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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:27, 1 May 2016

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 April	25 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design to Renourish: Sustainable Graphic Design in Practice

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

Unreferenced article on a non-notable book. Article created by one of the authors, who contested the prod without explanation or improvement. Author also created an autobio article. --Finngall ^talk 23:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of independent, non-trivial coverage that I can see, seems to fail WP:BK - Basement12 (T.C) 22:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A completely promotional article. The article has no sources that support notability. The book isn't even published yet. It's due out in December 2016. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, nothing likely to convince the necessary independent notability, certainly the listed sources are not enough to support this article by itself. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 1 May 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 as CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exitmusic

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

This appears to be a non-notable musical group. Googling them only turned up self-published sources (Facebook, Soundcloud) and an album on Amazon with 17 reviews. Pianoman320 (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kyle1278 (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyvio of https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/exitmusic/id266721214 Pburka (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, I had a hunch it was copied from somewhere. Pianoman320 (talk) 17:13, 28 April 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. No evidence of potential for notability at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Go Park Resort

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

Not yet opened or built theme park Jac16888 ^Talk 22:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unsourced and falls under WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggesting the necessary notability improvements, at least basically. SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 2 May 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 Mixed. Looks like bundling didn't work out here, so I'm closing no consensus with leave to renominate individually, save for Katie Hultin, for whom I believe there's a rough consensus to keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Sittauer

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

Article about a female footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league nor has received any significant coverage. So therefore she fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. – Michael (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All bar Katie Hultin - none of these others pass WP:GNG and none pass WP:NFOOTBALL. A couple of these may possibly play for the national team in the future, but that is a WP:CRYSTAL argument and not a reason for keeping. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; can be created when/if they meet either. Giant Snowman 15:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of article creation, these women were in the highest tier of women's soccer in the United States. With the new professional league (National Women's Soccer League) starting in a few months, I think you will find some of them in the new league. As an example, see talk page for Julia Roberts (American soccer) for previous delete attempt and subsequent reconsideration. Women's soccer does not get the same exposure in the media that men do and often times male wikipedia contributors seem to jump at the chance to delete articles about women players when I'm sure there are plenty of other spammy articles ready for deletion. Why is this? Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is highly offensive. If you look at my contributions alone, you will see numerous contributions to male footballer AfDs... Also, your argument here fails WP:CRYSTAL. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hultin, Elston, Roberts Also, Katie Hultin played in Women's Professional Soccer. The article needs fleshing out, yes, but deletion? Seems she clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Of the list, Katie Hultin, Lindsay Elston, and Julia Roberts (American soccer) pass WP:GNG, especially considering the context of low media coverage for women's soccer players. Hmlarson (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify where the previous discussion is for Julia Roberts (American soccer) that you alluded to? C 679 23:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bottom of Talk:Julia Roberts (American soccer). See also User talk:Hmlarson/Archive/1#Message re player articles submitted via AfC Hmlarson (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a deletion attempt, just a reviewer's comments when they accepted the article at AfC. The other link is useful for consideration here, thanks for that. C 679 00:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through all of these articles and none of them appeared to meet GNG or NFOOTBALL as they stood - normally, I would search for more sources, but these are all very short, stubby articles with tonnes of information missing, and no real claims of importance made, a lot of them sharing similar flaws. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hultin who played in a "fully professional league". The nominator of this job lot obviously doesn't bother with WP:BEFORE. Delete/userfy the others until they play in the new NWSL. 176.253.26.24 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered my vote, must've been asleep when I went through these, as Hultin has played a pro game. As to the these others that supposedly pass GNG, all I see is a bunch of routine stuff, reports from the teams they've played for themselves, or local sources. In fact, I'm stunned that Julia Roberts was accepted in the AfC, because the comment left by the guy who accepted it is a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL! There is actually very little evidence that Hultin did play a pro game, especially as the article creator did not bother to actually show that she did, either in prose, or in the infobox, or even with sources - so unless someone finds a source that says she did, I'll revert my vote to Delete All again, because I couldn't find a source anywhere. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Roberts - She gets a bit more publicity than the typical soccer prospect, but part of it is due to her non-unique name. She wasn't selected in the NWSL draft, which might be a little surprising but also shows she's not a sure-fire NWSL player. My hunch is that she makes it eventually, but that only merits a userfy, not keeping her at the moment. Bdure (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 11:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes football notability as a fully professional league and the top of its kind in the country. That's the WPS. The games were televised. (I know. I watched a fair bit.) They were reported on air by ESPN. Beyond that, Annie Sittauer recieved coverage as a high school player and a university player. Most of the women who make it to this level will have similar media coverage aiding in notability. --LauraHale (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close as no consensus – it appears these articles should be considered separately if any of them are going to be deleted. I certainly can not vote delete all or keep all based on the discussion above. C679 11:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Cloudz679, closing this as no consensus and allow to renominate separately if wanted, sounds like the best option. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2013 (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. There is no clear consensus on this article which has been re-listed three times and has been at AfD for over a month. It has failed to achieve clearer consensus after each such re-list so I am closing this as no consensus. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 23:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sallar Deylami

