is not even in the main cast line, but in the bottom as a minor supporting character for stage of Pripara. Fishing program? [26] talks about her having a DVD shoot for a グラビア in Hawaii, not a fishing program. Every single young female tarento in Japan has a turn at being a gravure idol and getting coverage for it, which hardly qualifies all of them as WP:N. Jun Kayama 14:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Every single young female tarento in Japan" doesn't get articles about her published in major press outlets. She does. She passes WP:GNG. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While she may meet one of the Musicbio criteria, that only means that she may be notable. Based on the totality of the sourcing available, she does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at any of the news articles about her that pop up in a Google News search? It doesn't look like you did. For example, why isn't this "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail"? It is. Just as required by WP:GNG. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:08, 14 March 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 Varies. Consensus to delete Jupiter Circus, to redirect Pratishodh Ki Jwala and to merge Nagayana. Sandstein 18:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nagayana

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

Article about a comic "crossover event" with no references that demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article, about a comic story arc and a fictional location with no indications of notability:

Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nagayana must be merged to Nagraj comics and shortened. Jupiter Circus and Pratishodh Ki Jwala must be deleted. From someone who actually read these comics years ago. In what sense the Jupiter Circus article was kept here for years? Captain Spark (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because nobody noticed it, I guess, Captain Spark. There are lots of similarly problematic articles about aspects of these comics, I am increasinly discovering. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Nagayana as suggested above. Pratishodh Ki Jwala should probably be a redirect to Super Commando Dhruva. I don't think any content needs to be moved. Delete Jupiter Circus - there's nothing there worth keeping, and a redirect is unnecessary. The only things that link to it come from a template. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:11, 24 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 17:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 2 March 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) ansh 666 04:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Kralev

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

One self published book about cheap air fares and no other mentions. Looks like failing notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep career looks extensive. Curro2 (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources to meet the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question, how can a 300 word article have over 50 references, a case of WP:OVERCITE? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, but that is not the matter we are discussing here. Please edit the article to bring it in line with policy. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thats cool, its just that some editors may be intimidated by the wall of refs, the large no. of refs to wade through to ascertain notability, others may be suspect of such a small article having so many refs.

Anyway, have commenced reduction.....Coolabahapple (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Whoever puffed him up like this didn't do him any favours, they made him look ridiculous rather than the probably significant person he is. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, having gone through the article's references, most of them show that the subject has done a lot (present refs 4 to 47}, in line with 3. first part of WP:CREATIVE - "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.", but none of those references are useable for the second part of 3. - "In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (instead the article looks like a WP:RESUME, i know this doesn't mean the subject is not notable.) Refs 1 to 3 do discuss/review one of his books - America's Other Army, so that book may warrant its own article, but it appears not so for the author. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Coolabahapple has a point, the thicket of sources is not as strong as it looks, as I looked through it, I was leaning towards delete, but his book on diplomacy did get at least one review and some attention in diplomacy journals, academia when it was published, and his book on airtravel also got a little attention [27], so I guess he squeaks past notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 23 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 17:18, 24 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gayatri Joshi

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

The actress is only-known for her role in Swades and no signiificant amount of coverages found for it. So better got it for its deletion nomination. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 February 2016‎

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

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

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

and through WP:INDAFD: "Gayatri Joshi" "गायत्री जोशी"

Looks to be wide coverage to meet WP:BASIC... hmmm... ? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As that singular film 12 years ago (mentioned as is proper in a BLP) is not the singular or sole assertion of notability, her failing WP:NACTOR is immaterial if it can be determined that she otherwise meets WP:BASIC or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO [28] for other facets of her life prior to and after acting, and if otherwise notable, she has plenty of time to in the future consider returning to film to then work up to that particular (and limited) SNG. Time for digging. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:22, 19 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 17:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep, clearly a celebrity in India, see [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] --Soman (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soman We are not a newspaper portal and these sources are just implementing Yellow journalism. Event parties and launches doesn't signify its coverages and only one film over its lifetime. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage confirm notability. And yellow journalism is journalism still, whether you like it or not. What we conclude here is that the individual in question had 1) a modelling career prior to Swades (and there are a number of news coverage hits prior to 2004), 2) Rose to nation-wide fame with Swades, 3) withdrew from the film industry but has (as shown above) remained in the public spotlight still (mainly due to her short film career, in part due to her modelling/pageant career, in part due her family situation). We do have articles on reality show personalities, socialities etc., in situations were there is significant coverage of said individuals in independent sources. --Soman (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* She was widely covered 10 years ago as an actress, now covered as Page 3 celebrity. ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

we are even not promoting agency SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

promotional material may be removed from the article if any. but the subject meets WP:GNG. ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, do note that the nominator, in clear breach of wiki-etiquette, stroke out both of the 'keep' comments. I reverted that edit. --Soman (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and Userfy as although there may be enough, unless this is going to be outstandingly improved, this is still questionable as of this article's current status, so it's best moved aside until better. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 21 March 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) 22:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Methanol Synthesis

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

Reason The article has been dangling for 7 years with a "please improve references". While the reaction discussed is real it is economically impractical. Only two wikipedia pages link here (although 6 user pages do), and the group/category/stub tags show it to be of low importance.

Most importantly, all the content is covered elsewhere, so an aggregation of low-importance data into its own page seems counterproductive.

Riventree (talk) 15:25, 17 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 17:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In short: The useful content is elsewhere on Wikipedia and is referenced there, but not here. In detail: The only reference within the article is to the characteristics of a methanol engine in comparison to a diesel, which is in no way specific to this method of synthesis. Many of the statements within the article are non-neutral, naive expressions of enthusiasm. All are unreferenced. This particular reaction is only one of several approaches to bio-methanol. As stated by nom., it is not generally considered to be the most viable; however, this is not necessarily fatal to the article's existence. What is fatal to the present article is that all the useful content of this article applies to methanol generally, and is in that article already. There is also a unaddressed problem with this article: 1) there are "green field" synthetic plants, which do not use this particular exact reaction, and 2) Green Freedom, a trademark name, seems to have some connection to this reaction. The original editor chose not to respond to a request for clarification in 2008 on this problematic aspect. According to IRENA, [52], "the term 'bio-methanol' refers to both methanol produced from renewable resources and 'renewable methanol' produced from CO2". For all of these reasons, it isn't feasible to merge this content or rename this particular content "Bio-methanol". One option would be to rewrite the article from scratch, using a broader range of sources, such as the above IRENA ref, [53], [54] and [55] etc. This would be a completely new article, and the present edit history would have no relevancy to the new effort. However, there are already 2 articles that overlap in this concept space, methanol fuel and methanol economy. So, if appropriate in the future, "bio-methanol" would probably be better "growing out of" one of these, if hypothetically expanded content there became worthy of a new article. For all these reasons, the best course of action is deletion. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to methanol fuel, although a new article at biomethanol (currently a redirect) would probably be welcome also. Per FeatherPluma. shoy (reactions) 14:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this is worth merging. The salient content is already in methanol and methanol economy, respectively; this partial excerpt is superfluous.-- Elmidae (talk) 13:47, 8 March 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:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northwood R-76

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

Non-notable firearm. Search turned up no reliable sources. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 07:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also including these related weapons (all Rhodesian Bush War era improvised submachine guns):

ansh 666 07:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:26, 10 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 17:18, 17 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 17:17, 24 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:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Varan PMX-80

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

Non-notable firearm; search turned up no reliable sources. Given source is more or less useless. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 07:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:29, 10 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 17:15, 17 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 17:17, 24 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:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prado machine gun

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

Non-notable firearm; search in English and Spanish found no reliable sources. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 06:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:22, 10 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 17:15, 17 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 17:16, 24 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 keep. Sandstein 08:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baylè 1879 wallet / palm pistol

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

~~Non-notable firearm; search in English found nothing - perhaps a French-speaker could help. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 06:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Thanks to Buster for finding sources. Now passes WP:GNG. ansh 666 23:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:21, 10 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 17:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "Gun Report" and "Gazette des Armes" articles reproduced on the personal website demonstrate sufficient coverage to pass GNG. I see no advantage to deleting it, though links directly to original articles would be helpful. BusterD (talk) 16:12, 22 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 17:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...the only reference I've found for this gun is the Horst Held Antique Handguns Auction site. They say that there are only three of this guns in existence. We have very little information about this guns history. And, we have nothing to show notability. If your an expert it antique obscure firearms then this gun might be of some note, even a curiosity. However, notability means impact, what is it about this gun that merits a Wikipedia page? There answer is nothing.--RAF910 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nothing except at least two articles from diverse reliable sources independent of the subject directly detailing, as reproduced on the web site. This subject passes the general notability guideline, based on those two sources alone. Nothing in guideline or policy says that sources must be online or easily available, only that they can be proven to exist. The reproductions on the site prove these sources exist, and roughly where they can be found. That's enough to pass GNG. The auction website itself is NOT a reliable source for information, so anything its says may not be accurate, but Gun Report and Gazette des Armes both can be judged RS; reproductions of those articles on the website is sufficient to document RS exists. As to WP:IMPACT, that's an obscure essay with little in the way of community consensus. GNG is, of course, the relevant guideline, "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". BusterD (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have applied the found sources as citation to the page (Google is a powerful tool). The Grimes article also mentions the September 1962 issue of Guns and Hunting and the December 1962 issue of Shooting Times (Volume 3, issue 12) which contain articles directly detailing this weapon. Four articles appearing in reliable sources which directly detail? This is way past GNG. BusterD (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...do you have the Gun Report and Gazette des Armes articles in your possession? Have you read the articles? What issues are the articles from? What pages are the articles on? Do you even know what the articles say? Or, did you just see the pictures of them on the Horst Held Antique Handguns Auction site and assume that is enough to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines? The links to those articles that you provided above are worthless and do not meet Wiki standards.--RAF910 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:RAF910 seems to want to personalize this discussion and add personal opinion. Instead I'd prefer to deal with issues of policy and guideline while discussing found sources, some of which which I've applied to the page. I agree with the nominator that this mostly unsourced page was created by a sock puppet and might need to be deleted. However, a closer look at photographs at the single self-published source reveals that several likely reliable sources exist. In order to document the auction item's history, the self-publishing author has scanned in and posted sections of two published articles, giving enough information to verify the articles' legitimacy and existence. Both these articles offer us a reliable source publisher, both of whom have covered such subjects for an extensive time and are regarded well in the gun collecting community. The articles' apparent legitimacy is likely why the auction seller chose them to improve his chances of selling the item. A reasonable online search finds sufficient documentation to verify the original dates of publication of the scanned articles. In my experience, it is neither OR or OS to use existing photographic clues to verify dates of publication, instead results of such searches would fall into the category of reasonable calculation. The text of one of the scanned articles makes it clear that several other sources had previously covered this subject. I've applied all of these, using as much information as I could find in the moment. Given this information framework, later editors should be able to bridge these gaps, given the starting places of each. The significance of these applied sources is for this process to decide, so I don't consider RAF910's opinions valueless. I do however urge !voters to look at the improvements in sourcing since this process has begun. Given the provided sources, this subject meets the general notability guideline, even if these weapons are rare indeed. Finally, as a wikipedian, I am not required to have personally read or used such sources myself, only to verify that reliable sources do exist. I believe I have made a good case that such sources exist and in adequate abundance. BusterD (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment...I agree, as Wikipedians we must assume good faith, and are not required to personally read references in order to verify that they are reliable sources. However, as the editor introducing the references you are required to do your due diligence, which includes actually having access to and reading the references. How else are you suppose to verify the references. You do not have access to those articles, you have not read them and you have no idea what those articles say. For all you know the writer stumbled across these guns and simply wanted to write an article about obscure eccentric antique firearms that are little more trivial footnotes in the history of firearms.--RAF910 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage is sufficient to meet GNG. This is either a notable item, sufficiently old & obscure that on-line sources aren't so easy to come by; or a magnificently documented hoax. The former seems the far more likely of the two. (NB - even the nominator has concluded that the article meets GNG.) JohnInDC (talk) 12:06, 2 March 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) ansh 666 04:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karveer Mahatmya

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

Speedy deletion notice removed by creator of page. Article exhibits no claim of significance. The creator, however states that the book claims it's own significance, or that's how I comprehended what was written on it's talk page Rollingcontributor (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mean that the book claims it's own significance. The book has been referenced in several articles in regional (Marathi) newspapers and other books and publications over the years. Unfortunately, it is hard to find references just using Internet as not many of them were/are digitized. How can we substantiate the significance in this case - please let me know. In any case, looking forward, it would be valuable to have this article in Wikipedia. I hope that this short article will be enhanced over time. We have to start somewhere! PS: Apologies for removing the speedy deletion tag - I was not aware that it is not supposed to be removed.Rahulvkulkarni (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Rahulvkulkarni[reply]

Comment: Please note that it's not compulsory to include websites as references. You may cite any number of books, journals and other printed material as long as you are confident they are reliable (See WP:REF). The article, as of now, cites only 1 reference. Please add multiple references. Also, consider creating new articles in the draft namespace (See WP:DRAFTS. Also, don't worry, it's okay, as you have removed the notice in good faith. Please don't do it again. Rollingcontributor (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is a traditional religious scripture, then it almost certainly is notable, and there should be sources. Even if it was a very obscure manuscript before it was published in 2012, it is probably notable & there should still be sources. However, if it does consist of original stories about the Hindu saint, it may not be notable. A book of that sort needs significant reviews and other evidence of importance for notability -- see WP:NBOOK. Whether the newspaper articles will be sufficient is hard to say. Since the book was only published in 2012, some of the articles should be on line. I recognize the extreme difficulty in sourcing this type of material: India has no index of periodical literature or of book reviews, and no national online catalog. Our essay WP:Systemic bias, though not policy, is generally observed here--what it means in this context is that we will often accept less formal or extensive sourcing, for such topics. But we do need something. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps or draft & userfy at best because Books, News and browsers inmedtwely found links especially from within the last century so this will also need familiar attention. Later, I may add some of the sources. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 17 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 17:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tried searching with alt names (Karvir Mahatmya, करवीर माहात्म्य). Finds mentions in multiple books and newspaper reports, at least some of which consider it notable. Possibly of borderline notability, but I'd err on the side of caution. utcursch | talk 02:06, 2 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Mohammad Abdullah

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

Previously deleted for notability issue. No significant works what so ever, does not pass GNG nor ENT. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Actually i don't know what happened here in the second time nom? The article is now more reliable, though previously deleted. He has been awarded couple of time and also maintained both wikipedia GNG or ENT rules. ---- David Benzam^Contact 13:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notability has clearly been established, most clearly in the biography. The article is more reliable with the notably guidelines and also references. No doubt about here in notability issue. Maria Sultana Jui (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Maria Sultana Jui: Would you clarify what you mean by "in the biography"? Are you referring to a specific source? If so, which one? Worldbruce (talk) 01:41, 22 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 17:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made this article with more reliable sources that proved independent references to establish WP:GNG with the Notability guidelines. He got award 3rd times in a row that proved ENT. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 15:28, 25 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) 01:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inflexion Private Equity

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

promotional article about a firm with weak sources for notability . That's not surprising, for investment companies are not usually notable at $2 billion assets.

A list of "notable investments" is improper content, & trying to get notability by name-dropping.. Everyone who has even some mutual fund shares has some notable investments. And it even says that some of its investments were in firms that were "fasted growing", which is borrowing notability about something that isn't even notable , for any small firm can easily be "fastest growing" if it starts out low enough.

The references are to routine business notices, not about the company. There are quite a few of them, but they're not substantial. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as the article is currently questionable overall for the applicable notability and improvements with my searches finding the expected coverage from News, browsers, Highbeam and finally Books (with this last one only being 1 business listing). SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 17 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 16:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While some of the sources might be acceptable, the article reads like promotional advertising and is therefore missing Wikipedia's inclusion criteriaAtlantic306 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Editor doing various COI promotional editing Deku-shrub (talk) 21:55, 1 March 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Matthews

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

Non-notable musician. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as questionably independently notable and also consider redirecting to the band Get Scared. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 17 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 16:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject doesn't appear independently notable outside of the Get Scared band. The sole reference provided to justify this page is, well, weird. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:08, 24 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DataLounge

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:Notability (web) or WP:GNG - there are not enough reliable sources out there to support it. Boleyn (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant, non-trivial coverage from independent sources, per WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Lapadite (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major website, and has been for two decades. Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The fact that people haven't added many citations to the article doesn't change that. Deleting this article would be like deleting GeoCities. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing enough sources to justify a weak keep on GNG grounds, but I'm bumping up to just "keep" because part of the reason finding in depth coverage is difficult is that there are so many sites talking about what people are doing/writing on Data Lounge (e.g. Gawker has a tag for it) and so many citations without talking about it much directly. Neither of those are guarantees, and certainly wouldn't cut it on their own, but they're decent indicators of a site's significance such that, combined with the sources I do see (e.g. Wired, Advocate, Advocate (via HighBeam)), I'd have to say keep.</runonsentence> — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 17 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 16:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is very clearly a large website visited by many people in the LGBT community for quite a while. PureRED (talk) 12:27, 26 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 merge to Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi Club. What to move over is an editorial discussion beyond the scope of AfD, but there seems to be consensus that policy dictates that stats not be included. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi Club in Asian Football

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

Contested prod with no reason given. Could be a notable topic in the future but at the moment the club have played only a couple of games in continental football. No need at the moment for a fork for this. Fenix down (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion appears extreme. The club is in its sixth season, even if its participation in AFC events has been limited so far. If the article is not thought to stand on its own, is there no viable merge target? Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi Club, perhaps? Shouldn't this be a merge discussion on the article talk page rather than an AfD? --Worldbruce (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTSTATS it would not be appropriate to merge to the main club article as we do not keep records of every match played there (and certainly not for qualifying rounds - this is a club who have not yet participated in competition proper at a continental level. Additionally, given that there is nothing on their two continental matches in the main club article a redirect at the moment would not make sense. There is nothing at the moment contained in this article that is not word for word covered at 2016 AFC Cup, but given that is a single season article redirecting from a more general article would also not make sense. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a section on the main page similar to Bradford City A.F.C. in European football, and remove most of the details per NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 18:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per GiantSnowman's argument. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy to merge as consensus if de-statted. Fenix down (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 24 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 16:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - don't we have a merge consensus here? Fenix down (talk) 16:53, 24 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David G. Williams

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

This does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. 1st AfD resulted in no consensus - I hope this time we can reach a consensus, either way. This has been tagged for notability for 8 years and it would be great to finally resolve the issue one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ARTIST. almost all the sources are comics industry related. He needs mainstream third party coverage to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient independent references to establish WP:GNG. LibStar as a comic book artist most sources are always going to be comic industry related. In accordance with WP:GNG sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. They are not limited or restricted to the mainstream press. Dan arndt (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 17 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 16:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The issue isn't that the sources are comic industry related, but that they're almost entirely primary sources used to prove existence instead of notability. There's no indication this artist has had a notable impact in his field. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have to disagree with your view that the sources are 'primary sources'. The sources provided are all 'independent or third-party sources' and in-fact secondary sources (i.e. they rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them). The artist is notable in his field, in that he is the co-author of one of the first Australian serialized digital comic. As previously indicated the article clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly satisfies" is only your opinion. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Libstar, once again you are amazingly astute - it is my opinion.Dan arndt (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - after a second look, they weren't as primary as I thought. However, they're still only being used as proof of existence, not evidence of notability. For instance, take the line "He is one half of the creative team behind the pioneering and acclaimed, The Legend of Spacelord Mo Fo,[9]" The source confirms he was a creator, but one review, no matter how glowing, hardly supports the "pioneering and acclaimed" hyperbole. And when the article says he worked on "world-renowned" titles, it's borrowing notability from Wolverine and Batman, not demonstrating how notable David G Williams is. According to the Selected Bibliography, he did one issue for each character. Hardly a defining or innovative run. If you remove all the fluff, the article boils down to: "A comic artist who was part of a studio for 3 years. He signed books at a convention once." I still say Delete. Not every comic artist needs his own page. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 2 March 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back Back Forward Punch

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

Article about a band with no properly sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no substantive reliable source coverage. The sourcing here is almost entirely to music WP:BLOGS, and the one source that actually has any potential to save their skin, Triple J, gives up two dead links and one profile which verifies that they exist but fails to say anything substantive about them beyond "they exist". Possibly just WP:TOOSOON, but they're definitely not there yet. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I dispute the characterisation of most of the sources were mere blogs (ie self-published sources) I believe that most were WP:NEWSBLOGs about music. In any case, I've added more sources and expanded some of the refs. Some of the additional sources provide substantial independent commentary on the subject covering WP:BAND#1, the Triple J ref(s) considered above do support claims of high rotation on a national radio station hence cover WP:BAND#11. Some of their singles have been reviewed by three or more independent sources, with content from those reviews now quoted in the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading WP:NEWSBLOG if you think any of the blogs being cited here satisfy it. That criterion does not mean that any blog counts as a valid source so long as its content can be characterized as news — what it means is that the blog has to be hosted on the website of a news organization that counts as a reliable source. For example, a columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald or The Australian, or on the website of a television network news organization, whose column was structured in a blog format would still be an acceptable source, because it has a reliable source's imprimatur standing behind it — but a standalone music blog, without RS backing, does not become a reliable source just because somebody says its content is news. But I can't see any evidence that any of the blogs cited here meet the criteria to be considered an RS under NEWSBLOG, because there's no evidence that any of them is an offshoot or subsection of a reliable parent publication.

And the problem with the Triple J links remains that two of the three are dead links — meaning we can't verify what they said — and the third is just a profile with no substantive content. CBC Music has a section like that too, where emerging bands are allowed to repost their own EPK bios and upload two or three songs for streaming purposes — but while the uploading makes those songs eligible to get played on CBC Radio 2 or CBC Radio 3, the existence of the profile does not in and of itself prove that the songs have been placed in rotation by either service. Nor does it count as a WP:GNG-conferring source for our purposes, because its content about the band is self-penned by the band. (There are other parts of CBC Music that do count as reliable and GNG-conferring sourcing, like the main daily newsfeed and the magazine — but the "band profiles" section does not.) And the Triple J profile does not provide any evidence in and of itself that its Unearthed section functions any differently — nothing about the page provides any verification that the band have gotten into terrestrial rotation, nor does it even really say anything about the band at all besides the facts that they exist and a couple of individual users star-rated a song. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2016

Delete - I dont see anything important— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.208.130 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 February 2016‎

See WP:BELONG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 17 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 16:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no legitimate sources. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:45, 27 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Zulfiqar

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

Fails WP:GNG as per WP:MUSICBIO She is not independently notable and the only sourcing of her notability seems to be wordpress(which should be dubious as it is violating WP:RS) FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 11 February 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, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that someone who looks at singers take a closer look at this one because she does get news hits [56].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 24 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 16:49, 24 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 redirect to Pakistan Idol (season 1). (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Sajid Abbas

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

Fails WP:GNG as per WP:MUSICBIO, relevant quote is

Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely for the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 11 February 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, 17 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 16:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pakistan Idol (season 1), as suggested at WP:MUSICBIO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 2 March 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) 01:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Year Up

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

Cannot find enough sources here to show notability. A fairly obvious news release without sources. Only PR people write articles like this. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 00:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically a press release or web page for the project. The references are at best press releases no matter where published. I am not convinced of the significance of the awards. And even if the group is actually notable , the article would need to be started over--the promotionalism is too pervasive. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 18 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 16:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found expected coverage, nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 1 March 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Goree

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

WP:BLP of an actor, who has a potentially valid claim of notability under WP:NACTOR as a cast member in a popular television series, but who isn't properly sourced. Two of the sources here are simple filmography listings in directories where every actor gets a filmography listing regardless of whether they satisfy our inclusion rules or not, one is his own acting résumé on the website of Canada's actors' union (a primary source that cannot contribute notability), one is a YouTube video and one is a blog. None of this constitutes acceptable sourcing for a Wikipedia article regardless of how much notability is claimed — the quality of sourcing that can be provided to support the claim is what passes or fails NACTOR, not the mere fact that an unsourced or poorly sourced claim of notability is being made. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'd put this one on hold for now: Goree was just cast in Freeform's upcoming Dead of Summer. (See: [57]). I suspect if this show goes forward, he'll (narrowly) pass WP:NACTOR at that point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: Variety mention not included at article, The Hollywood Reporter story on Goree's casting in The 100 also not included... I suspect that Goree may pass WP:NACTOR even now. I'll think this over some more, and may come back with a Keep if I can find other sourcing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is those two sources aren't about him — they just namecheck his existence, which isn't the same thing. Dead of Summer may well get him over NACTOR if the coverage of him shoots up once it's actually started airing, but it's WP:CRYSTAL to give him an NACTOR pass just for being cast in a pilot — because what if the pilot doesn't actually get picked up, and even if it does actually start airing how do we know it won't get cancelled after one episode? We don't put things on hold just because the topic's notability might beef up in the future — we keep or delete them based on what's already true today, and then allow recreation in the future if their notability does beef up. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, THR article is about Goree – it's about him (and another actor) being cast in The 100. I consider that one to legitimately add to notability. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For an article to be "about" him in the manner necessary to count toward GNG, it would have to contain much more substantial and verifiable information about him than that. All that article does is verify that he was cast in a role, with no other information about him besides that fact — and even the part that is about him is only a very small fraction of the entire article. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If such a strict interpretation of GNG were consistently applied like you want, about half (and possibly more) of our current actor BLP Stub and Start articles would be deleted from this encyclopedia. The fact is very few actors get substantial indepedent articles written up exclusively about them (probably only about the Top 5% of the "celebrity" class). If Eli Goree had two other sources akin to that THR article, I'm quite sure it would get accepted through AfC easily. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (original author): Although some of the sources may not be sufficient, I would say the video interview and the interview by Mrs. Wild constitute as credible references. As for WP:NACTOR, it is my understanding that he fulfills all three points somewhat and will do so even more in the future (as per User:IJBall). Also, it would have been nice if you had notified me before AFD'ing this article. :) Greetings, rayukk | talk 18:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews, regardless of whether they're in video or print, don't aid passage of WP:GNG — they represent the subject talking about himself, not other people writing or talking about him, so they're acceptable for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been met but cannot bring GNG in and of themselves. And NACTOR can only be satisfied if the claims to satisfaction are properly sourced — it's not passed just by asserting that it's passed, or by parking its passage on sources that don't count toward GNG. And "may pass NACTOR better in the future" doesn't help, either. An article is kept or deleted based on what's already true today, not what might become true in the future — if he may become more notable in the future, then the time for an article about him is when the future has actually arrived, and anytime before that is WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 17 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 16:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a close one, but I think there's just enough there to meet WP:NACTOR. sources are borderline, but I think it's worth keeping for an actor who will deserve an article sooner rather than later anyway. Cindlevet (talk) 17:01, 2 March 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. Sandstein 08:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M3M India

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

Veryminor company. The US award mentioned is the "Best Upscale Golfing Life Style Residences in India" which is the sort of over-specific award that does not show notability . The Times of India article is essentially a press release, and shows the frequent uselessness of that publication for determining notability DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per me sheer the financial size of the company makes it notable. Mr RD 08:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid argment per WP:ORGSIG. Notability depends purely on quality/depth of coverage; notability is not inherited via sales figures or whatever. Not to mention, there is no sourcing in the article to establish their market value, sales or net that could be used to evaluate such a claim, even if it were valid. – Brianhe (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the awards are non-notable and/or regional, and can be ignored per DGG's comment above. This leaves routine coverage of unremarkable real estate transactions, not the foundation for a WP article. - Brianhe (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 17 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 16:48, 24 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 redirect to London Assembly election, 2016. As there is no rough consensus to retain this article, the proposal by Ansh666 seems the most reasonable course here to keep all sides content. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Hyyrylainen-Trett

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DrArsenal (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails to meet the relevant notability guideline WP:NPOL DrArsenal (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC) The page has appeared shortly after its subject has become a candidate in the London Assembly election, 2016. The page includes links to a number of reliable sources, but they all reference the same Buzzfeed source, so page fails WP:BASIC "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." DrArsenal (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added 4 citations to the articles: two about the HIV+ status story, one of which involves primary reporting beyond the Buzzfeed source; and two confirming and about his GLA candidacy (as opposed to the non-independent sources previously given). Bondegezou (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a candidate for election to an office that the person hasn't won yet is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — and because all candidates in all elections always get some degree of coverage of their candidacy, that coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot help show WP:GNG. To be notable enough for Wikipedia before winning the election, it would have to be shown that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate — so to get him in here today, the weight of sourcing and substance would have to be on his role as chair of the LGBT+ Lib Dems. But it's not, so for the moment he's just a WP:BLP1E. He'll be eligible for an article if he wins the election, but nothing here makes him an appropriate article topic now. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on May 5 if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, political activist and candidate who has yet to win office or achieve notable rank in Party. Coverage is routine for an activist/candidate except for a flurry of WP:BLP1E, WP:SENSATION coverage of an unsubstantiated medical claim. At best, WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidate with routine coverage. The media has a duty to cover all political candidates. Our notability rules say we only cover those who get office, unless their coverage goes above routine, or they are notable in some other way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Has received coverage for LGBT rights advocacy. Being an unsuccessful candidate for office does not prohibit having an article. AusLondonder (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder - could you provide references for that coverage, then, please? All coverage referenced so far in the article is related to his candidacies. DrArsenal (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was simultaneously running as a candidate at the time of much of the coverage, although over coverage does exist. However, the coverage at the same time as his candidacy did not directly relate to his candidacy in Vauxhall but rather to his role as an LGBT activist and by being the first openly HIV+ candidate to run for Parliament and the effect this had, including prompting other candidates to make disclosures AusLondonder (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 17 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 16:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: redirect to London Assembly election, 2016; can be spun back out if electoral victory is achieved. ansh 666 00:06, 27 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) 01:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RedViking

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

Fails WP:GNG, another promotional article created by the creator. Ireneshih (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it passes GNG; will take a look to see if there is anything non-neutral that can be struck. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 15:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and non-notable The article is not consistent. In the same paragraph it says it was spun off from superior control in 2010, that it was incorporated in 2011, and that it merged with superior Controls in 2013. (that last 2 points have references; the first has a reference that only refers to other parts of the sentence. ) Thisi sn ot only promotional writing, but incompetent promotional writing. If Superior Controls itself is notable, which I have not investigated, someone could write an article about it that mentions this division. Every reference here is either a mere notice, a press release marked as such, or an article in a trade journal that is essentially promotional. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will also say because none of this seems solid enough for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 24 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 16:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I believe this is pretty non notable, most of the references are merely fractionally respinned press releases. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:23, 24 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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Shahnawaz

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

Fails WP:GNG FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Detele, she is a independent notable person. She is an ace fashion stylist and producer of currently running drama Mann Mayal. She also belongs to the family of famous filmmakers such as Samina Humayun Saeed, Humayun Saeed and has been closely associated with tv industry for over ten-years. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 17:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GNG notability is not inherited. Being an "ace" stylist requires one to be mentioned as such by reliable sources. Please read WP:RS as to what constitutes a reliable source. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for being questionable for solid independent notability for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 24 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 16:47, 24 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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ShoMiz

AfDs for this article:

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

Team doesn't meet WP:GNG. They only teamed for a couple of months, and no significant coverage other than WP:ROUTINE match results. Can be covered in individuals' articles. Nikki♥311 03:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well sourced, it doesn't matter how long they teamed and during those four months (not a couple) they accomplished a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my nomination, it is sourced with WP:ROUTINE match results. None of the sources cited are "significant coverage in reliable third party sources". Nikki♥311 12:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ WWE's tag division has been incredibly week for the past decade or so, it's not uncommon for the to pair up two guys and for them to push them until they run out of steam. The rule of thumb that I consider when discussing notability is whether or not the team won any titles and whether or not they ever got an official team name... obviously this isn't always accurate, but it usually is. 3MB (professional wrestling), Tons of Funk and Team Rhodes Scholars had names but never experienced any success, they clearly fail GNG. Kofi Kingston and R-Truth were WWE Tag Team Champions and PWI tag team of the year but had no official team name and were clearly two guys grouped together and experienced success only because the tag roster was so thin at the time. Air Boom (which was cited in the original ShoMiz deletion discussion) would probably get my keep vote because they had a name and WWE tried to push them as an actual team, complete with a reign with the belts, before Evan Borne's wellness violations put an end to that. ShoMiz was thrown together so that DX and the Hart Dynasty could have someone to feud with. They barely have an official name because it's a portmanteau. Yea, they won the belts, but they're closer to Kofi Kingston and R-Truth than they are to Air Boom. There's nothing in this article that isn't in their individual articles.LM2000 (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - like Isarra said in the previous nomination, well-covered, won an apparently somewhat important thingy, and while WP:N doesn't entirely apply to this sort of thing there's probably enough here to merit keeping especially on account of the winningness. If anyone searches for 'showmiz' they'll probably be wanting this instead of an article on one or the other of the guys regardless.