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :The article satisfy both of above criterion. according to WP:GNG resources does not need to be the main topic of the source material while all resources meet this condition. Also One of the criterion of natability -as you know definitly-Besided the multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability , also refers to WP:ANYBIO,WP:AUTHOR.m,sharaf (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently an important Shia Islamic jurist, but needs more research and better references.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I urge the article creator to read WP:MOSAR and WP:MOS-PE when deciding on a transliteration from Arabic-script languages. Also, because Arabic is the lingua franca of the (medieval) Islamic world, an Arabic-based name is often the preferred —and more commonly used— variant in English sources. In this case, try Sallār al-Daylamī, or the basic transcription Sallar al-Daylami (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The recording of the name is both as persian-as the name of article- and also as arabic. I choose recording as persian because he was a persian jurist. I think this is just dependence of selection. m,sharaf (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and then Draft if needed as I was mixed between Keeping, but that's frankly only if this can actually be improved, and then Draft, which may allow for better familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft. Article subject is notable, but article needs a lot of improvements, and doing that is going to be difficult, because I think this is one of those subjects on which the available sources in English are going to be relatively poor – I'm sure there are many more sources in Arabic and Persian. (I can find reliable English sources that mention him, but none that discuss him in detail.) Persian Wikipedia doesn't appear to have an article on him. @Mehdi ghaed: since I take it you are a Persian speaker, maybe it would be a good idea to work on a Persian Wikipedia article first, using Persian language sources? If the Persian article becomes good enough, we could always try to get someone to translate it to English. Also, WikiShia has a decent if stubby article on him, but unfortunately no references, and I don't think we can use the WikiShia article since as far as I am aware it isn't a reliable source. SJK (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wrong, there is a Persian Wikipedia article: سلار دیلمی. I can't read Persian, but from Google translate it looks like it is better quality than this article. Maybe a good way forward would be to improve the English article by translating the Persian one. Still, unless someone with the necessary abilities steps forward to do it, I think sending it to draft until that time is the best option. SJK (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SJK: I think you've got the wrong page. فارسی is about the Persian language; you probably wanted to link سلار دیلمی. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes. I had the right article in mind, I just copy/pasted the wrong string. Farsi all looks the same to me, so easy kind of mistake for me to make. I corrected my comment. SJK (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Needs a lot more copyediting before this becomes mainspace-worthy. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there's a consensus that the subject is notable, then I don't see grounds for deleting or draftifying it. Removing it from mainspace deprives us of opportunities for other editors to collaboratively improve the article. -- IamNotU (talk) 20:38, 24 May 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Crazenovski

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

No indication that this individual (or indeed anyone with the name Crazenovski) ever existed in reality. Appears to be a character in a 2010 BBC production, A Passionate Woman. It's unclear whether the page is an intentional hoax or (perhaps more likely) a misinterpretation of the drama's story as factual, but no references can be found to support the article's claims. Calamondin12 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional character, falsely presented as if the person actually lived. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a non-notable fictional character. Even if he were real he wouldn't be notable, though his fictional wife may stand a chance - Basement12 (T.C) 22:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bio of fictional character portraying them as factual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only a subject of 1 TV series, nothing else for any applicable notability such as WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 1 May 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 as although still about a day early, there's a clear consensus to keep and I see no likeliness of it changing with another week (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krista Franklin