But Kofi Kingston and R-Truth won two important things and they fail GNG. Also, there's not much reliable coverage out there beyond WP:ROUTINE match results. It's been six years since these guys were together, it's fair to say they didn't stand the test of time either.LM2000 (talk) 22:06, 17 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 16:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nomination. MPJ-US 00:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It wasn't great (and the name was terrible), but it was close enough to something. Plus, I sort of believe in double jeopardy rules for articles. Unless there's a significantly new case against it or a glaring miscarriage of justice in the old nom, it had its day in court. And now it has a weak delete vote. The weakness means it sort of mattered. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ShoMiz was covered in a book:
1. Shields, Brian (2014). 30 Years of WrestleMania. London: Penguin Books. p. 183. ISBN 1465434208. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The book notes:
  
  The Miz and John Morrison were a successful tag team, winning both the WWE Tag Team Championship and World Tag Team Championship. The duo eventually split and The Miz found additional tag team gold by partnering with the World's Largest Athlete, Big Show. John Morrison and R-Truth looked to claim the tag championship for themselves. They'd had some non-title success against ShoMiz leading in to WrestleMania XXVI, so they felt confident that they could strike gold at the Showcase of the Immortals.
  The former partners started the match against each other. Morrison and R-Truth isolated The Miz from his partner, punishing the Awesome One with quick tags and aerial maneuvers. Morrison was set to end the match by delivering Starship Pain to a prone Miz, but Show pulled his partner out of the ring. The champions took control of the match when Big Show tagged in and used his massive size and strength against the challengers, including slamming R-Truth against the ring post. With Morrison and Miz battling inside the ring, Show made a blind tag of his partner that Morrison did not see. Morrison went to spring off the ropes, but instead received a Knockout Punch from the World's Largest Athlete. Show pinned Morrison, allowing ShoMiz to retain their championship.
Significant coverage in a book strongly indicates the subject has enduring notability. The book and the sources in the article allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for people to evaluate the source recently added -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yep, the source helps put it over the line for GNG. This book coverage trumps length of time, quality of name, etc. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment struck delete vote, now Neutral.LM2000 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 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) 01:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Sadique ul hassan Gillani

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

Can't seem to find this leader of a "major political party in Pakistan". It is also strangely formatted, but perhaps most importantly one of the book sources cannot be verified, and the other is unfortunately in a language that I do not understand, however it does not look like the subject was the main topic of either book, which are both by the same author who is also possibly also related to the subject. One of the sources is also a Wikipedia article. It is possible that the name is misspelt, but I have also tried to find sources for "siddi qulhasan-gilanni" but have been unable to find any, which is as I have said, strange for a ex-leader of a political party. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. If nothing else, at this stage we could delete it as test edits. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even no minimal significant coverage.GeeAichhBee (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:04, 29 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tuleap (project management)

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

Editor who created and has been editing the article objected to the {{notability}}. Rather than go to PROD for this non-notable product, expecting it to be contested as well, I have elected to go AfD. The coverage provided is primarily self-published. The other coverage is either routine or not sufficiently in-depth. I cannot find any other RSes that support notability. Do we need different criteria for open source software? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before already. Please check deletion nomination history (reviewed by @SwisterTwister: a month ago). From the perspective of someone who has been researching this subject for sometime, the entry on Tuleap is necessary. The claim that it lacks notability in its citations is simply baseless. Is opensource.com (by Red Hat), for instance, "non-notable"? Try checking out and installing and ACTUALLY running open-source project management systems. Frivoluous, overzelous moves to delete articles is what's making wikipedia such a hostile place for knowledge.Psy~enwiki (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it hasn't gone to a speedy, PROD or AfD before. I suspect that was a page review. That does not take into account notability or anything else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft & userfy at best for now as the article is still questionably solid for the applicable notability. Also, it was exactly me who reviewed it last month. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the same standard of "notability" is applied consistently, many entries indexed here will have to be deleted as well. I've run or used many of these apps, as opposed to just googled about them. Psy~enwiki (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to nominate those other articles after reading WP:OSE. If you would rather make a list somewhere, I will gladly nominate the ones that don't meet notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precisely the point that the Tuleap piece should be notable enough, as argued here. Psy~enwiki (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:N states what notability is, not the essay. All of the references are either paid-for or primary. Find non-primary sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is already non-primary source. And this. Psy~enwiki (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. We have two sources that support the award, but still fails WP:N. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        For those working in the field, it does in fact meet "significant coverage." Number is not the only criterion of knowledge. Psy~enwiki (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I work in the field and so your blanket statement is clearly not correct. If you want to change the way we determine notability, do that in a different forum. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Project management of software development? Even if we look at the all the criteria posted on WP:N, quality and authority trump quantity. It's far from being blanket statement. I suppose the "we" there is a royal "we." Psy~enwiki (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Software development. Not a royal we, a collective we. See WP:CONSENSUS and a dozen other pages on the project that discuss how decisions are not done in isolation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        ... in which case, I suppose we're having discussion. We'll see how others are going to weigh in. Software development? What's your project management platform then? Psy~enwiki (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I already wrote that we will have to "do that in a different forum". I suggest on the talk page of WP:N or a page related to this subject that discusses notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        My view is that even on notability grounds cited, the entry is worth having. I am not in any way associated with Tuleap. I'm trying to take stock of open-source project management platforms through wikipedia. I started 2 entries so far on the subject. I'm currently evaluating another project management platform but still unsure if it's worth adding a wikipedia entry for. The Tuleap piece is barely 2-month old, and I follow through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psy~enwiki (talk • contribs) 10:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. clearly insufficient reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here two additional non primary reputable sources FLOSS Weekly. And open-source-guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matemaz (talk • contribs) 08:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC) — Matemaz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What's frustrating here is the use of expressions like "clearly insufficient" without specifying what constitutes "sufficient." What's on WP:N is hardly helpful in determining what would come with the adverb "clearly." There's also an unfair charge of the citations being "primarily self-published," when I don't have anything to do with those secondary sources. I'm a researcher; I go for primary sources, which apparently are frowned upon here. At any rate, I added the 2 more secondary sources cited above. Still, I maintain it's not a simple matter of numbers. This piece is specialized knowledge on project management platforms, and I happen to know about this area. Psy~enwiki (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

since you asked , for the two just added, opensourceguide's short notice was obviously written by the company, so it's PR. The FLOSS interview is from a source that says its subjects may asked to be interviewed,so I doubt it's independent, but more an opportunity for PR. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're shifting our discussion to PR. There's a negative sense to "PR." Otherwise, it's not bad in itself, taken broadly. How else do open source projects get the word out? Again, I'm not in any way related to Tuleap. I'm researching this area. I have another entry on another platform that's competing with Tuleap. Psy~enwiki (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews on FLOSS Weekly are anything but PR; most guests get a thorough going-over from the hosts, who as far as I know are not compensated by either the station or the guest. There is a way to ask to be considered for being interviewed but it's reviewed by the show host and a matter for his discretion alone. This is not a PR channel and is a long-standing and reliable secondary source. ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes indeed, I'm using that as a criterion for judging the references, because no amount of PR for a product proves notability no matter where published. The definition of PR is that it isn't independent but written by or for the company or at its direction or instigation. DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a distinction has to be made between the open source project and a company that supports it. RedHat earns tons of money supporting what's otherwise a freely available software. I'm not too worried about some small companies making "PR" that can be verified. But think about all the "studies" funded by the oil industry. At any rate, the 2 other secondary sources cited earlier in the article itself are far from being press releases. Psy~enwiki (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, please. Tuleap is Ring's (another unrelated free software project) project support platform. We use it because it suits our needs and is free software. It's also been referred to by several independant articles over the years: PolarSys (an open-source engineering consortium that uses and contributes to Tuleap), opensource.com included it in their 2015 top project management tools, as well as articles on le Journal du net (a popular French IT magazine), this vietnamese article, projectmanagerlife.com, Butler Analytics and we linked to it in this article about Ring on the Free Software Foundation's site. What amount of notability does it require?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerolnx (talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — Jerolnx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and improve. This is a popular open source project, but its origins in France mean secondary sources in English are hard to identify. Deleting it will only make that harder... ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Popular? Please provide a reliable source for its level of popularity. The sources in English are not the issue. None have been provided in any language. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You can find other sources: Your Agile project at Eclipse with Tuleap, Adopting Agile Methods and Open Source Tools in a Large Enterprise, Ericsson Tuleap, Top 5 open source project management tools in 2015, Ericsson is clearly independent from Tuleap, you can see the involvement in 2013 and 2016, EclipseCon is also independant of Tuleap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.127.205.87 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - All self-promotional and in no way meeting WP:RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we're referring to this RS, I don't see why most of the 3rd-party sources cited above and below would count as unreliable. Nor are they self-promotional. By "self" do we mean Tuleap or its corporate matron? Certainly not. Even if we stay with just the letter (as opposed to the spirit) of the rules, it's hard to understand how anyone could be so dismissive of the mounting evidence made available even beyond what's been cited in the Tuleap piece itself. Psy~enwiki (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - How a 3rd party committee that select a talk for a well known conference is self-promotional? Tuleap is not sponsor of the conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.62.230 (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — 212.84.62.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      - Third-party committees can only select talks if the company applies to make one. No indication of how many people attended this talk. Was the talk itself covered in publication? Most "talks" are not themselves notable. Sorry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional non primary sources here. Please note that Tuleap is 100% libre software on a GPLV2 licence used by a large community

AFUL framasoft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matemaz (talk • contribs) 14:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Silicon toolinux improve technologies camayihi riduidel opensource-it toolinux infoworld Matemaz (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Above I posted that the piece at issue qualifies even on literal grounds: following reliability and notability. Even more so, in spirit of the rules, in relation to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, which states "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions" (Pillar 5). Pillar 1 states Wikipedia combines "features of general and specialized encyclopedias." The idea of an encyclopedia-style survey of project management platforms necessitates inclusion of Tuleap and other allegedly lesser known platforms in the category.Psy~enwiki (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The deletionists have just dug in, refusing to see "clearly" the mounting evidence for notability and reliability of third-party sources coming from academic and media sources. There's also that utter disregard of Pillars of Wikipedia, of what Wikipedia is all about. Psy~enwiki (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. You already made a !VOTE above. (see 14:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)) You can't decide to Keep twice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes" your action tampering with someone else's statement does not help us. Please don't. ClareTheSharer (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. Please don't tell me how to participated in AfDs. I've been doing it for a long time and have seen editors blocked for egregious versions of what Psy~enwiki unintentionally did and my actions were an effort to fix the problem not to rile any editors. The editor's actions were incorrect I corrected them. If you like to take me to ANI, I will gladly defend my actions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this independent article you can see that tuleap has been chosen by Airbus as the Agile project management solution Matemaz (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In that article it discusses Airbus but only a single bullet-point for Tuleap along with Jenkins, git, Gerrit, Sonar, PHPUnit, Apache JMeter (which they spelled incorrectly), SeleniumHQ, Eclipse, RedHat Enterprise Linux, PHP, Apache and MariaDB. It's not significant coverage of the tool. The resources need to discuss the tool, not just mention them. That's also the issue with all of the other links you have provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please take a look at the article by Framasoft it is a reputable source and is not only a bulletpoint but a discussion of Tuleap. Most other articles are not bullet-points either. Furthermore the fact that Airbus (amongst many others) chose to use Tuleap makes it notable doesn't it? Matemaz (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC) I mean, Tuleap is an enterprise quality 100% libre software out there that is being used by the likes of Airbus and several other enterprises, teams and associations, that is equivalent or better than proprietary solutions, the mere fact that it exists is already notable. Matemaz (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not a reliable source. Feel free to take it to WP:RSN if you doubt. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was looking for information about this product which is used in my project and I referred - as usual - to wikipedia for a fast overview. And I'm glad the article exists. I don't really understand why some soul around here believes it should be deleted. It's clearly useful since I looked it up. Competition? Alain Pannetier (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While that's a good reason to look for an article, it's not a good reason to keep the article. WP:N is. Are there any sources to support the product's notability? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The way I see it for now is that there are tens of people working on the product, thousands of people using it and one guy - just one - waving Wikipedia acronyms and apparently decided to label all sources he is presented with as unreliable. Is there a wikipedia acronym for this kind of 'nothing-else-to-do' behaviour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alain Pannetier (talk • contribs) 08:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Use is not currently a Wikipedia notability guideline. There is plenty you can do though: change the notability guidelines for open source projects. Until then, don't add non-notable subjects. That I'm the only editor commenting here means that there is a network discussing this elsewhere and coming to "save" this article. Other editors who know the notability criteria will comment as the AfD continues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Usual shield/fallacy: "I don't make the rule, I enforce them. I'm OK if you change the rules". No you don't: you *claim* you do. Even more questionably, you attempt to instil the idea that for this article to be acceptable the rules have to be changed. This is clearly unsubstantiated, see below. Regarding the claim "I am many, a whole lot of people are behind me". So much behind that we see only you. As to "'saving' this article" through its sheer deletion - I don't now why - this conjures up the image of Torquemada saving the soul of sinners at the cost of tying their earthly body to the pyre. Now on notability. Ever heard of stackoverflow? Is this notable enough? Well try this then: search for 'tuleap' on stackoverflow. This yields around 150 results (just for stackoverflow, there are probably many more in the whole stackexchange family of forums). So people in the wider IT community *do* ask and *do* answer questions about it. That's a grass root figure. Not a source you can label as biased. Just because you haven't *heard* about Tuleap does not mean it's unused.Alain Pannetier (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        So you can read minds. That's very interesting. What am I thinking now? In short, the problem is not me or my understanding of what qualifies as notable. Your appealing to Stack Overflow, an example of user-generated content and therefore not a reliable source, only supports the idea that the product has some degree of popularity, but not that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. That appears to be the problem with your argument, and pretty much everyone's here: you have conflated popularity with Wikipedia:Notability. That guideline clearly states, "determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". So unless you can find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG) then this article will have to be deleted. I also suggested that you may want to create a guideline to address software notability. There is the following essay, Wikipedia:Notability (software), and there is this failed guideline: Wikipedia:Software notability. I never argued that I didn't make the rules. If I did, I would be lying. I have helped craft several rules. Granted those were in the area of music, but I am simply relaying the rules to you. I don't actually enforce the rules. Again, if I said that, I would be lying. I'm not an admin, just an editor. An admin will enforce the rules. Also, I am OK if the rules are changed. It happens on occasion and we learn the new rules and adapt to them. some editors even WP:IGNORE all rules. I never claimed that I am many. I simply said more editors would be along as the AfD continues. Instead of tilting at windmills, I suggest you find some significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        "I suggest you find some significant coverage in reliable sources'. Sources that you would immediately discard as unreliable as you've already done with all the perfectly valid ones that were already cited here. Sorry, but I've got nothing to prove here. You have to. Actually your determination to disregard all already presented sources leads to question your real motivation here. By your own admission you "work in the field". Are you working or have you already worked for a organisation in competition with the product? Also, by the virtue of the rules you refer to ad nauseam, this Afd would last seven days, be arbitrated by some uninvolved authorities, taking into consideration that there are other articles in other languages, etc. So, my turn to make suggestions. Let's finish this masquerade and remove this AfD banner - added 15 days ago. I've got work to do - which incidentally involves using the product.Alain Pannetier (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It's late for me so please excuse me if my responses are short and rude. If you took the time to read what qualifies as a WP:RS and you found sources that meet the criteria I wouldn't be able to dismiss your any sources you would provide. Your supposedly "perfectly valid ones" are not. I even use the exact terminology as to why, but you don't want the answers you want to assume I have something against the product. I don't believe you when you say that you have nothing to prove. If you actually had nothing to prove, you would have walked away several edits ago. If you want to accuse me of WP:COI, I have nothing to hide: I don't work for an organization that works to compete with this product nor have I ever worked for such a company. I work in the field of software development. I'm sorry if my earlier terse response left any confusion. PRODs last seven days. AfDs have no fixed timelimit. You're electing to me here. If you don't want to provide the required sources, the AfD can end whenever an admin wants to end it and delete the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I'm certain the delete voters will confirm, I still confirm my suggestions for deletion because my own searches found nothing better at all and the current article has nothing solidly convincingly better yet thus where I suggested drafting and userfying if needed. SwisterTwister talk 08:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This could be a function of skill or search engine limitation, as many of the 3rd party sources have already been cited in this discussion page and in the piece itself. Psy~enwiki (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble understanding why framasoft is not a reputable source. It is recognised in France and is definitely independent and widely recognised as a quality information source. So are many of the other articles provided here not directly linked to the product nor provided by PR but written on objective independent media therefore qualifying as non primary reputable sources. Please acknowledge the existence and neutrality of these sources and accept that Tuleap qualifies as a valid entry in wikipedia. Thank you. 212.84.61.190 (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a "réseau de projets maintenu par une communauté et soutenu par une association" or in English, a "project network maintained by a community and supported by an association". In other words, it's an open wiki that anyone can edit. Not even Wikipedia is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New Source here an additional source in German by Hochschule Baden-Württemberg Stuttgart in depth university research Matemaz (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be a reliable source. I'm not familiar with how academic guidelines work, but it seems like a catalogue rather than a research paper on a single subject. Which element of RS do you think it meets? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This publication is an academic independent evaluation and comparison of OS tools to support lightweight software development. It clearly answers fully all the requirements for an RS. This establishes Tuleap as a notable product thereby this should end the AfD with an objective keep decision. Thanks for the discussion. Matemaz (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already linked above. How does this document fully answer all the requirements for a RS? I don't see it. It's simply a resource, it's not a critical review of the product. By the definition you offer, every tool mentioned in it should be considered for inclusion, and that's unlikely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is not a critical review? it goes all the way and even establishes an objective VOTE on each of the products reviewed. The vote the research attributes to Tuleap is not a random number! It is clearly a critical vote after review!Matemaz (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ. It satisfies all criteria in WP:GNG. It gives "significant coverage", it is "reliable", it is "secondary" and it is "independent". Also, your new objection is another sophism I'm afraid. "By the definition you offer, every tool mentioned in it should be considered for inclusion". So according to you, if an article deals with both Google and various other search engines, some popular, some confidential then the source is not valid to prove the notability of Google. I think you're mixing things up here: the source validates the notability - which is the very objection you raised. There might be a different dimension which is popularity or "significant impact on society" WP:CORP to discriminate between confidential and ubiquitous but, we've already established that tupleap has (in your own words) "some degree of popularity". Alain Pannetier (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm glad you beg to differ. I think it's not, and I read German. We have reached an impasse. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wissen Sie was Herr Görlitz? I auch, kann Deutsch lesen! Hmmm Zu Schlim!!!! Deutsch habe ich am erstens wenn ich nur fünf war gelernt – In Dortmund. Dann bin auch in Gymnasium in Ibbenbüren gewesen. Und dann noch, habe ich mein Militärdienst in Villingen verbracht... Also für mich, ist es leicht sehen, dass diese Untersuchung eine Wunderbare Referenz für Tuleap ist. Zum Beispiel. Was bedeutet "bestbewertesten"? Hum? "TOP RATED!!!". So the first section in the "Short profile of the TOP RATED tools is for Tuleap"… And there are only two top-rated (so much for your argument of " By the definition you offer, every tool mentioned in it should be considered for inclusion, and that's unlikely"). Noch einmal ist Ihre Bösgläubigkeit ganz klar. As for your "And no we have not reached an impasse", here it goes. As long as there is no consensus, there is no deletion. And remember "debates should not be relisted more than twice" (WP:RELIST). Grüß Gott. Alain Pannetier (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - For non Germanophones, I actually happen to read and speak German for both family and professional reasons. So I *could* read the part of the study (40 pages) dealing with Tuleap. Tuleap is one of the two top rated tools in the study by the researcher. So basically there is no reason to question the validity of this source. Alain Pannetier (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - A catalogue of software. While they call it a top-rated product, it's just a chance to push open source software so that commercial ventures (and governments) can save money. The three-page section that discusses Tuleap still doesn't cut it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After all the discussion my view is still Keep -- plenty of sources of varying quality around that point to notability (especially the FLOSS Weekly appearance & the Stuttgart report), just needs a motivated curator to fix it up. ClareTheSharer (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's still a Keep. Industry viewpoint: Tuleap is one of the few free, open source, dynamic, integrated platforms supporting complete ALM. This has been recognised by powerful software houses which have integrated it to their delivery model (Airbus, Atos, Ericsson, Orange, Renault, to name a few). It is comparable to well established Redmine and its forks, but in my opinion more enterprise oriented (Kanban support etc...). Momentum is there and so is market acceptance. Whether some Wikipedia self appointed trigger-happy AfD nominator can let themselves be persuaded that there are some "notable", "reliable" sources discussing its merrits initially seemed to me - as an everyday user - byzantine but since there are some criteria, let's deal with criteria. Quoting from Wikipedia:Notability (software): "Before nominating an unsourced article for deletion, be sure to verify that it is non-notable, not just missing citations. One way to do this is to perform a Google books, Google news, or Google scholar search for the app in question if relevant. Simply stating "non notable" and "unreferenced" is not a valid criteria for deletion. Also keep in mind that the number of Google hits itself do not impart notability, it is the quality of each source (or breadth of a search) that influences such numbers." So I ran some queries on the Google News, scholar and groups and all these queries netted results (awards, papers, reviews, support requests in various languages). I also know from personal experience that a nice place to get support is stackoverflow. Also from the same source: "It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown." So I don't think the current conspicuously restrictive interpretation of the notability criteria is justified. Alain Pannetier (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is that by reason of use, which is not supported, and which is not an established criteria of notability, it should be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. My argument is that you did not follow the rules when you first nominated the article for deletion - hence the strong opposition. So the nomination shouldn't be here in the first place! Alain Pannetier (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ITSFREE is no better as a Keep rationale than any other form of WP:ILIKEIT. WP:USEFUL also fails as a raitonale. The additional source is a directory listing - if this really is the best we can find even at this late stage, then WP:GNG is clearly not met. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a rhetorical use of the word "clearly." Please look closely at the evidence presented above and below. Psy~enwiki (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New Source by the International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR) This is an independent paper dedicated to Tuleap. Any objective non partisan person will agree that this unambiguously and clearly fulfils all requirements for an RS. Matemaz (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't believe the accounts marked as sock-puppets by MrX qualify as such and suggest the epithet be removed from each (no argument about the IP being so marked). However, those accounts are certainly linked to the core developers of Tuleap and the editors involved may wish to declare an interest. I also suggest that the experienced editors here take care not to bite these newcomers, who appear bemused why their well-known project is being "attacked". ClareTheSharer (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been marked as "sock puppets". They have been marked as single-purpose accounts, which is vastly different. - Mr X 22:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From Template:Spa: "Please remember that a comment should not be dismissed merely because it comes from a new account; in itself, this is an argument to the person, considered to be rather weak. Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a sure sign of sock puppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead." Hence my request for WP:DCOI which is think is more appropriate as the two accounts in question appear to be the authors of Tuleap and not a flurry of sock puppets. Thanks for responding! ClareTheSharer (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason for using the templates. ClareTheSharer, you were wrong about me marking the duplicate keep comment. You're wrong about this as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe it's wrong to treat them as good-faith but COI instead of as bad-faith SPA? Or should I just take your word for it because you are so experienced? I suppose I should be grateful that at least this time you didn't tell me "FU" and just lectured me :-) ClareTheSharer (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wow, this is scary! People being marked without their knowledge. How can I see who is being marked of what? being a first time editor one has to start somewhere. You are using a lot of terms and acronyms only for initiated people which creates a feeling of exclusion and rejection, that seems in opposition with the basic founding pillars of wikipedia. I am being objective and bring sources that help establish that validity and existence of a notable project which systematically get dismissed or ignored. The article is clearly not spam but refers a notable tool and is a valid alternative to proprietary ones which figure in wikipedia. In the interest of neutrality Tuleap deserves it’s place on wikipedia. Matemaz (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this thread has been a big eye opener for me as well. But then, I stumbled upon this. In wikipedia's terms: "In several recurring press articles in different languages... bashing bullying behaviour from members of the community towards newcomers, and an unwelcoming attitude towards expert contributors/contributions". It's apparently a well known fact that some people confuse "defending" wikipedia and wrecking it. Just egos. So no contrib from me anymore. Editing or material. Alain Pannetier (talk) 02:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deletionists have just dug in, refusing to see "clearly" the mounting evidence for notability and reliability of third-party sources coming from academic and media sources. There's also that utter disregard of Pillars of Wikipedia, of what Wikipedia is all about. The scare quotes over "clearly" is a dig at comments above that use the term (and similar expressions) only rhetorically, if not hyperbolically. Psy~enwiki (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Infoworld Bossy award reference and the Opensource.com article are enough to establish notability for me, and there are plenty of non-independent sources that can be used for content (which is not atypical for software). I don't read enough French, but [58] also has several likely hits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That a publication that wants to push FOSS rated it highly is laudable, for the magazine. In a field that has very little competition (how many free and open source software applications for project management are available?). And the german catalogue has been discussed. Stephan Schulz thinks it confers notability on all subjects listed because students wrote about them (os something similar) while two editors, who regularly review RSes for notability purposes feel it proves that the software exists, but not that it confers notability on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't really parse your first two sentences in this context. With regard to the rest: please do not misrepresent me or any sources. I've not referenced the "german catalogue" in my argument above, and, as I said on WP:RS/N, it is not a catalogue at all. It's a collection of student theses, released as a report by a university institute. It's gray literature, but it is not "a catalogue" at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you can't parse it. Let me help you. https://opensource.com/business/15/1/top-project-management-tools-2015 is only interested in pushing its own agenda. It does not confer notability on Tuleap.

Tuleap is one out of how many open source project management tools in this class? There are Gantt chart tools, etc. Nothing like Tuleap. But just because it's a large tool used by many companies and meets their needs does not make it notable. It just makes it useful. LibreOffice is notable because it is written about by many, many sources. Tuleap is not in that same class.

You discussed http://www.dhbw-stuttgart.de/fileadmin/dateien/KOS/pub_kos.content_1.2015.band1.pdf at RSN. Two other uninvolved editors both stated that it's not a RS> One stated that it is a catalogue. The other stated that it could be used to support its existence but not confer notability on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would that agenda be an why does it reduce the notability conferred by that source? Yes, I agree that LibreOffice is in another class. But then Jupiter is in another class than 90377 Sedna, and we still have articles on both. As for the RS/N discussion on the KOS report, none of the two other commentators commented on reliability, and Guy has reconsidered his initial comment. Indeed, strictly speaking, no-one but you has called it a catalogue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it looks like Turandot was easier to convince... Alain Pannetier (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is a 2015 installment of periodic studies conducted by the Open Source Competence Centre of the Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University. Five different studies are bundled in the installment: 1/ Studies of private clouds (128 pages), 2/ Speech Recognition (82 pages), 3/ Software Development (48 pages), 4/ NoSQL databases (60 pages), 5/ Wide-Columns Databases (58 pages). In the 3rd Part (Software Development), the study explains the selling points of Scrum and Kanban agile development methods for enterprises and why they gain acceptance in the marketplace. Then the evaluation criteria are presented along with their respective weights in the final mark. Selection criteria are also explained. Five tools are tested, the two higher scoring products are presented in more detail. Tuleap scores the higher mark. With this I believe, we can tick the box "It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field" Wikipedia:Notability (software) Alain Pannetier (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this paper a catalogue (as in "list"), to convey the idea that there is no appreciation of the tools, is purely partisan.

Also there seems to be confusion about "Project Management". Tuleap, is a forge, which means that it includes SCMs (SVN, Git/Gerrit), and Continuous Integration tools (Jenkins/Maven), plus of course document management and Kanban board. So it's not the kind of tool that will support pure PMP-type Project managers.

And please elaborate on the number of large companies you would need to lift your rating from "useful" to "notable". Once all large companies use it, it would probably be "notable". So apparently there are a number of thresholds somewhere on the Goerlitz Scale between useful (around 10 now?), notable (?) and ubiquitous. Could you please disclose these numbers??? Alain Pannetier (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making it seem as though this is my criteria? The point is not the number of companies that use a product, it's the number of RSes that discuss it. You know that, but you would rather attack me that find such sources. Oh, right. None exist so you try to beat the messenger. I;m sorry your highness. The battle is lost.

And for the record, the Katalog calls itself that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Can you give a page number and/or context? I've looked through the document, and the first 30 of 180 occurrences of "katalog" (case-insensitive) all refer to the "Kriterienkatalog", i.e. the list of criteria developed to compare and evaluate the software. The document uses this catalogue of criteria to systematically look at the software. That does not make the document itself a catalogue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were? In the first it uses the compound word. Katalog = catalogue = catalog. The systematic examination by students of software to list it and then you may choose that which appeals to you to save your institution money. That's all this catalogue is. It's not even a comprehensive catalogue, a selective catalogue. These are the best of useful software. That doesn't make it notable, only a catalogue of useful software. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this answer is responsive. Yes, I know that "Katalog" (German) = "catalogue" (English). In fact, I can read German fairly well. Yes, the word "Katalog" appears in the document. But never to describe the document itself (or at least not in the first or even fist 30 occurrences of "[Kk]atalog"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"it's the number of RSes that discuss it". I think that if by this you implicitly mean that one source is not enough, then we're progressing. Well, then there is the framasoft one (already identified by Matemaz) which has effectively a very similar approach and structure and which you have discarded without ever explaining why. First selection and evaluation criteria are described. Then the tools in competition are described (FusionForge, Redmine, IBM Rational, Tuleap, Atlassian, Improve). As you can see all the Gotha of forges is here. And the author is actually a competitor from Enalean. So that can hardly be out of promotional motivations in favour of Tuleap. Also please note that a number of articles don't cite Tuleap but the "OpenALM" name - which is different from the old Borland OpenALM offering. Alain Pannetier (talk) 13:17, 2 March 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 speedy delete. Jikaoli Kol and I agree that it was spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xanitizer

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

Non-notable software, I can't seem to find any in depth third party reliable sources talking about this software. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tool was released 2 months ago, so there are not yet any third party sources. Our CEO is an active member of the OWASP chapter here in Germany and we hope to get listed as recommended tool on the OWASP page as soon as possible. In my opinion, the article does not contain any marketing content. Instead it covers technical aspects. Of cource, if there are any other articles and papers about the tool I will add them to the sources. --NWenzel (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am new as Wikipedia editor, but please let me understand this: there is AfD discussion and the possibility to contest the nomination for deletion. I've written to both. And the article is still deleted without any response. So what sense makes this discussion... -- NWenzel (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies NWenzel, I should have changed the deletion log entry to reflect the speedy deletion tag (which had in fact been applied two minutes before the AfD tag). Kindly have the decency to wait until a) your product becomes notable and b) someone with no COI writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:11, 24 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leading U.S. Advertisers in 2011

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

Outdated and more or less a straight copy/paste of the source list. Conifer (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Outdated is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. It's a reason for creating articles on 2012, '13, '14 and '15. It also isn't a straight copy-paste. p b p 04:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Depends on one source for the article. It's a clear WP:COPYVIO even if it's just paraphrasing the style of the AdAge chart. Nate • (chatter) 05:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only a copyvio if their list used some kind of subjective or creative inclusion criteria. If all they were doing is, for example, reporting and comparing the numbers the companies themselves released in their 10-Ks, then this information is not copyrightable even if they were the first (or only ones) to do the work in assembling it. postdlf (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply not convincing enough for this of a separate notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:13, 24 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 18:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per points above. GauchoDude (talk) 13:15, 11 March 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Won James Won

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

If this band is notable, then it needs to prove this with multiple non-trivial references to reliable, independent sources. So far, the article lacks these entirely. Borderline G11 to begin with. KDS4444^Talk 15:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:12, 24 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:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psychea

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

Refs as given lack independence. Failing the appearance of multiple non-trivial discussions of this band in reliable, independent sources, I propose it be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 15:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - could plausibly be article-worthy, but needs the cites - David Gerard (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:12, 24 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Jazz

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

After seven years article still has no meaningful reverences to non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Failing the appearance of this, I propose it be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 15:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Arved (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:JUSTAVOTE KDS4444^Talk 21:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually your best bet on your crusade. There are indeed not many independent non-russian sources. They are mentioned in "The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes" as an example for script-mixing, which suggests that they are notable. Their guitar manufactorer lists them as a reference. IMHO There are far-less notable bands on Wikipedia. Arved (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Not totally certain what the "crusade" comment there means. If it means that I recently nominated several articles on Russia rock bands for deletion, then I don't dispute this. If you think I did so carelessly or in error, I welcome more of an explanation. I am not convinced, however, that the defense put forth above qualifies this particular band as notable— a listing in a handbook (... of "Englishes", though I do not know what that means...) does not sound like it constitutes significant coverage (see WP:TRIVIAL); likewise, being listed as a reference by a guitar manufacturer doesn't sound like it's going to qualify either. We don't need "independent non-russian sources", we need significant coverage in independent, reliable, verifiable sources in any language in order to retain this piece as a standalone article. That other less-notable bands have articles has no bearing here (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, yes?). KDS4444^Talk 23:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:12, 24 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G. Winston James

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not supported by adequate reliable source coverage. Of the five references here, two of his own books are referenced to their buy-me pages on amazon.com and another two of his own books are referenced to their publicity profiles on the website of their own publisher -- making them primary sources that cannot confer notability -- and the one source that does actually represent independent media coverage is a blurb, which is not substantive enough to carry WP:GNG by itself as an article's only reliable source. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if much better sourcing can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with Encouragement to Fix. This writer is obviously notable and is part of an underrepresented population on Wikipedia. Plus this article was created during this past Saturday's editathon, so I think every effort should be made to (a) keep the article and (b) encourage the editor of the article to add further citations. It would've been preferrable to not put this in the AfD queue and just leave the needing better citations notice up IMO. I see a lot of articles up on Wikipedia with 2 or 3 citations that are specious at best and they aren't pulled down. Please be kind and patient with this new enthusiastic editor. Best, BrillLyle (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the fact that a person happens to be a member of a minority group, nor the fact that the article was created in an editathon, grants the topic an exemption from having to be reliably sourced well-enough to satisfy WP:GNG. The way to get an inadequate article kept is to at least show that better sources actually exist — actually improving the article itself with those sources would be ideal, but at least showing the results of a search for sourcing in this discussion would count too. But we don't keep inadequately sourced articles, particularly when they're WP:BLPs, just because somebody thinks improved sourcing might become possible, members of minority groups don't get special exemptions from our sourcing and notability requirements just because minority, and editathons aren't exempted from having to follow the same editing and formatting and sourcing rules as everybody else. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ with encouragement to article creator to improve article. Poetry is one of the most difficult areas at AFD. There is a small circle of critics and publishers of contemporary poetry in English (in certain other languages (Arabic; Persian) poets have mass audiences). But in English, poetry is an arcane taste, that is nevertheless highly esteemed and followed by publishers, critics, and academics who specialize in academic poetry, and publication and recognition are intensely competitive; see Sherman Alexie. ~~In is within this context that I support keeping C. Winston James.~~ And advising him, his fans and/or his publicist to improve the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - the problem with the above comments are that there are few - if any - mentions in reliable independent secondary sources. If someone can show some then this wouldn't be a problem, but the fact that he is writing in a minority form does not seem to me to be enough to wave the need to be noticed by someone before a page here can be written. JMWt (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This [59] was t hit that encouraged me to write as I did above, revisiting, I findonly stuff like a bookstore reading [60], micro press publication [61], so, although I have a weak spot for poetry, I have to agree with User:JMWt and change my opinion to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:11, 24 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 keep. Dyaiii... Well, he's a working actor. You've got a profile in the Sydney Morning Herald which is a major paper in a major city... little bio here at Opera Australia website... full-scale magazine interview here, granted I dunno how big a deal Peril Magazine is... and lots of little mentions, including a bit of gossip buzz... He doesn't meet WP:NACTOR but he doesn't have to cos he meets WP:BIO, since "two" = "multiple" and the Sydney Morning Herald piece + the Peril piece + the collection of other mentions... makes the grade in my view. That's not even counting the Power Rangers stuff and the fact that he's continuing to work, unless his career hits a wall he's only gonna get more notable each year... He's a stage actor and that keeps his IMDb stats down... not that they're that bad anyway... Keep. Yes I know the "vote" was 4-2 to delete but even so, keep on strength of argument. (non-admin closure) Herostratus (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aljin Abella

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject that appears only minor roles outside of Power Rangers Jungle Fury considers no notability enough. ApprenticeFan ^work 14:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan ^work 07:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan ^work 07:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan ^work 07:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no significance in New Zealand - unless significant elsewhere I support delete. NealeFamily (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable stage actor.

In addition to a lead in Power Rangers Jungle Fury he plays Monkey in the Australian production of Monkey: Journey to the West [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]

His role as Joe in multiple productions of The Sapphires (play) has gained enough attention to call it a significant role. [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] (That subplot appears to have been dropped for the film adaptation).

Was nominated for a 2014 Green Room Award for his role in La Cage aux Folles (Jacob – Butler, a significant role). [78] [79] [80] [81] [82].