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

WP:BLP of a writer and artist, which asserts her existence but fails to demonstrate or reliably source her notability under either WP:AUTHOR or WP:ARTIST. This is based entirely on primary sources and WP:ROUTINE event listings, with no indication of reliable source coverage shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which creative professionals are entitled to have articles just because they exist -- real reliable source coverage, supporting a proper claim of notability, must be present for her to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As Bearcat says, all sources are either interviews, stock biographies or event listings.Please come back in five or ten years, with reputable sources. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, following the flurry of truly wishy-washy references added by some editors. To update my "ten years" comment, which I made when I thought the poet was actualy much earlier in their career... why is it so hard to find references stronger than student newspapers, event announcements for a poet who has been publishing for 17 years or more? After 17 years there should be a LOT of in-depth reviews and critical mentions in siginificant sources, and they should be easy to find. This article has become a classic example of how to make someone notable enough through forensic reference excavation and archaeology. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi @Bearcat: and @HappyValleyEditor: I’ve rewritten the lead for this article and was hoping either one of you could answer as to why one of the most celebrated, and published, modern day African-American female poets has her article nominated for deletion? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Picomtn:I rewrote your rewrite, which was really just puffing things up by an appeal to authority (The Poetry Foundation say so, so she must be notable). Published secondary sources are weak, which is why I voted to delete. In essence, not enough people are writing about her. To wit, the seciton you added with publications is referenced by primary sources (the publishers) rather than independent third-party book reviews, critical essays or media mentions. Have a look at WP:RS.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to assert that a person is "one of the most celebrated, and published, modern day African-American female poets" — reliable source coverage in media has to demonstrate the truth of the assertion, and nobody ever gets an exemption from having to be properly sourced just because the article (or an AFD discussion about it) makes unsubstantiated assertions of notability. Anybody can claim absolutely anything about an article topic — I could easily start an article about myself which claimed that I'd won the Nobel Prize, for example — so it's not the claim itself, but the quality of sourcing that's present to support the claim, that determines whether an article is keepable or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe it was very constructive to delete the new lead I worked very hard to create and thoroughly referenced. With so many references being available to prove the notability of this African-American female artist, only some of which I included, anyone taking part in this discussion will now not have these references available to see for themselves. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note After the deletion of the lead I rewrote this is what it says now: Krista Franklin is a poet and visual artist with no references being citied. In the interest of fairness though, the rewrite that I did using reliable sources can be viewed here. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, solidly. The Poetry Foundation profile is short but a perfectly good source. It is perhaps a summary drawing on multiple good longer other sources that exist. There are 5 published interviews of her (linked from that section of her website). The long interview dated June 2010 at examiner.com (The Examiner?) establishes her notability on its own. There is significant other press about her (see links from that section). The only problem with the article is that it is not yet developed far enough, it should describe her visual art work, etc. --do ncr am 22:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion of this article would remove all contribution to mainspace by the article's creator, a new editor who created this apparently at an Arts and Feminism Wikipedia meetup, from a list of suggested articles needed. The prod 6 minutes later appears unfortunate in context: it may have stopped further development at that event and turned off a potential contributor. Also it appears wp:before was not performed. And sarcasm like "come back in 10 years" is rude, does not belong here, makes me feel a bit ashamed. I have commented elsewhere that guidelines for AFD should be changed to take new contributor factor into consideration and reduce likelihood of this kind of stuff happening; I expect to use this case as an example in future discussion.--do ncr am 22:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aside from the poetry foundation profile (which seems to me like it should count towards her notability), there is also this, this, this (all reports on different works by her in local papers); this interview (JSTOR Daily). More mentions here and here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Bearcat did a fine and proper job of nominating this. As to my "come back in five or ten years" comment, artistic careers can take multiple decades to fully develop. Who created the article is irrelevant. The refs Caeciliusinhorto has come up with are only slightly better than the ones I saw in my own search but they're pretty weak overall: an unreliable interview, a student newspaper, a paragraph in this one, another interview] (which fails the independent source test), an event announcement and finally another student newspaper. There is frequent mention of interviews in the comments above. Interviews are not independent sources-- they are a direct interaction with the article subject. The Poetry Foundation ref is decent, but it's not a critical review, it's a republished bio with some accolades. Organizations get these bios from the artists- they phone them up or email and say "send us your bio so we can publish it." Finally, there's nothing to be ashamed about here. This is just a plain old AfD that is examining the notability of a subject for a Wikipedia article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re. the Poetry Foundation bio: there is nothing in GNG which says that notability must be in the form of critical reviews. I am also wary of dismissing a bio published in an independent source as coming from the subject with no evidence beyond "this is the sort of thing these sorts of organisations do". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have taken the time to add the mentioned sources by Caeciliusinhorto (thanks) as references to the article including, [1], [2], [3],[4] and [5]. Many of the references include full page spreads, not just mere mentions. I also found several other new references in reliable sources. Such as, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]. The some 17-18 references contained in the article as of now have significant coverage across multiple reliable sources WP:RS, and therefore this article subject meets WP:GNG easily, and has crossed the threshold of notability. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your list there, you repeated three links twice. Softlavender (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to pass WP:GNG. Regardless of what types of sources they are, they are sufficient to provide an encyclopedic biography.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can understand why this was nominated in the state it was in at that time: [12]. I was fairly dubious about it until just now. I've now noticed enough significant coverage and notability to convince me that she passes GNG. The sad fact of the matter is that black artists, especially black female artists, especially black female underground artists, do not have the same kind of corporate-owned media coverage that other more "visible" artists do. Especially when they work in two completely different fields: i.e., art and poetry, which divides the focus of visibility. That's why one has to scrounge around a bit more to get sources and assess notability. But I am convinced by now that she passes. Softlavender (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that the HappyValleyEditor question as to why is it so hard to find references...for a poet who has been publishing for 17 years or more? was legitimatly answered by Softlavender who correctly pointed out that American American (especially) female artists do not have the same kind of corporate-owned media coverage that other more visible artists do. Going forward though, and in the hope that this AfD can provide a sort of framework for this issue, what exact WP guidelines/polices/etc. should editors use in this type of evaluation? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As to the comment about female poets, Picomtn and Softlavender, the sections above where you moan about opportunitees for certain groups are large exaggerations. Poets, publishers of poetry and the poetry consuming public are in geenral the most erudite, lef-leaning, politically correct non-discriminating group around. Also, we are not taking about finding references for a 19th centruy powet here-- we are talking abotu the last fiteen years. Let's remeber that those who are in the literature-promotion business are perhaps the MOST left wing and MOST sensitive to discrimination of all the professions. The reality is that this person is just not that notable. The discrimination claim is hyperbolic. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with political spectrum. This is about corporate-owned media. If you believe poets and black female artists are well-represented in corporate-owned media, then I simply disagree with you. Softlavender (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Softlavender and Picomtn, women are still poorly represented in media as this study shows. While women authors made slight gains, for example, overall, coverage still lags behind coverage of men (see page 95). HappyValleyEditor, you can't assume that poets are "left leaning" or even unbiased in their selections. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references now included in the improved and expanded article are sufficient to establish notability. I find the theorizing and hypothesizing in this debate to be unproductive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Softlavender. I'll see if I can add any other references from the databases, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl, late yesterday I added a couple of references to the bottom of the Talk page that haven't been used yet. Softlavender (talk) 00:03, 28 April 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 WP:SNOW deleted by User:Orangemike. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 03:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Weaver (American Revolutionary)