Enough for WP:NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources above are enough for WP:GNG to be passed.There seems to be a trend that stage credits are not being given proper consideration.Atlantic306 (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough to meet WP:ACTOR. Delta13C (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How so? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 9 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 18:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Duffbeerforme, I checked the Google search for the actor is only 17,100 hits. As the nominator I made a proposal to be deleted, though it may not still enough with the requirements of WP:NACTOR, thus a person playing in musical theatres are not more considerably notable. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Can you please try that again. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:10, 24 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 redirect to Daya (EP). Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sit Still, Look Pretty (song)

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

Although the song has been announced as a single, there hasn't been a set radio release date for it. [Note: Radio Disney and a few local stations have played it as of January 1, 2016, when the artist announced it as a single] There isn't any significant coverage for the song [Critical reception, radio release date, chart entries, etc.] to have it's own article, making it fail WP:NOTABILITY standards. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 16:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Minimal content present, song did not chart, only references present document the fact that she didn't chart. It's a viable search term, though the disambiguation can be dropped, as there doesn't appear to be any article at Sit Still, Look Pretty. It should be moved to there, and then redirected to the EP (or the artist if the EP is deleted or in danger of deletion). Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:NOTABILITY. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @SNUGGUMS, IndianBio, Sergecross73, MaranoFan, Cornerstonepicker, and Chasewc91: Pinging editors to get their comments on the new consensus. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 00:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow - what new development has happened since I last commented? Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now (though am also fine with deletion); not significantly covered in any reliable sources, but no prejudice against recreation if this changes in the future given that it hasn't been out for very long and could gain enough detail to warrant its own article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: NorthAmerica1000 relisted it for a clearer consensus. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 00:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Apologies, usually when I get pinged back to these discussions, its because someone has reworked an article, found more sources, or something like that, and they want me to consider changing my stance. Regardless, I'm glad a better consensus is now developing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:NSONGS; a single requires its own notability. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EP article. Not notable, but a plausible search term.--MaranoFan (talk) 07:04, 9 March 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 Redirect to Jono Bacon, and protect the redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Severed Fifth

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to main person behind this band was undone, a second time, by Ahunt, who claims that "one very extensive third party ref" established that this should pass notability standards. Well, the band doesn't pass WP:NBAND, since they didn't have a deal with a major record label (they didn't have any deal at all), didn't have any hits, didn't put out any albums that received significant reviews, et cetera. The supposedly "extensive" reference is an article in Ars Technica, which briefly discusses the fact that the band released its album with a CC license. That information is already in the main article for the person (Jono Bacon), and I think it would be the first time that a band gets to be notable based on one single article which isn't even about the music.

Note that the article has been nominated and deleted before; at the time the Ars Technica article was already in there, and nothing has changed: there are still no reliable sources. Note that the version restored by Ahunt has six references--all but one of them to the band's own website or to the founder's website. In other words, the subject fails NBAND and GNG spectacularly, but I will settle for a merge--as was already advocated at the first AfD. Also pinging Ravenswing, who nominated the article the first time around. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it is true that this article does not meet the stringent standards set by WP:NBAND, in that it only has one independent, third party source and not multiple ones, I believe it should be kept, regardless. This article describes what was predominantly an economic experiment, more than a musical one, about an attempt to create a band that would distribute free music and rely on concert admission tickets sales, T-shirt sales and donations for economic survival, instead of trying to sell music, an attempt to make a new model work. The fact that the band failed and no longer seems to exist, is a key part of the significance of the article, that, at least in this case, the model didn't work. Because of this encyclopedically significant music industry economic story I believe that the article should be retained, as WP:IAR says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping this article is not an improvement--I don't see why it would be. The content you are talking about is possibly relevant in Bacon's article, where it already is, or in some article about free music--but seriously, we're talking about one non-notable band that appeared to have been a hobby of someone whose main job was something else entirely, a band whose music may have been free but was clearly not considered important by anyone else, really.
  Jax 0677, this sort of applies to your statement as well: Nothing in Jim Adams's article suggests he's actually notable outside of Defiance (the article on Adams is horrible), and there is nothing in any reliable source that says something significant about Adams in that band (obviously I'm not counting this, haha!). So I maintain that a redirect is the right thing. Next thing you know we have two notable musicians and the band is a supergroup... Drmies (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had a second look at Jim Adams (musician) and redirected it to Defiance (band); it's really that minimal. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - The article should be either kept due to two notable musicians, or redirected to Jono Bacon. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which notable musicians would those be? Adams has none, and Bacon's (very shaky) notability comes solely from his computing experience; he would certainly fail NMUSIC himself by a country mile. Ravenswing 11:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Ravenswing:, then we redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: ... which everyone but Ahunt advocates, so I'm not understanding why this was relisted. Ravenswing 17:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the Bacon article. This one neither meets NBAND or the GNG, and that makes this a slam dunk. I'm unmoved by Ahunt's WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument, because if this was a significant industry economic story, multiple reliable sources would say so, in detail sufficient to establish the notability of the subject. "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material ... If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." These are core content policies of Wikipedia, and establishes a basic principle: it's not whether we think something is important that matters, but whether the world has taken notice. It hasn't, and per WP:V, that means an article on the subject cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 18:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jono Bacon per previous AfD (which closed as delete) and above; this fails all relevant notability guidelines (and all irrelevant ones too, not that that matters). ansh 666 00:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since every editor aside from Ahunt is advocating redirecting, why is this still being relisted? Ravenswing 07:48, 12 March 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 consensus for Dawod Al Saeed was keep Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Assiri

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - neither player has played in a fully pro league Spiderone 11:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete both - Fail NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mohammed Assiri - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Keep Dawod Al Saeed - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dawod Al Saeed has played a couple matches in the Kings Cup (Saudi Arabia) (1, 2, 3, & 4) Does this confirm notability? Inter&anthro (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It does, thanks for pointing that out, these are competitive matches involving clubs from FPLs so fulfill the spirit of NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as noted above player meets spiriti of WP:NFOOTY. Nfitz (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dawod Al Saeed per Fenix down & Gene93k's reasoning. Mohammed Assiri should be deleted as it does not seem the subject of the article is notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dawod Al Saeed - As nominator. I missed the fact that this player had played a cup match between two FPL clubs. As such, I am withdrawing that nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:02, 24 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 18:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dawod Al Saeed for meeting the spirit of WP:NFOOTY. Delete Mohammed Assiri for failing NFOOTY and GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dawod Al Saeed per WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:25, 8 March 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. With the exception of the article's creator, unanimous consensus that this doesn't meet our requirements for reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Flint

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

Non-notable album. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the attitude by the 'person' deleting my work to be reprehensible and vandalism at that. The fact that someone else has joined in to attack my very blatant words expressed about my unhappiness with the a for mentioned person's vandalism, is indicative of a USA biased attitude on this site. You need to change that attitude quickly. Notable in the USA means nothing. If I put up work solely based out of Australia, then you say thank you, not mess with it. How dare either of you have the attitude you have. How dare anyone on here delete work by others, with a proper debate, just at their whim.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of the history between you too, but the article is little more than a track listing, and the sources listed aren't reliable, so hounding or not, this is at least a valid nomination, unless there's some large failure of WP:BEFORE I'm missing... Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is little more than a tracklist, sources are unreliable and/or violating WP:USERG. I'd be happy to reconsider should someone dig up some better sources, but live albums like this often don't get much in the way of coverage that would help meet the WP:GNG, which the article certainly doesn't now... Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This 'person' just started deleting my work. Thats not acceptable. For any reason. By anyone. As for the three Clutch albums that are part of this whole mess, they are all live albums which I've been meaning to add info and cite's. Until this 'person' arbitrarily vandalised my work. Other than that I was happy for any reviews to be conducted, and I am looking for better, reliable, source material, but for a concert so long ago it's not easy. I have a very serious problem with the attitude of 'Editors' deleting work by others without such a proper course of review. So I will continue with my research..Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment - I'm on the fence here. The album looks to have been on a top chart in Australia (see here), but I'm not sure of the reliability of this source~~. It appears to have some reviews and in-depth coverage by secondary sources ([83], [84], [85]), But I'm not finding enough in-depth coverage to assert that this satisfies WP:GNG (which is also a requirement for WP:NMUSIC). I do see many sites listing the album and its tracks, but nothing about its coverage in-depth. I'm going to present what I found, keep an eye on this page, and see what others come up with. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Delete" vote; see below. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked those cite's and the first is one of my home countries independent Album Chart review sites, the second is from the year after the concert (and imo pretty good source) and the third is of a review by a 'fan site', so to speak, about seeing them years after hearing the album in question...I'll keep searching and watching Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if those sources help the article meet the WP:GNG though, they're not really what Wikipedia usually would deem reliable. "The Obelisk" (link 2) is just the self-published blogging of one person who doesn't do it professionally or for a living (See About Page.) "Pro-Rock" (link 3) is just a directory/tracklist, no actual prose. Even "Ninehertz" (link 1) while probably the closest to acceptable, is pretty iffy. They do actually have an "About Us" page (see here) but it doesn't say much for their credentials. For instance, the article writer, written merely by "Pete" with a Leslie Nielsen picture as his photo, only credential listed seems to be...being a locksmith? If that's really all that's out there, then I think it really just needs to be mentioned in the band's article or discography page. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete - I have edited the article, removing two cite's that were considered unreliable source material, have found the best cite's I can find, which include journalist reviews, added a small amount of information about the concert and its recording. I think I have made it more to the standard required in this learning curve of mine in editing lessons.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These sources mostly either look unreliable, or contain a mere 2-3 sentences that basically define the album as a Clutch live album, and then list off the track list. That's not significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be blunt it's the best there is and I do not consider that a cause for deletion of the article. The amount of article's missing form various bands releases because they haven't been made or they have been deleted, or the amount of articles that have 1 source cited and have no reviews, makes me consider the efforts being put into the articles that I have done work on to be very arbitrary to say the least and quite blatantly an attack on the 'new guy' buy various 'persons' to add. I do not require links to Wiki this or that for the list of acceptable material to be sourced and used, because as I have stated it's become quite evident that it's a 'click' of 'editors' that very arbitrarily are making these decisions, without being diligent in the work they claim is required by them to do for the sake of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. And no I'm not going to list the pages I'm referring too as they are numerous in the Music section of the WIki. I expect 'editors' that want to make these decisions to find some source material themselves and actually make more effort than just deleting a page.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is a valid reason to keep an article. Please read WP:OSE and the WP:GNG. Third party, reliable sources covering the subject in significant detail is what matters. There's been no evidence of this so far. Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? That is not a good enough response mate. You have to come up with a much better attitude towards the whole situation then that for me to be satisfied with you and those involved, and yes I bluntly expect that to be the case via a much higher authority than the response you just gave..not impressed.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IE go and AfD every single other article as proof before you come anywhere near my work here on the Wiki.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sorry, but I believe you've jumped into article creation and deletion debates without understanding how Wikipedia works. You need to provide reliable, third party sources that cover the subject in significant detail. If you can't, the article generally gets deleted or redirected, it's how the website works. Please read up on the WP:GNG. Anything else is probably not relevant to this articles deletion discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added many more cite's to the page, and as it's regarding an album that was released 12 years ago that's not easy. I have found this entire subject to be very biased, based around 1-3 individuals. Out of courtesy I have re-read the 'GNG' and I consider each cite material to be of at least 1 of the requirements on the list. I will expect more than just those who have commented on this debate so far to have a review of the article before any decisions are made.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please list here, which sources you believe to be reliable, third party sources that cover the subject in significant detail? Sergecross73 msg me 04:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cite's 6 & 7 are of non-English reviews of the album; 6 is from 2005 and 7 from 2011 - both are quite significantly longer reviews than 3 sentences (and I get your point about such an issue and can agree with the Wiki rules about such); all the others are of mention to the recording in the past tense or used to reference release date or track listings of the album itself. I've avoided iTunes and Amazon so far. Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to tell, since they're in different languages, but Google Translate makes it roughly sound like they're more self published bloggers... Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More Info & Comment - I have amended some of the cite's used and added one from Allmusic; A source that has been extensively used by other editors as a reputable, and notable, source material on extremely numerous articles here on Wikipedia. I hope that this is a more sufficient notable source, as per our policies and guidelines etc., as I'm doing my best to adhere to, now that I have a much better understanding of such things. Nuro msg me 01:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you added Allmusic user review, which is not usable per WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...right....Nuro msg me 05:25, 28 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 18:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the changes to the article since I nominated it for deletion establish its notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the best efforts of the keep editors, the album simply doesn't pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. After taking additional time to search for sources and listen to the responses brought by my earlier comment, I feel that the required criteria isn't met. The album doesn't appear to have in-depth coverage from many sources (not enough to constitute significant coverage), which means that GNG is not met (which is also a requirement for NALBUMS). Aside from that, I agree that the source I cited in my earlier comment regarding the "Top Chart" source I found doesn't appear to constitute a "reliable source", and no other sources discuss or point out any top charts or notable awards that this album has won. Hence, NALBUMS is also not met. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:32, 11 March 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 Userfy. The discussion is just on the edge of the numbers I would normally like to see to call a delete consensus, but I find the arguments to keep rather unconvincing ("She almost won, and other people near her are notable").

Moving this to User:Athomeinkobe/Yuuki Tanaka. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuuki Tanaka

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

Fails wikiproject Tennis guidelines and nsport for notability. Not on any fedcup team, no main draw entries on the WTA tour, no wins in a $35,000+ minor league (ITF) event. This (so far) is simply one of a thousand other minor-league players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at the multitude of aticles that link to this one, I can readily understand why it was created. If she is such a non-notable player, then surely it begs the question of whether or not all these (presumably notable) articles linking to her need to exist as well.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all those links are tournament brackets from barely notable events. They are minor league tournaments. Just like baseball has minor league teams that are barely notable yet have 1000's of players listed through the years in list-form that are not notable. that's the case with these players. You'll note she hasn't won a notable event. What has happened is editors red link her name (wrongly) in all these brackets in hope that one day she becomes a notable player... heck she might one day. Then this article actually gets created and BAM... she has lots of instant links. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She came runner-up in a $75,000 tournament, is that not enough? And with the score at 9-9 in the tie-breaker, she was two points away from winning and becoming notable. Her teammate and two opponents in the doubles match are all notable. Yet she isn't? It appears that one of her opponents Akiko Omae only satisfies the notability criteria because she won those two points, while Tanaka lost them. So this AFD could have been about Omae instead. It seems strange that notability can be decided so arbitrarily.

But putting that aside, I am sure there is enough out there to satisfy GNG. I will add more to her actual biography from the Japanese sources already mentioned in the article and see if I can find anything else. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not arbitrary at all. It is our guidelines, it is consensus.... one won and one lost. Certainly someone can meet GNG over and above our consensus Tennis Guidelines. Certainly this particular player could be the 1 in a 1000 minor league player that is truly special. That does happen. I just don't see it this time. The only thing that would make me pause is the item on the 2013 Summer Universiade, but even that is 10,000 university students. The rest is just low-level minor league tennis with no victories in $50,000+ tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a biography using what I have found so far. In addition, this blog (belonging to a Nagoya sports massage therapist) notes that she was the subject of a 2-page profile in the March 2011 edition of the Japanese "Tennis" magazine. Getting my hands on the actual magazine is going to be difficult, but there is confirmation at the back number page of the magazine, where she is listed in the index as the first profile in a new series titled "Challengers". So there is certainty that she has received significant coverage (a 2-page profile) in a national magazine at least once. I will keep looking for more, but I think what I've found so far is a pretty good step towards meeting GNG. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AtHomeIn神戸's argument. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So far she does not meet consensus Tennis Guidelines, Wikipedia NSport guidelines, nor have we seen multiple sources (or any except from a blog of a massage therapist) that would show GNG. Yet you agree. Sorry but that seems strange to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be a bit more accurate in the description there. The blog refers to her having a 2-page spread in a national magazine, and I provided a link to the contents page of the magazine, which confirms she is the subject of her own article (but does not confirm the length). To summarize the blog, the writer is telling the regular customers of his business that a former customer is now living in Tokyo and the subject of an in-depth article in a major magazine. He finishes with "I've bought a copy, so you should too". That would be a very strange lie to tell to your customers, so I think it is very reasonable to accept that she was in fact the subject of this significant coverage. That was now five years ago and before she turned pro, so I'll keep looking for more. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that she was part of the gold medal winning team of the Universiade in July 2013. The team was featured in a report in the October 2013 edition of Tennis Magazine. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I just don't see this article meeting WP:SPORTCRIT. Ameba clearly fails WP:BLPSPS and the subject obviously requires a fishing expedition into obscure Japanese print sources. She is tagged in tournament coverage here [86] and here [87] by sources which qualify for WP:RS but she's just tagged by name. I find it more than a little questionable that a Japanese tennis player who doesn't even have her own page on Japanese Wikipedia [88] should merit a page on English Wikipedia solely on the basis of two print sources which are not readily accessible and a blog post which is inadmissible as WP:RS. I went to her blog page as well [89] to look for anything substantial to justify Keep but there is nothing. Jun Kayama 06:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this requires clarification, but I will say it once again for clarity. (1) I provided the blog link purely to give indication of the magazine's contents. The magazine is the source, the blog was the way I found it. (2) The magazine is far from an "obscure print source"; as far as I know it is the most widely-circulated tennis magazine in the country. (3) Accessibility of a source is not an issue (WP:SOURCEACCESS), nor is whether articles exist on other projects. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - スマッシュ [90] is bigger than テ二マガ. There's only three magazines to speak of with significant readership in Japan for tennis, and most niche magazines like this absolutely do not qualify on their own as producing articles which meet WP:N on a national consciousness level in Japan. I don't mind whether an article is behind WP:PAYWALL usually since I already know Japanese sources tend to be very hard to find online, but I am not going to Jinbocho to look for an out-of-print two-page spread in a 2011 monthly magazine column which may or may not be dead, which apparently profiled 「挑戦者」 or rather 「選手歴のメチャメチャ浅いまだブレイクしてない新人」 with no WP:N achievements. If the subject somehow meets consensus Tennis Guidelines then 拍手万万歳 but as of right now there's nothing that meets WP:SPORTCRIT. If she has even been profiled in even any of the tabloid sports newspapers, I will pause to review thoroughly and if this gets stupid past a certain point I will just order the back number of テ二マガ myself to look at it. Jun Kayama 07:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And per GNG it require multiple sources that feature her, not one. She may very well reach tennis guideline notability in the future so I would archive this page to be ready "if" the time comes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of course all she needs to do is win least one title in any of ITF Women's $50,000+ tournaments for consensus Tennis Guidelines which she has not achieved yet - her ITF Doubles win at Aschaffenburg on clay was a $25,000 Tournament [91]. There's an interview after the 90th All Japan Tennis Championships [92] but it's run by one of her sponsors and is nothing but her singing the praises of her new racket by Dunlop Srixon. I would like for the subject to meet the criteria for Keep in some way, shape, or form but it's not justifiable on the basis of achievements right now. Jun Kayama 18:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: The week is almost up, so I will write my summary of the situation. Tanaka was an MVP of the national college championships and a gold medalist at the world university games. She hasn't had a $50,000+ tournament win yet, but was a runner-up at a $75,000 tournament. There has been some coverage in a national magazine and there is an actual biographical article that is sourced, rather than a bare table of victories which is standard for articles concerning players at her level. Her name appears in many articles, including the one for the $75,000 tournament where her teammate and opponents in the final each have articles, so her having an article would make that article more complete. Despite the above, if failing the consensus guideline is the turning point in this discussion, then I ask that the article be sent to my userspace so that the work is not lost and can be moved to mainspace if and when she gets that necessary win. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know you can copy the article and put it in your user space yourself, just in case. As for your summary, I think the person who closes this is well able to summarize. If they feel she meets gng, then fine. But she is not notable for tennis by virtues of her minor, minor league and college accomplishments. She has not been in a WTA event or even won a minor league 50,000 ITF event. But I do think she will qualify one day so this should be saved to user space. Fyunck(click) (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:53, 24 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 18:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass the criteria for athletes, and not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy - does not meet WP Tennis or sport guidelines for notability. See insufficient evidence that she meets general notability requirements per WP:GNG.--Wolbo (talk) 13:41, 12 March 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat road accident

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

It's very sad, but it does not meet WP:NEVENT: is not "a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" nor does it "have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group". ubiquity (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are pretty much the same:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of traffic collisions (2010–present), unless any one of them has significant impact, such as a change in policy, significant investigation, new infrastructure, or some other impact that is notable. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. I'll start with Ghana: Satisfies GNG. Notice, particularly, that this is such a big thing it is getting truly international coverage. Quite apart from the fact that the SNG does not apply to very recent events, and can't be used to restrict GNG (the introduction to N clearly states it is an alternative, not a co-requisite), this is the worst road disaster in Ghana for many years and is accordingly historically significant and does satisfy the SNG anyway. It is obvious that the coverage will continue. One death is "sad". 71 deaths is something else. The Argentina crash, which has massive coverage, should also be kept for similar reasons. Notice that the President of Argentina issued a statement, and that his security minister says the crash *will* result in better equipment being issued to the gendarmes (certainly a lasting effect if one was needed). Similarly the Sindh and Gujarat articles, with truly international coverage and a large number of deaths, should be kept. And the Gujarat incident is too recent to apply the SNG anyway. James500 (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support splitting this AFD up and making separate decisions about whether to keep or redirect each of these mass casualty bus crashes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - All of these events have received significant international coverage in multiple reliable sources and so meet WP:GNG. WP:NEVENT is more of an essay than a policy and editors can interpret that however it suits them and we can potentially argue about it indefinitely. The practical, sensible and productive thing to do is recognise there's not a good track record for reaching consensus on events. When we can't reach consensus, we keep the article(s). ~Kvng (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana road accident

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too bad that two vehicles collided and people died, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so coverage of a traffic accident having received a burst of news coverage does not make it encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat what a said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gujarat road accident which is the actual AfD for this bundled nomination (ie this separate AfD page is a duplicate created by mistake which should be closed in favour of the main discussion):
Notable. I'll start with Ghana: Satisfies GNG. Notice, particularly, that this is such a big thing it is getting truly international coverage. Quite apart from the fact that the SNG does not apply to very recent events, and can't be used to restrict GNG (the introduction to N clearly states it is an alternative, not a co-requisite), this is the worst road disaster in Ghana for many years and is accordingly historically significant and does satisfy the SNG anyway. It is obvious that the coverage will continue. One death is "sad". 71 deaths is something else. The Argentina crash, which has massive coverage, should also be kept for similar reasons. Notice that the President of Argentina issued a statement, and that his security minister says the crash *will* result in better equipment being issued to the gendarmes (certainly a lasting effect if one was needed). Similarly the Sindh and Gujarat articles, with truly international coverage and a large number of deaths, should be kept. And the Gujarat incident is too recent to apply the SNG anyway. James500 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Consolidated these two discussions (diff). The AfD template in the Ghana road accident links to this discussion (with the Gujarat road accident header). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. If this many people died in a road accident in a Western country it would most certainly be considered notable. But really, they should have been nominated separately. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I totally disagree. If you can find similar articles about accidents in Western countries, please let me know, and I will gladly open AfD's for them. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. ubiquity (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is, however, an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedias include articles on significant events, and disasters causing mass casualties are significant events. In Western countries they would be heavily covered in the media (much lesser events than these have WP articles); in developing countries media coverage is not so good, but due to systemic bias we should not ignore them because of that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Traffic collisions in India valereee (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marge seems like it would create an WP:UNDUE issue at Traffic collisions in India. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, sorry, I should have expanded. What I was thinking is maybe a section within that page on accidents that need a bigger mention than they'd get simply by being a member of a list. Those that ended up becoming important for some reason other than number of people killed/injured (because they ended up galvanizing reforms or whatever) could be spun off into their own article. Right now we have a list of accidents, but that list is not something that really wants expansion of any given incident. So we end up with the only other choice being a separate article for an important incident, even if it hasn't yet become truly notable. It's a toggle; this would be a way to recognize that an incident is worth expanding on more than it would get as a member of a list. So accidents in India that need more coverage than they get in a list but not so much they need their own article would all go into this section. I guess I'm thinking out loud here. valereee (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional detail. Sounds potentially workable. ~Kvng (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be an excellent way to handle it. ubiquity (talk) 00:02, 23 March 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat road accident

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

It's very sad, but it does not meet WP:NEVENT: is not "a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" nor does it "have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group". ubiquity (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are pretty much the same:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of traffic collisions (2010–present), unless any one of them has significant impact, such as a change in policy, significant investigation, new infrastructure, or some other impact that is notable. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. I'll start with Ghana: Satisfies GNG. Notice, particularly, that this is such a big thing it is getting truly international coverage. Quite apart from the fact that the SNG does not apply to very recent events, and can't be used to restrict GNG (the introduction to N clearly states it is an alternative, not a co-requisite), this is the worst road disaster in Ghana for many years and is accordingly historically significant and does satisfy the SNG anyway. It is obvious that the coverage will continue. One death is "sad". 71 deaths is something else. The Argentina crash, which has massive coverage, should also be kept for similar reasons. Notice that the President of Argentina issued a statement, and that his security minister says the crash *will* result in better equipment being issued to the gendarmes (certainly a lasting effect if one was needed). Similarly the Sindh and Gujarat articles, with truly international coverage and a large number of deaths, should be kept. And the Gujarat incident is too recent to apply the SNG anyway. James500 (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support splitting this AFD up and making separate decisions about whether to keep or redirect each of these mass casualty bus crashes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - All of these events have received significant international coverage in multiple reliable sources and so meet WP:GNG. WP:NEVENT is more of an essay than a policy and editors can interpret that however it suits them and we can potentially argue about it indefinitely. The practical, sensible and productive thing to do is recognise there's not a good track record for reaching consensus on events. When we can't reach consensus, we keep the article(s). ~Kvng (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana road accident

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too bad that two vehicles collided and people died, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so coverage of a traffic accident having received a burst of news coverage does not make it encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat what a said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gujarat road accident which is the actual AfD for this bundled nomination (ie this separate AfD page is a duplicate created by mistake which should be closed in favour of the main discussion):
Notable. I'll start with Ghana: Satisfies GNG. Notice, particularly, that this is such a big thing it is getting truly international coverage. Quite apart from the fact that the SNG does not apply to very recent events, and can't be used to restrict GNG (the introduction to N clearly states it is an alternative, not a co-requisite), this is the worst road disaster in Ghana for many years and is accordingly historically significant and does satisfy the SNG anyway. It is obvious that the coverage will continue. One death is "sad". 71 deaths is something else. The Argentina crash, which has massive coverage, should also be kept for similar reasons. Notice that the President of Argentina issued a statement, and that his security minister says the crash *will* result in better equipment being issued to the gendarmes (certainly a lasting effect if one was needed). Similarly the Sindh and Gujarat articles, with truly international coverage and a large number of deaths, should be kept. And the Gujarat incident is too recent to apply the SNG anyway. James500 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Consolidated these two discussions (diff). The AfD template in the Ghana road accident links to this discussion (with the Gujarat road accident header). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. If this many people died in a road accident in a Western country it would most certainly be considered notable. But really, they should have been nominated separately. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I totally disagree. If you can find similar articles about accidents in Western countries, please let me know, and I will gladly open AfD's for them. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. ubiquity (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is, however, an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedias include articles on significant events, and disasters causing mass casualties are significant events. In Western countries they would be heavily covered in the media (much lesser events than these have WP articles); in developing countries media coverage is not so good, but due to systemic bias we should not ignore them because of that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Traffic collisions in India valereee (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marge seems like it would create an WP:UNDUE issue at Traffic collisions in India. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, sorry, I should have expanded. What I was thinking is maybe a section within that page on accidents that need a bigger mention than they'd get simply by being a member of a list. Those that ended up becoming important for some reason other than number of people killed/injured (because they ended up galvanizing reforms or whatever) could be spun off into their own article. Right now we have a list of accidents, but that list is not something that really wants expansion of any given incident. So we end up with the only other choice being a separate article for an important incident, even if it hasn't yet become truly notable. It's a toggle; this would be a way to recognize that an incident is worth expanding on more than it would get as a member of a list. So accidents in India that need more coverage than they get in a list but not so much they need their own article would all go into this section. I guess I'm thinking out loud here. valereee (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional detail. Sounds potentially workable. ~Kvng (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be an excellent way to handle it. ubiquity (talk) 00:02, 23 March 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. Sufficient consensus. Any editor may create a redirect if one is desired. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Illinichina Amiella

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) (No secondary sources in the article that cover the character in depth.) A redirect to Gods_Eater_Burst#Characters could suffice. czar 14:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 14:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 14:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect if needed as an unlikely independently notable character. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable video game character, can easily be mentioned at subject God Eater main article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:01, 2 March 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) sst✈ 13:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lilimar Hernandez

AfDs for this article:

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

PROD deleted. Not a notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR as does not have significant roles in multiple notable productions. ~~WP:GNG as no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject – only reference is a WP:SPS written by the subject.~~ Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it's not a self-published source, that's the image caption. I found the actual author of the article (Madeleine Marr) at the bottom. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, I missed that, I got fixated on the twitter link. That is a good reference and is non-trivial coverage so works towards WP:GNG, need more like it as GNG says: "multiple sources are generally expected". WP:NACTOR is a bit more problematic. Likely WP:TOOSOON as needs to do more as a actor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilimar was an AfD for the same person closed as delete. This article is eligible for speedy G4 as essentially a recreation of that article under a different name. Lilimar has been creation protected because of multiple G4 speed deletions - I tried to add a redirect to here from there and couldn't. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as per previous AfD (and this doesn't seem to be enough of an improvement over the previous deleted version...), per the article citing only one reliable source, and per the subject's failing WP:NACTOR for having only one "significant" role. This definitely seems like a WP:TOOSOON case, and this article can be draftified/userfied to incubate in the meantime. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment may pass criteria 2 of WP:NACTOR of having significant fanbase, as appeared in all 40 episodes of Bella and the Bulldogs children's tv series shown worldwide. More important is RS for WP:GNG one in article, more.neededAtlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Found a Spanish-language source with more info: http://la.eonline.com/venezuela/2015/conoce-a-lilimar-hernandez-la-actriz-venezolana-que-esta-causando-sensacion-en-la-tv-estadounidense-fotos/ – nyuszika7h (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as coverage in Miami Herald, the Spanish article above, also won award [93] and this [94] , I think she just passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am persuaded by the improvements in the article since I nominated it for deletion that it passes the threshold of notability in WP:GNG. As this article was deleted per a previous AfD and has been salted under its original name, I think it important for this AfD to proceed to its normal conclusion and be formally closed to either support or override the original AfD. Because of that I consider it best to not withdraw my nomination. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:27, 9 March 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Whitten

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

Whitten doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria set forth at WP:NHOCKEY. As far as the WP:GNG goes, I'm not seeing much coverage aside from WP:ROUTINE announcements when he got the job. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep His playing career clearly fails WP:NHOCKEY. However, I think his stronger case is WP:NCOLLATH where I would say he meets the requirement "College...coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches...Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." In the U.S. college sports are heavily followed. While American football and basketball are clearly the two dominant sports, college hockey has a strong following and in turn a strong media presence. Further, he is head coach for a former national champion that plays in a major conference. All other head coaches in that conference have articles. In addition to the SNG, here are a few examples of where I think he meets WP:GNG - [95], [96], [97], and [98]. I think this is a pretty clear strong keep not for his playing, but for his coaching. RonSigPi (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:03, 24 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) 21:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Boobzilla

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

There is very little if any indication of notability. There appears to be very minor local coverage in Oklahoma, but there is no indication of national or international notability. I am One of Many (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I may've PRODed instead as this is clearly questionable for the applicable creative professionals notability, no convincing signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She's apparently been on Jerry Springer and AMC's "Freakshow", but I don't know if this really matters. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely want to see "more" of "the Boobzilla"...if you all know what I mean (wink*). But, until we actually see more about her on the Net, my vote is a delete. Antonio the Boobsupervisor Martin (dime) 06:51, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

Be a little careful about making off color jokes. Part of the reason for this is that if this gets deleted and it's contested at DRV, they could potentially say that the vote shouldn't be taken seriously or something along those lines. (And spammy articles like this tend to have people that make pretty heated restoration arguments.) The best defense against stuff like that is, unfortunately, to be a little careful. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tokyo Girl! :) Antonio With a sense of Humo(u)r Martin (aqui) 11:46, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
No problem, just be careful. There are a lot of people who contest deletions with various allegations of the -isms and it can get really messy sometimes, especially if they decide to start talking about it on social media. I know you meant it as a joke, but you can't always predict that this will be read in the intended manner especially when it comes to article deletion. And I'm saying this as someone who has been accused of various prejudices for speedy deleting articles under basic deletion criteria like A7. It's not fun to deal with. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads like the sort of bio which performers supply to venues they're appearing at, for use in publicity for the show. The sources quoted are all local news sources and I can't find anything which suggests a wider notability. Neiltonks (talk) 13:34, 2 March 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 redirect to Hero Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 12:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Universe

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Soetermans. T / C 14:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at minimum to Hero Games; merge (some) content if desired. --Izno (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect per Izno. BOZ (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per arguments above. The notability of Steven Universe is superman compared to this. editorEهեইдအ😎 09:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Hero Games should be sufficient. A lot of the Alien species section content could be trimmed down/summarized along the way.ZettaComposer (talk) 13:19, 4 March 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. Unopposed. Sandstein 22:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Hatun (wife of Ahmed I)

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

This article seems to be the result of a mix between two or three different characters (each one non notable enough to have an article) : 1) a daughter of a vizier named Fatma, known for her mausoleum, dead in 1595/6 (thus obviously not a wife of Ahmet), who is the subejct of the 3 first references ; 2) an anonymous (at least in the references given) daughter of the same Pasha who wished to enter the harem (but sources suggest she didn't do it eventually) ; 3) an obscure concubine named Fatma whose description in one source that refers to her (Alderson's Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty) does not fit any of the formers. The children are attributed to her without a source. Phso2 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Support While this article does have sources, and at least one of these women may be notable, the proposer's analysis above makes it clear that this article is a tangled knot. Additionally, most of the sources are not in English, so it would be difficult to find an editor who could undo this knot. Probably best to clear this and let someone start over in the future. 1bandsaw (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. --Phso2 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 6 March 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. After three relistings, this is all the commentary we are likely to get. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article may be recreated or usefied by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I-Access Investors

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

Not notable. Essentially all the refs are to mere listings or their own site. The google translation of the Apple daily site shows it to be a promotional interview. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best because my searches noticeably found nothing better and none of this better satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think they're probably notable for their cut-throat broker's premiums as documented by these sources - archive of 2010 newspaper article; video news 2011 of their system crash; 2012 newspaper article; article on their system crash in 2015. I've added their Chinese name to the "find sources" template above for editors who want to investigate further. Der yck C. 21:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wonder if DGG and Deryck Chan would consider drafting and userfying this if no one else comments. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of proper sources, there's no point in userifying. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 15 March 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 delete. I placed lesser weight on the keep !vote as it did not discuss how the article might meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mohr