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

This person seems to me to fail the Wikipedia notability guidelines for people/bios, i.e. WP:PEOPLE. He did not serve in any great capacity in the revolution (he wasn't an officer), he didn't serve in any state or federal government capacity, and he is not notable. If we built articles for every American ancestor or soldier mentioned in a book, then the notion of "notability" lacks any real purpose. I'm a fan of "Wikipedia isn't paper," but Wikipedia is not one big family tree either (like, say WikiTree). I'd love to have a page on Wikipedia for my Revolutionary ancestor Paschal Tucker, but he really didn't do anything. This article is never going to be more than a stub, most of the article is not about the subject explicitly, the sources are a bit iffy, and the person is just not notable. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He served as a private and was present at one battle. He later got married. In no sense do those bare bones facts establish notability, and the rest of the article is about his family tree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I heartily support genealogical research, but it doesn't necessarily belong on Wikipedia; this is a good example. He fought as a soldier, got married, had a family with some history, etc. However, I'm not convinced at all of his actual notability. GAB^Hello! 22:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really don't have anything more to add. This is basically not very good genealogical research with no attempt to show notability. I removed some off-topic original research earlier. I see the editor created a similar article which was speedy deleted. Hm, perhaps I should look at my family tree again. I know there are articles here on a couple of entries in my family tree. :-) Doug Weller talk 16:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. If he had notable descendants, then I would change my mind. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 25 April 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Political Science Review

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources (tagged for sources since 5 years). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well expressed nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable by standards of WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Also fails WP:OR.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is one of only two journals in the world dealing with this topic. It is not indexed because it is Open Access — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mi9cal (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of two is not something that meets any of the criteria mentioned in WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, please base your arguments on policy/guideliens or they are bound to be ignored. And being OA doesn't mean that a journal cannot get indexed in Scopus or the (Social) Science Citation Index, many OA journals are (such as PLOS ONE, or the BioMed Central journals). --Randykitty (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete as there's nothing at least for at least solid independent notability and WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 1 May 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 as this is clear enough consensus to at least close a day early (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lambu

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The prod tag was removed by the creator Magipur. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good sources. very notable film. Magipur (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi GeoffreyT2000 I’ve rewritten the lead of this article but was wondering by what criteria a film starring one of India’s most popular actresses, and whose music was composed by an award winning composer, was nominated for deletion? I’m not saying you were wrong for doing so, I just think it would be helpful for this discussion to know this reason. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article has been linked to the filmography sections of both Suraiya and O. P. Nayyar articles where this movie was already referenced. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Picomtn: I have WP:PRODed this article but since that was removed, I have sent it to AfD instead. The article was tagged for notability by Wgolf with this edit. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GeoffreyT2000: Again please, I'm still not sure why you exactly nominated this article for deletion, and without knowing that I have no idea what kind of improvements you want to see have done to this article. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Film has four solid, notable, wikilinked actors, has three solid sources, a noted screenwriter, and a theme song that has legs into the 21st century. Nominating this film twice without following our deletion polices is a policy violation. Actually 2: WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. Yes, GeoffreyT2000, those are both policies. Follow the links, scroll up, then scroll back down and read them. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three solid reliable sources is enough to meet WP:GNG. Seems notable enough for an article. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 23:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking at the sources, the subject is surely notable. A Google search, especially for books, brings up many other credible sources to support this. But this article needs to use more sources, as inline citations, and copyediting. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've now added 4 additional book references to this article and was able to document the solo sung in this movie by Lata Mangeshkar too. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film is notable and the article is now well-referenced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:17, 30 April 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 InnerSPACE. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceNews (television show)

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

Article is barely a stub and has had the ref and notable tags since 2009. A minor news segment on a Canadian network that ended over 10 years ago. Unlikely article will/can ever be expanded due to lack of coverage. Note that most hits are to SpaceNews, a current print/web magazine. MB (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged it into InnerSPACE, its successor. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the redirect has been removed please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Please note guidelines under WP:EDITATAFD. Thank You Kyle1278 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as because this current article itself is still questionable for WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG, there's nothing else to suggest keeping this by itself, best connected to its successor likely. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Zanimum CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:26, 2 May 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D Grammar School