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

non notable. The refs are to his appearances, or to notices, or promotional, not substantial comment about him. There's no reason apparent in the bio why there should be any. But as someone who appears on talk shows, he needs publicity. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I saw him on television quite a bit (especially on Mad Money), most of the sources were CNBC clips, thought that adding all those might be redundant. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 18:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and draft & userfy if needed as my searches only found several expected sources at News and browsers but nothing to convince a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 2 March 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Elliott (entrepreneur)

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

Non notable except for his role in Reward Gateway, an organization that is probably notable. All the non trivial refs are talking about the company DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and it may actually need it and then Redirect to Reward Gateway because being the founder may be enough for that; my searches found nothing better and the current article is still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 18:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears pretty self-promotional for Reward Gateway Deku-shrub (talk) 20:21, 1 March 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Prinz

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

Individual exists and races motorcycles-- this does not equate to notability. Subject has not won any significant competitive races nor received other recognition in the forms of awards or medals nor does she appear to have been the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. KDS4444^Talk 05:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likely Keep: She appears to meet requirements for WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:NMOTORSPORT (#1 & #3) given the larger (but unsourced) list at de:Nina Prinz (eg: she was 2007 and 2008 European Women's 1000cc Champion), and the coverage shown at GNews, for instance Moto2 wild card, and member of the first mixed-gender team to win a round in FIM Endurance racing. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 13:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... Maybe so. But I am concerned that the German Wikipedia article also has not a single reference in it to substantiate any of these claims, and the only award she appears to have won for a notable bike race is for the ADAC Junior Cup, for which she got 21st place (according to the German Wikipedia). We still don't have a single, reliable, independent, verifiable source covering her non-trivially in either English or German yet, do we? KDS4444^Talk 21:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:53, 24 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 no consensus. We are overtime, and I do not see how this discussion can be closed differently from no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Hole to China: Rare and Unreleased

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

Non-notable album. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Eteethan(talk) 20:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the attitude by the 'person' deleting my work to be reprehensible and vandalism at that. The fact that someone else has joined in to attack my very blatant words expressed about my unhappiness with the a for mentioned person's vandalism, is indicative of a USA biased attitude on this site. You need to change that attitude quickly. Notable in the USA means nothing. If I put up work solely based out of Australia, like the Strange Cousins at the Prince article for deletion also, then you say thank you, not mess with it.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to you to "allow" Afds of articles you may have created or worked on. Please don't keep this WP:Battleground approach up or you will very likely find yourself blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know it can be frustrating. We've all been there. I've suggested to JJMC89 that he refrain from any further deletion nominations of this editor's work, at least for now, as Nuro Dragonfly is clearly feeling hounded. thanks to both of you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So Shawn, you're saying JJMC89 should reward Nuro's battleground approach and personal attacks? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, too. JJMC89 has been very patient in a heated situation and I commend him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to be sourced, and meets the standards of WP:MUSIC. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RickinBaltimore: I don't work a lot in this area. What criteria in WP:NMUSIC would it meet? I cannot find much coverage, even without the subtitle "Rare and Unreleased." Even the Allmusic "review" isn't actually a review. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did find another site, though I don't know if it counts a source here: [99] RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) How so? There is no actual review on AllMusic, MySpace is social media, the third source does not mention the article subject, and the last one is a track listing and user reviews. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that Blistering review, too. I'd never heard of it and their home page says they've shut down but it's a bylined independent review in a bona fide online music mag. That's a WP:Reliable source, for sure. So that's one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder to others to search without that subtitle, "Rare and Unreleased" as the article spans both subtitled versions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the cite's that were added by me and I concluded that, for what ever reason, they went 'nowhere' and am quite perplexed as to how I used them as a link in the first place, but the others are a valid source imo...im willing to find better source material.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can turn up more reliable source reviews and/or substantial coverage, or this meets some additional criterion of WP:NMUSIC, I just don't see how it meets our notability requirements at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am in the process of finding better source material.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of which I have done some more work on.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the changes to the article since I nominated it for deletion establish its notability. There is only one reliable source (Blistering). — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment - I will state as far as I'm concerned the last four ref are all good enough to establish notability here on the wiki. The article has been up for many years without any concerns of 'Editors' with various levels of 'Authority'. It only came to light because someone interfered with my editing in a manor I reacted to badly. Since then 'certain' 'editors' have 'decided' to 'scrutinise' my work here. I consider that 'trolling' and 'harassment' to be blunt after a certain point. My attitude has well and truly been neutral since said issues were brought to light by 'admin' level 'editors' and consensus ensued. So once again I do not see any problem with any of the cite's that I have added to the original single one by the original author, which was the ref to the bands website. I kinda consider that to be an improvement from me to the articles relevance to the bands catalog of albums. Not being aggressive, just being honest. I've also read various WP articles on said notability source material and have since removed any such ones from cite's such as Discogs etc used by authors on articles I've been attending to, form other bands pages as well, as I can see the reason behind such a decision. Nuro msg me 01:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources as of now are
1. AllMusic: This is a database entry, so it does not contribute to notability.
2. pro-rock.com: This is by the band, so it is not indepedent. It also doesn't mention the album.
3. weathermakermusic.com: This is a record label's website, owned by Clutch, so it is not independent. It also doesn't mention the album.
4. Blistering: This is a reliable source and contributes to notability.
5. Sputnikmusic.com: This does not have significant coverage of the album.
6. kingcrimsonprog.wordpress.com: This is a blog, thus not a reliable source.
7. ninehertz: This is a collaborative forum of reviews, articles and a place to discuss music^[100] (user generated content), thus not a reliable source.
Since the album has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it^{WP:NALBUMS#C1} and obviously doesn't meet any of the other criteria of WP:NALBUMS, it is not notable. It doesn't matter how long the article has been around or where it is improved compared to before you started editing it. Also, the condition of articles is not relevant. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't pass WP:NALBUMS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some sources about the subject:
1. Ballard, Michelle. "Clutch - Slow Hole to China (River Road Records)". Blistering. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
2. Condran, Ed (2003-08-27). "0827 CLUTCH". Bucks County Courier Times. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The article notes:
  
  The band is out behind its latest album, "Slow Hole to China," a collection of unreleased material from the last four years.
  Expect to hear some of those odds and sods tracks as well as some new tunes. Don't be surprised if the band delivers plenty of the gut grind from its aptly titled 2001 album, "Pure Rock Fury." The disc is full of raw, powerful, in your face rock. The album, the band's finest to date, blew away the 1998 Clutch release, the slick, "Elephant Riders." However, "Pure Rock Fury" fell between the tracks, even though it was released by Atlantic Records.
3. Serba, John (2003-09-11). "Stre-e-e-tching". The Grand Rapids Press. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The article notes:
  
  On top of that, the band will be selling "Slow Hole to China," a compilation of unreleased tracks on River Road, at its shows.
  I'm including this passing mention here because it could be used to source information in the article. Since it is a passing mention, I am not using it to establish notability.
4. Ross, Paige (2000-11-24). "Corrosion of Conformity's Sound Gets Personal". Corpus Christi Caller-Times. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The article notes:
  
  Power quartet Clutch will also perform at the Centre Theatre Saturday, getting ready to tour with Drown in December.
  Just what the metal guys have been clutching since their "Elephant Riders" album is yet to be made clear, but one of the things apparently caught in their grip is a new album, "Slow Hole to China."
  It's their first in nearly three years and currently scheduled for a mid-March release. The band has said the sound is a bit heavier than their previous work and rich, with each song an exploration of it's own terrain. Expect to hear several excerpts during their set.
  The article was published in 2000 but the album was released in 2003, so perhaps the album was delayed.
I think sources 1 and 2 provide "significant coverage" about the subject and are sufficient to establish notability.
Cunard (talk) 01:48, 14 March 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kepner-Tregoe

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

Article about company which does not seem to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. All references in the article are either primary or listing type, my searches have only brought up press releases by the company I could not find any significant coverage by independent reliable sources. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this better satisfies the companies notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine why delete this article. I vote to keep it, and I (and people like me) will over time add depth add independent/fair critiques of KepnerTregoe(KT). KT is a standard piece of an art/science (root cause analysis) in a constant state of development at present. It is a household name among practitioners and just needs a year or two more to get solidified in the article here from non-company-based critques, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2016‎

Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I found three sources that satisfy WP:RS, WP:GNG, and (maybe) WP:CORPDEPTH - [101], [102], and [103]. But what I'm not seeing is significant coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, and I'm not seeing any (maybe one, listed here) article that covers the company itself in-depth (also required for WP:GNG). Hence, I am voting delete (WP:TOOSOON?) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: you realize all three of the sources you linked are actually press releases by the company in question? Press releases are not considered reliable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McMatter - HA! Well... even more of a reason to delete the article :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:11, 27 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 speedy keep. "No references" is not a valid rationale for deletion. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok School of Management

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

No references Prof TPMS (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The normal outcome for an article on an institution of this kind would be retention. Just about the only exceptions that I can recall were where a grand name was just an office over a pub. That doesn't apply here, but I would prefer to have some solid references beyond the one that I have been able to locate and add. AllyD (talk) 14:24, 25 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mikki Koomar

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

PROD removed by ip user. Endored by PRehse (talk · contribs). Concern was that he is a non notable model, lacking WP:RS Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The original reasons for the PROD were correct. Non-notable - does not meet WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Doesn't meet WP:GNG now.--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:38, 26 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. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Parsons (nondual communicator)

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

Article as of 24 Feb 2016 is sourced from unreliable and/or self-published sources.

See

among other cites.

Quite possibly a WP:A7 candidate Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author - Tony is a significant communicator of nonduality, held in respect within that sphere. He has been a communicator for many years and his books have been translated into many languages. — Onlyoneness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
sorry Onlyoneness (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although www.advaita.org.uk and www.scienceandnonduality.com may not be "liked" as self-publicised sources they are well considered in nonduality circles. There are eight other sources. Onlyoneness (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources are very dubious and do nothing to establish notability. Not much of value jumped out to me via a Google search. GAB^Hello! 23:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - massively undue article, no real evidence of notability. Blythwood (talk) 06:27, 12 March 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technological Monopoly Capitalism

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

Poorly explained/translated WP:NEO "mentioned for the first time" in 2015: three sources pre-date 2015 and don't mention the term, the fourth is a 2016 paper that doesn't mention the term either. McGeddon (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A mini-essay only, with no evidence found that the term has achieved any currency. Looked for redirect targets: Monopoly capitalism redirects to State capitalism, while Monopoly Capital is about one book: Noyster (talk), 12:21, 6 March 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Regarding the keep !vote in the discussion, WP:BASIC pertains to people, not software. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shane's Chess Information Database

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

The program looks pretty cool, but I can't any significant coverage of it. None of the sources here do anything to make the subject meet WP:GNG. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 20:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Shane's chess information database" doesn't get many google hits, but "SCID" + "chess" does. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hope to have time to look for sources in the next couple days, but for now I'll just leave a comment to say I'd be pretty surprised if we couldn't find significant coverage of Scid (though it's possible my perspective is skewed because I've spent a good amount of time in those places where it's been well-known since the late-90s or early-00s) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Increasingly, SCID is "the other ChessBase". --causa sui (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already added external references and polished a little bit the article. Please add more content and proof-read what I have done so far.Nicoguaro (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources have been improved, so that I think WP:BASIC is just passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 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 Tony Chachere. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Chachere's Original Creole Seasoning

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

Little depth of coverage in reliable sources, per WP:CORPDEPTH. The product is mentioned frequently an ingredient in recipes, but not much more than that. Appears to be a run-of-the-mill spice manufacturer of local interest only. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or at best draft and userfy as this is frequently used and is a known name. Unfortunately, searches found nothing convincing but there's no serious needs for deletion because of its current state. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tony Chachere. It fits well in the article on the seasoning's creator and there do not seem to be enough reliable sources to support notability for a standalone article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, although a subsequent merge with Tony Chachere might be appropriate as an editorial decision. I think the seasoning is notable, based on assorted references describing it as an iconic ingredient of South Louisiana cooking, and the company as an core cultural entity in its home town of Opelousas. Examples: [104] (Tom Fitzmorris: the seasoning "is so widely used in New Orleans that 'add a little Tony′s' is instantly understood") [105][106][107][108][109]. Having said that, there's a reasonable argument that the significant information would be more clearly provided in a single article discussing both the inventor and his invention.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Merge. The spice is far from "local interest only." It's stocked nationwide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.113.11.16 (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2016‎

Keep or Merge The information in itself is noteworthy enough for inclusion. The article itself is weak, however it could stand on this own. Barring that, a merge into the inventor's article would suffice. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tony Chachere. As things stand right now, much of the instant article is already about the manufacturer, and not the ostensible subject of the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:44, 2 March 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. Wizardman 21:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Stephenson

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

CEO and founder of a web company. Article is more about the company than Stephenson. Refs either source the company or are reliable (linkedIn, Who's Who, Google +). Able to find alot of social media sites about him, but no reliable refs. His name is common. Bgwhite (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as this is another classic example of a seemingly amply sourced article when there are actually no solid signs of the applicable notability. I also suggest Redirecting to Datebook after deleting as this may still be applicable. SwisterTwister talk 08:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. No objection to redirecting per Gene93k either. Rlendog (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability.. page seems to be self promotion. Also, the Datebook page itself has been redirected so redirecting this page is rather pointless. Spanneraol (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate the non-sense namedropping people do to try an establish notability. Who cares that he stayed with "Scott Kazmir, Evan Longoria, Justin Upton, BJ Upton, and David Price after the World Series (a group who has made close to a billion dollars combined)." It's not even relevant and I think a thorough cleanup of the page is necessary should it be kept. However, it appears he wrote this book and his exploits earned him some notoriety in 2012. There's this and this. Alex (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the last comment by Alex--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book is not notable and the sources listed by Alex dont seem to rise to the level of coverage needed for an article. Spanneraol (talk) 23:47, 25 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iran and Red and black colonization

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

Fails WP:GNG as far as I can see. Yes this has been mentioned in books, but one or two lines in a book is not enough to warrant an article. As there are four editors who routinely team up whenever an Iran/Shia related article is brought to AFD I would like the closing admin to consider their age old arguments and the counter arguments on my part which I will just write here beforehand. These editors usually say "There are a lot of sources dude!". WP:LOTSOFSOURCES addresses this. This article is about a subject which has only trivial mentions, nothing more. Keep voters should show which source/s have enough material to write an encyclopedic article in a neutral tone. As per WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE "The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view". There is not enough material to even write a stub, let alone an article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The ~~only~~ good argument for keeping this article is expressed here: "Ayatollah I love you".-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Keep. Mhhossein proved notability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article title seems to be also translated as "Iran and red and black imperialism" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be kept because it clearly passes WP:GNG. The main logic behind this AFD, as the nominator says, is that "one or two lines in a book is not enough to warrant an article." So, let's see the sources;

) Three rather long paragraphs here (published by Yale University Press).
) A chapter of this book (by Simon and Schuster) is dedicated to the subject.
) A section of this book (published by SUNY Press).
) Some paragraphs of this book. (published by University Press of Florida)
) Almost two pages of this book (by Routledge).
) Some paragraphs of this book (published by Harvard University Press).
) Some page of this book (published by Harvard University Press).

Now, are they 1 or 2 lines really? I think the nominator payed no attention to my advice, suggesting him to make enough searches before making such awkward nominations. By the way, I did not check some of the Refs already used in the article and I suggest the article creator to add my list to the article. Mhhossein (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article makes little sense in its current form. As a native english speaker, it is so full of poor grammar that it is hard to know what it is actually saying. At the very least, it needs a dose of WP:TNT. As for its notability, having looked at the claim of "a chapter of the Simon and Schuster book" (link provided in the sources listed above) very little is about the newspaper article which is the subject of the Wikipedia article; it is about early activities of the revolution. As the nominator specifies, these are brief mentions. All of the important information here can be found in the Iranian Revolution article, where it belongs. Scr★pIron^IV 14:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your points. At least the first 4 pages of the chapter 7 in "Days of God: The Revolution in Iran and Its Consequences" are dedicated to the article and the reactions toward it. Is it very little? Mhhossein (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Mhhossein. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mhhossein and also added new sources.Saff V. (talk) 07:26, 1 March 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chek Whyte

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

The only possible notability is of buying a very unimportant football club 1 pound, and then losing it in bankruptcy. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best coverage sources I found were only at News and browsers, simply expected local coverage and nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Association with football appears to be so minor as to fail to satisfy any aspect or spirit of WP:NFOOTY. His general business dealings appear to have only attracted routine local coverage. Not convinced GNG is satisfied here. Fenix down (talk) 15:49, 29 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

María Concepción of the Nativity and the Perpetual Help of Mary

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

Consider also, about the order (or proposed order):

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

About a Catholic nun. There are three refs in the article, one by the subject and two that don't mention the subject. There are two external links, one to an unreliable site and one that doesn't mention the subject. There are refs out there, but most are to social media or unreliable sites. There are short mentions in a couple of books. Suggest page be redirected to Franciscan Minims of the Perpetual Help of Mary with some material merged in there. The author is a member of the order and is not a native English speaker, but they do mean well. Bgwhite (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the article is a work in progress that has been up less than 24 hours -- there are many wiki articles with less [accurate] source data and references; since most references regarding the subject are in Spanish they are not helpful to English users of wiki who want information on this subject; the article has many references to other wiki articles and definitions; the subject has not yet been the object of English biographies; an autobiographical source is often more accurate than a "commentary" from someone who has no direct contact with the subject, the history, or the facts. To ensure this article is ACCURATE and well resourced and cross referenced will take time; it is a work in progress and there is nothing better available worldwide or I would reference it. Startarrant (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and delete article on the order (was Keep). It's reasonable to let editor working on it to proceed. The biography/autobiography that is off-cited is fine as a source for non-controversial facts. No info is disputed, right? The editor has less than 500 edits; give some room. However the editor should make an effort in future to try to establish notability more clearly using multiple sources. --do ncr am 03:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I've been dealing with the editor for over a year. They didn't have any resources a year ago about the person or the order except the person's book. They still don't have any. Put it into draft space, but it doesn't meet article criteria. Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? I believe you, but there is no Talk page and so no record of any discussion about it. I see this article was created 22 February 2016, perhaps it is a new version of something created a year ago that was deleted? Also I see a note by you in editor's Talk page history a year ago, but no mention of this topic. A link to past discussion would help here. --do ncr am 02:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found and linked to prior discussion below. I changed my view to "delete" as there seem to be no acceptable-for-Wikipedia sources available to say anything at all about the nun or the order. It even is remotely possible that the order does not exist, that if one of us goes to its supposed location in Mexico that we would find there is nothing there. Assuming there really was such a nun and order, it will be frustrating for the contributor to hear, but there's not even enough evidence available to rule out the possibility that this is an elaborate hoax. I googled "order of atonement Franciscan". There now exist multiple copies of the Wikipedia article on other sites. There's some detail at avalon44.tripod.com about an order being created, then disbanded, then recreated, ("Messages from heaven to the messenger in Mexico / 1969-1979 / Volume I" ), but that is at best a copy of a primary and internal source that could be used for non-controversial facts if there were already other independent sources establishing Wikipedia-notability. It is not an independent source. There is some video I cannot access at avalon44.tripod.com.

I suppose there probably is an order but we don't have usable sources to say anything about them, and it seems unlikely the contributor will provide any soon. So, oddly, it is wp:too soon for Wikipedia to cover the order and the nun; if/when she is canonized (if that what has been pending for decades?) there can be articles. A copy of the current article should be emailed to the contributor (and they or anyone else could request and get a copy anytime, too) and the article can be moved to draft space to allow them to try to develop it with sources ( but a draft will itself be deleted after a period of time...six months I think...if it is not edited. do ncr am 16:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [This is to be the one "vote" by editor startarrant] (Keep) prior discussion-- exi[s]ts mostly in the "view history" or bg's talk pages somewhere unless my replies from Jan-Feb 2015 were deleted by bg on his talk page ("over a year ago" bwhite suggested that the biographical material about the foundress of the mfPS have its own separate wiki article rather than have that information included in the wiki page on the Order she founded / and its 3 foundations in Mexico (bg also set up a "monitum" on that wiki page in Feb 2015 but no one else over the past year took issue with the page or editor); in reviewing other wiki articles I saw bg was right; bgwhite can be very helpful as he has considerable experience and spends much time with wiki but it takes a saint-load of patience to learn exactly what he is getting at especially with those of us with less wiki editing experience since his mode of operation is to delete first; all-in-all bg's ultimately constructive criticisms have always IMPROVED the content (for universal readership), references and technical functionality of the article(s); but I'm not a pro (like bg) and it is hard when you spend time doing your best to assure accuracy, factual references, first hand eye witness, and so forth -- on a person from another country/language who has only been dead since 1979. Even Mother Teresa herself (and her wiki pages) have had all sorts of problems with edit-warring, ongoing "commentary" vs. fact; so accurate quotes and autobiographical material / diaries, etc are always excellent resource materials to start with. "Show me the text." There are other internet sites on these subjects that exclude factual data, accurate quotes, and autobiographical data preferring "original work", personal interpretation, commentary.
- Technical, content and resource recommendations are VERY welcome -- I repeat that I may have disagreed initially but every criticism, when I thought it through, has IMPROVED the content -- however, it took me a year to find time to incorporate bgwhite's biography division and immediately bg posts a "delete" and then suggests (above) reincorporating the items bg deleted a year ago from the page on the Order/Foundation suggesting to me at that time that they belonged in a separate wiki page biography article!!! ??? !!! (I do appreciated bg's REDIRECT suggestion correcting my attempt to "RELAY" (ergo making a too-mini article that flagged a bot delete) as I could not remember how wiki accomplished the needed process technically) Startarrant (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous guidance to editor from editor Bgwhite (the AFD nominator) is archived at User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 41#A barnstar for you!. Ping @Bgwhite:. do ncr am 15:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- I would have thought that the founder of a religious order was notable. However this depends on how important the order is. Unfortunately neither this article, nor that on the order give any detail on that. Some orders may be quite ephemeral, dying out (or merging) when the founder retires or dies. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~(Keep)~~[duplicate] notable but small & struggling -- the point of the article is to present accurate information from 1914 to the present. The Order and its members are still under papal review and development. Such matters often take centuries where the Church is concerned. I suppose that if the Church suppresses the Order then wiki can either delete the page (!) or add a note that the Order was either finally approved, left as is, or suppressed a second time.
- Also, unlike Blessed Mother Teresa (the editor also knew and worked with Bl Mother Teresa) Mother Maria Concepcion is not even a candidate for Canonization at this time (Mother Maria Concepction died in 1979 while Blessed Mother Teresa died in 2005 and may be canonized in 2016. They were born within 4 years of each other).
  - The Church is very slow in cases where (like St Teresa of Avila; St Joan of Arc) the person has "visions" or "locutions" with Christ or other canonized Saints. Bl Mother Teresa kept absolute silence on any such matters which were extremely rare and only revealed by her spiritual directors long after Bl Mother Teresa's death. That was not the case with this Mexican woman who had exceptional supernatural conversations, formation and direction from her childhood. Add to it the Mexican Masonic relationship in her own family during a violent anti-Church political era in Mexico and the Church is still clearly taking the very long view of this notable matter. The point is NOT to have an edit war. Just the facts. Startarrant (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is that relevant? Joan of Arc died in 1431 and was canonised in 1920! It sometimes takes a long time for the RC Church to recognise its saints. And some have, let's say, better publicity machines than others... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~: Updated: Delete Both Apparently self-published autobiography is not a reliable source. I've been unable to find any independent sources about this group. It's associated with the SSPX, so it's not exactly "still under papal review and development."--Jahaza (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [~~Keep~~] wiki article is objective and references facts while webpages belonging to specific groups avoid certain facts (historic and other). The wiki article indicates the founder/foundress had no association with the SSpx or any other marginal groups rejecting papal authority, and the wiki article and autobiography (referenced) indicate why her autobiography, the primitive rule of St Francis of Assisi, her correspondence, the Spanish/English magazine Estrella that she edited and which had worldwide readership/subscriptions, etc are never referenced by SSpx groups: as for example -- the 5th Vow of Obedience to the Pope, papal approval required, relationship with / visits to Pope Paul VI, the focus on Atonement to end schisms within the Church, accepting dissolution by a Mexican bishop rather than allowing the Order to deviate from what Christ had specifically defined/dictated to her, etc). The wiki article states that since the death of the founder/foundress "Secular institutes (some in union with the Holy See but others not) have developed." Startarrant (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your "Keep" here to "Comment". "Vote" just once but comment freely. Is there no newspaper mention of this person ever? Do you not have any news clippings? Old ones pre-Internet are okay. If not, perhaps you could explain please. If this is all a secret to the public except for one book that is not widely available, then maybe there is no need and no possibility for an encyclopedia article. --do ncr am 15:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She founded a religious order. I think that's enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp:, the problem with that argument is that she attempted to found a religious order (strictly speaking congregation or institute, not order[110], but it hasn't been established, but merely recognized as what were then called Pious Unions and since 1983 Associations of the faithful. Establishing an actual religious congregation might make one notable, especially if it was of pontifical rite, but establishing an association of the faithful is unlikely to do so. Furthermore, we still have no independent sources for verifiability of the woman or her "order".--Jahaza (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AFD was just relisted. I would grab the opportunity to formally add the order's article to the AFD, but it was not the nominator's original intention to delete it, and it is late and it would be a bit of a bother to update all the notices. However there has been some substantial discussion since some "votes" and now participants could also comment regarding the other article. It may be too late for a consensus to emerge to do anything about the order article, but perhaps some comments will show whether a separate AFD for it is warranted? Anyhow I suggest participants could return and confirm or change their initial vote, plus comment/vote on the order article. Pinging all participants: @Bgwhite, Jahaza, Necrothesp, Peterkingiron, and Startarrant:. Ideally, "Votes" would be to: "Keep both", "Delete nun page but Keep order page", or "Delete both". --do ncr am 21:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both article on Mother Maria into the religious order. Her article currently lacks independent, reliable sources to prove notability for its own article. I was inclined to suggest merging Mother Maria into the article on the pious union, but there are not any independent reliable sources supporting that article either.-- danntm ^T _C 02:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles, important notable religious topics , likely to be localised offline RS rather than internet spam. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles. Although they may be notable, there aren't enough reliable, independent sources in the article, or on the internet to prove their notability, or to establish a better article. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is based on appearances in reliable and independent sources. In the case of this particular nun and her order, there really isn't enough that's been brought to the table to demonstrate that she meets the criteria. The article can be undeleted easily enough if someone can actually find some of the offline sources that the "Keep" votes here are cheerfully asserting should exist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Blancarte, Roberto (2012). Historia de la iglesia católica en México (1929-1982) [History of the Catholic Church in Mexico (1929-1982)] (in Spanish). Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica. p. 400. ISBN 6071612012. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The book notes:
  
  Por el contrario, en la vecina diócesis de Tacámbaro, desde principios de la década de los años setenta, comenzó a adquirir renombre un culto popular alrededor de unas supuestas apariciones en el poblado de Puruarán. Al parecer, en el origen del desarrollo de este culto se encuentra mezclada la participación de una antigua religiosa llamada María Concepción Zúñiga o Mary Conzuló. Proveniente de Zamora, donde había tenido una casa de religiosas, en 1964 llegó a Chilapa y pidió formar una pía unión en compañía de otras mujeres. Allí, con el apoyo del obispo local, de reconocida filiación conservadora, comenzó a editar una revista titulada Estrella.[161] Posteriormente, en 1968, abandonaría la diócesis para establecerse con sus "Mínimas Franciscanas del Perpetuo Socorro" en la Villa de Guadalupe. Ya desde 1971 la mencionada revista había llamado la atención de la curia del arzobispado, pues la señorita María Concepción Zúñiga (Mary Conzuló) difundía unos "Mensajes de Jesucristo" que según ella recibía del mismo Jesucristo. El arzobispo primado, cardenal Miguel Darío Miranda, le prohibió publicar la revista y se negó a aceptarla a ella y a su "Obra" en el arzobispado de México.[162] Seguaramente debido a las anteriores presiones, después de algunos años decidió trasladarse a Puruarán. Allí, alrededor de un culto reciente relativo a unas supuestas apariciones de la Virgen en una ermita, Mary Conzuló su posición de manera notable, gracias al apoyo del párroco integrista del lugar, Nabor Cárdenas. Dichas apariciones fueron tempranamente declaradas falsas por el obispo del Tacámbaro, José Abraham Martínez, las que describió como "fruto de mentes que padecen alucinaciones y anhelos de cosas sobrenaturales".[163] Además, el obispo declaró que el principal propagador de este engaño era el párroco del lugar, a quien se le había amonestado en repetidas veces: [quote]
  Here is the translation from Google Translate:
  By contrast, in the neighboring diocese of Tacambaro, since the early seventies, he began to gain kudos as a popular cult around some alleged apparitions in the town of Puruarán. Apparently the origin of the development of this cult is mixed participation of an ancient religious called Maria Concepcion Zuniga or Mary Conzuló. From Zamora, where he had a nunnery in 1964 he reached Chilapa and asked to form a pious union in the company of other women. There, with the support of the local bishop, recognized conservative affiliation, he began editing a magazine called Star . [161] Later in 1968, would leave the diocese to settle down with his "Franciscan Minimum of Perpetual Help" in the Villa de Guadalupe. Since 1971 that magazine had called the attention of the curia of the archbishopric, as Miss Maria Concepcion Zuniga (Mary Conzuló) spread about "Messages of Jesus Christ" which she received from Jesus Christ himself. The archbishop, Cardinal Miguel Dario Miranda, forbade him to publish the magazine and refused to accept her and her "work" in the archbishopric of Mexico. [162] Seguaramente due to the above pressures, after some years decided to move to Puruarán . There, about a recent cult relating to the alleged apparitions of the Virgin in a chapel, Mary Conzuló its position significantly, with the support of fundamentalist parish priest, Nabor Cardenas. Such occurrences were earlier declared are false by the bishop of Tacambaro, José Abraham Martinez, which he described as "fruit of minds suffering from hallucinations and dreams of supernatural things." [163] In addition, the bishop declared that the principal propagator of this deception was the parish priest, who had cautioned him repeatedly:
  [quote]
2. Laycock, Joseph P. (2014). The Seer of Bayside: Veronica Lueken and the Struggle to Define Catholicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 109. ISBN 0199379661. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The book notes:
  
  The Paul VI Conspiracy Theory
  Today, a Google search for the words "Paul VI" and "impostor" reveals dozens of websites, many of them created by Baysider groups, which claim that the true Paul VI was regularly drugged by communists, Freemasons, Satanists, or other conspirators and replaced by an impostor created by means of plastic surgery. Some conspiracy theorists support this claim with photographs from different points in Paul VI's career and sonograms comparing the voice of Paul VI with that of the alleged impostor. To skeptics, this evidence is not compelling and the pope simply appears to be aging over time. For believers, the merit of this theory is not really derived from empirical evidence but a network of Marian seers all of whom have received revelations of a papal impostor.
  The original provenance of the theory is unknown and it is impossible to say if it began with a single seer and was borrowed by others, or if multiple seers arrived at this claim independently. The earliest iteration of this theory I have found comes from a Mexican nun named Maria Concepcion Zuniga Lopez. Lopez received messages from heaven that were published and attributed to her pseudonym "Portavoz." On January 21, 1970, Portavoz delivered a message from Jesus announcing, "Paul VI suffers! Do not leave him alone in his prison. Go in search of him, take him to a safe place where he can speak freely." In 1975, Clemente Dominguez Gomez, a seer in Palmar de Troy, Spain, declared that the man claiming to be Paul VI was an impostor and that the true pope was imprisoned. A few months later Lueken outlined a similar conspiracy theory in a locution given before her followers. ...
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow María Concepción Zúñiga López to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give people time to evaluate the sources found by Cunard -- RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 14 March 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NAVEX Global

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

There's no evidence of notability in the article or references, this is all one big ad. Nothing there establishes notability, certainly not the only 3 independent sources, local newspapers/companies. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 00:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company worth 1/2 $ billion, important in Oregon and world economy, with sources. Take complaints about style of writing to the Talk page. --do ncr am 03:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A half billion is barely anything in terms of company worth, no evidence of importance in the "world economy", and this article is written like an ad and doesn't give any truly unique or encyclopedic information establishing notability. This is very relevant here. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 04:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as whatever there may be here, my searches found nothing better and the current article is still questionable. Nothing else convincing for solid independent notability of an improvable article. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though I did find one additional reference--an interview in a WSJ blog: [111]. But we really ought to decide these by size of company as an option to the GNG, because, frankly, all it would take to include even insignificant companies is a few of us switching to argue that such interviews and purely financial coverage are sufficiently RSs for notable . Which statistic and what value we pick might be an issue, (eg they have only $200 million revenue, but they were sold for $500 million) but we could have a fuzzy zone. Just for example, for US non-financial companies such as this , No for <$100 million revenue, maybe for 100-500, yes for >500. We'd still have to decide the maybe, such as this firm would be,, but at least it would take care of the two ends of the spectrum. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 29 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 18:17, 2 March 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 Move to Wikipedia space.. I assume the "delete" people don't object? Else it can still be nominated for MfD. Sandstein 08:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiyear ranking of most viewed Wikipedia pages

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

This doesn't belong in articles space. It either belongs in Wikipedia space or tools, where most of the links in the See also section comes from. Other lists, such as number of edits by Wikipedians, articles with most references and other Wikipedia stats, live in Wikipedia space. Prod was removed with reason given on the talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: very "meta", not a topic covered by any cited reliable sources outside of Wikipedia itself yet. Maybe one day it will be, but that day does not appear to be now. LjL (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too early to have an article about the topic. Also lacks coverage outside Wikipedia to establish notability.Maharayamui (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently questionable for a better solid article, can be restarted when better if needed. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia namespace, I do not see any perspectives in the article namespace--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP: space per WP:ASR. ansh 666 04:59, 3 March 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.

[1] "Can Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash Swing the Election?". Vice.

[2] "How Bernie Sanders became the lord of 'dank memes'". Washington Post.

[3] "Bernie Sanders is Going to Win (Because of the Internet)". Daily Kos.

[4] "National Burger Day". Telegraph.

[5] "National Burger Day". The Sun.

[6] "National Burger Day". Timeout.

[7] "National Burger Day". Perez Hilton.

[8] "McWhopper Campaign on National Burger Day". Metro.

[9] "Byron Burger".

[10] "Gourmet Burger Kitchen".

[11] "Shake Shack".

[12] "national+burger+day" "Search Results". Google.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technological Monopoly Capitalism}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane's Chess Information Database}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin words with English derivatives}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin words with English derivatives}} --><!--Relisted-->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Keshavraj Vidyalaya, Latur}} --><!--Relisted-->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strange Cousins at the Prince}} --><!--Relisted-->