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

English sources of any kind are hard to find, and I can not verify that this should be an "independently accredited degree-awarding institution". Appears to be non-notable. As this was deleted as an expired prod in March (created by the same editor), I bring it here. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Article makes no claim to notability. Have done a google search and unable to find any reliable secondary sources (let alone two). If two do exist and the article is expanded will reconsider my view. -- Shudde ^talk 17:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Ditto on what @Shudde: said. Also, it looks like the author posted it like a listing on a directory. KgosarMyth (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as none of this suggests the necessary schools notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this school meets WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:29, 26 April 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. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Cassini

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2008. I believe that this person is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Although he may be a campaigner for changes to road design and has been quoted in several news outlets in recent years, I cannot see from this article and other searches why is views are especially notable as he does not appear to be a traffic planner or had direct influence on shared spaces. As an aside, much of this article appears to have been written by Martin Cassini (as User:Seeplain), but that is not why I'm proposed deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaweed (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator wants the "views" of the topic to be "especially notable", which is a not a policy-based notability argument. The first AfD the nominator didn't get a single editor to support his/her position. I found the references needed to satisfy WP:GNG using the first page of searching using WP:BEFORE at Google news (BBC News, The Guardian, Daily Mail). These references postdate the previous AfD, so longevity of attention to the topic over time is also shown at Google news. Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article itself is sourced and detailed but none of it is actually suggesting the necessary solid independent notability and, FWIW, 2008 is certainly enough time to suggest a new AfD as Wikipedia and articles have certainly changed since then. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, although perhaps on a weaker basis per sources that I am presently able to access online. Here are some sources that provide significant coverage about the subject: [13], [14], [15], [16] (shorter article), [17]. The last source is largely about a court appearance for a speeding ticket, though; not primarily about the subjects works, life, etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am the nominator for the first AfD. I reviewed the resources currently listed in the article and do not find them to meet WP:BASIC. I consider coverage of Cassini in the referenced secondary sources to be trivial. I did search and could not additional secondary sources that would meet notability. I do not consider Cassini as meeting WP:CREATIVE for his work in the field of transport. He is a public advocate for shared space; Hans Monderman and Ben Hamilton-Baillie meet this criteria for the subject that Cassini espouses. Although not a guideline for determining deletion or notability, the article reads more as an editorial in support of shared space than a biography and the article has been substantially self-edited by Cassini to read this way. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that the current article is still questionable for solidity and contains nothing satisfying for a better acceptable BLP article. With its current state, it's still best, at least, moving to Draft where better improvements can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Cassini is a notable journalist, broadcaster and campaigner in the UK. The article does need some work to bring it up to scratch. -- de Facto (talk). 20:16, 17 May 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. After two consecutive relists, there has been no further discussion and having a third relist wouldn't have any effect in my opinion: closing this as no consensus. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ROMES (band)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a band who only just released their debut EP two weeks ago, and who have not yet passed WP:NMUSIC for anything nor garnered enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Our notability criteria for bands do not include "a famous musician tweeted about them", performing on a podcast does not satisfy the live performance criteria (especially if the only source for that performance is the podcasters' own self-published website about their own podcast, rather than media coverage of the performance), and the referencing here is 60 per cent primary sources and 40 per cent blurbs that aren't substantive enough to carry GNG if they're the best you can do for RS. Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which a band is entitled to have an article as soon as they can be verified as existing; it's an encyclopedia, on which certain standards of notability and sourceability have to be met for a band to earn an article. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a stronger notability claim and better sourcing can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band should meet the WP:NMUSIC guidelines as (1) Their music was licensed by TNT for a national broadcast in the U.S; (2) One of their EP songs has been added to rotation on CBC radio. Also, there are multiple references in this article from notable published sources including The Guardian and Vice Magazine. unsigned comment added by Jord.sheehy (talk • contribs) 22:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Track licensing for a television program counts toward notability if it can be reliably sourced to media coverage — it does not count toward notability if you have to depend on a Facebook post to "source" it, as social media posts are never valid or reliable sourcing for Wikipedia content. Similarly, the claim that they were playlisted by Sonica is not referenced to any media coverage which verifies that they were playlisted by Sonica; it's "referenced" to the "songs played within the last week" scroll on a standalone non-networked radio station that is not Sonica, and thus fails to even verify the claim being sourced to it. (2) As I already noted in the original nomination statement, both the Guardian and Vice references are blurbs, which are not substantive enough to carry a band over NMUSIC or GNG if they're the best you can do for sourcing.

NMUSIC cannot be passed by just asserting passage of an NMUSIC criterion — the quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to verify and support the accuracy of the claim is what determines whether the band gets over NMUSIC or not. And exactly none of the sourcing here is good enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my searches come up with nothing, and note that User:Jord.sheehy created this article. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply found nothing better and the current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or at least moved to draft.~~ The band has already received decent coverage from The Guardian, Vice, and Allmusic. More coverage is almost certain to follow. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Actually, it seems this is basically the same band as Nightbox, a clearly notable band. At worst it should be merged there. --Michig (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian and Vice links you provided there are the same two references I already addressed above: they're blurbs, which are not substantive enough to carry GNG if they're the best you can do for sourcing. Not because of where they are, but because of how long they aren't. Bearcat (talk) 02:48, 11 May 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 // 06:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:58, 12 May 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Rising Stars

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

The name Kashmir Rising Stars is not mentioned is any of the sources and it is not confirmed that it will be added in the PSL. Musa Talk 16:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 16:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 16:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 16:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - a pure fiction as yet. This has been the subject of a number of fantastical attempts an insertion in one form or another at Pakistan Super League. As of now there is nothing more than speculation that a team may possibly be added to the PSL at some point, possibly even in 2017 and that the league administrator has suggested that it may be Kasmir based if it is added. Nothing more than that - and this follows on from a number of other invented PSL team articles dating back a few months. Frankly it's nothing but someone's imagination as of now. I'd suggest salting - no point doing anything to the editor as the same rubbish comes from ips. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously a newly founded group with nothing else convincing for the needed notability. Too soon, SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 1 May 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helen M. Radics

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

Has been once speedy deleted and once (by me) as a result af an AfD nomination. The article was recreated earlier this month, and I still do not see notability. Ymblanter (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The author states that the photo is taken by them meaning they are a sock of the author of two previous articles (previously warned about recreation of deleted pages). Suggest salting.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it — I came across this page on an uncategorized-articles tagging run, thought it looked iffy, and was planning to nominate it for AFD as soon as I got back from running to the store. I'm definitely not seeing any strong or credible claim to notability, as opposed to mere existence, here — "Hungarian Life Network named Helen M. Radics as their official spokesperson for "Walnut Roll" for the 2010 Christmas Season, during which she lead her Walnut Roll Team to victory in Life Network's annual battle between Walnut Roll and Poppy Seed Roll", in particular, strikes me as one of the oddest attempts at a notability claim that I've seen in at least the past few years. The number of subscribers a person has on YouTube does not count toward notability if reliable sources aren't writing about her presence on YouTube. The other notability claim here is that she appeared on CTV News, but no sources are cited for that in this version at all — however, the old version did reference it to a YouTube video which reveals that the appearance was not on a national CTV News program (which might have counted for something), but only on CTV's local newscast on CKCO-DT in Kitchener (which does not constitute a credible notability claim at all). The preponderance of ™ and ® symbols in the body text strongly suggests that the core intent was advertorial rather than encyclopedic, and this isn't actually making or sourcing a better claim of notability than the first version did, either. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody is entitled to have an article just because they can be verified as existing: it's an encyclopedia, on which an article is earned by meeting certain specific standards of notability and sourceability which have not been passed here. Speedy delete with salt. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable cookbook writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly noticeably unacceptable, nothing else, the "TM" marks are enough there and not to mention then the complete bareness of actual contextual sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 1 May 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 Widr, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (K100unique) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhant Shirsat

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

does not have any significance or notability the sources are facebook and Internet Movie Database which is for actors not politicians also he is a corporater in a small town in Maharashtra. Article was deleted earlier [18] Fitindia (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Makes no claim to notablity and no sources that passes the WP:GNG threshold. Only thing coming even close is [19] and even here he is only mentioned in passing. Looks like it was created by a single purpose account and is an orphan article as well. So not a lot pointing to the subject being notable. -- Shudde ^talk 17:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 as being created by an obvious sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/K100unique. --Finngall ^talk 13:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Kalish

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

Created by a WP:COI WP:SPA user (Ksenna19). Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, no reliable third party source to pass notability guidelines. This user should know that he does not own his own Wikipedia page (WP:OWN) Donnie Park (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Turns out he's not actually a race car driver at all, but rather a high school basketball player, and quite notable at that - lots of coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then in that case, WP:TOOSOON, in fact fewer high school basketball players are notable and in fact he is not in high school anymore. Donnie Park (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 1 May 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. The nominator has been blocked for socking since April 20. (non-admin closure) Eye snore 01:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lazaro Mangubat

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

Nothing known of person - no reference, or citations. Mary McAllen (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: reference is of little value to show notability. I would recommend a merge into Madridejos, Cebu#History, but the content already exists there, almost verbatim. Also see WP:ONEEVENT. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 10:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete few and brief references on topic. Agree with Crh23. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable person. I expanded and improved the article. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note The nominator removed all improvents of the article without any reason. See here Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 06:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your nonsense how no WP:VERIFIABILITY or WP:INTEGRITY. Blogs cannot be anything but WP:BLOGS. And you tried seem like hijacking, changing the name of the subject. Mary McAllen (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note All efforts over the last week to improve the article are removed by the nominator Mary McAllen. The version of the article I placed at the talk page (Talk:Lazaro Mangubat#Expanding) has better references compared to the article at the moment. Also the article is more in line with the WP style guidelines. Can people argue what is wrong with this version before adjusting the article again. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the user who nominated for deletion was blocked as a possible sock puppet. Eye snore 13:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SvG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would have thought that provincial governors were notable per se. It is currently a poor article, but that implies tagging it for improvement, not deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inadequate deletion rationale. Clearly there is something known about this person and there are citations. clpo13_(talk) 18:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reason for deletion is simply false, and the nom is a sock, to boot. It could be a much better article, but AFD is not cleanup. The subject appears notable, anyhow. GAB^Hello! 22:10, 24 April 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Under-16 Individual Speedway Championship

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

last AfD was no consensus but the keep arguments were far from convincing. This junior event gets no significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails WP:GNG and very little winners of the race have an article, pretty easy deletion. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The amount of red links is not a guideline for deleting or keeping the page. And it is not an easy deletion as the previous AfD did not reach consensus.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. Agree with ThePlatypusofDoom EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirict Merge prose and a list of the winners only into Australian Individual Speedway Championship. Redirect for incoming links. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply perhaps as still questionable for the needed independent notability improvements and I could've considered keeping the history with redirect but it's still questionable so delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 00:33, 2 May 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. Non-notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DamonAndJo

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

No notability, speedy delete removed. Laber□^T 22:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I removed the A7 as the creator added a claim of significance, but only reliable source is [20]. The rest are blogs, press releases, and mentions. Esquivalience ^t 01:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found more sources:
- aol.com interview
- teenvogue.com interview

Looking at WP:ENT:

They have multiple productions
210,000 subscribers (which makes them top ~10,000 in the world, not exceptional, but nearly enough to make a living)
They have made unique contributions to the field.

My gut tells me that they are borderline and it's too early. But the coverage is significant, the sources reliable (at least LA Times and TeenVogue), secondary, and independent, so it passes WP:GNG no matter what I think, so weak keep. -- RM 03:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now and wait for better thus a better notable article and therefore having confidently keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I feel a more thorough discussion may be beneficiary here. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:10, 24 April 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 Church of Light. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. C. Zain

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

Hi all,
This article was nominated for speedy deletion and I see merit in that speedy deletion request. It is currently sourced from

the Church of Light website
a book, "Volume XVI titled 'Stellar Anatomy' Copyright, 1947, Serial No. 197 Reprinted December, 1966 The Church of Light,Los Angeles, California"

Perhaps a review of the sources in previous version may be appropriate?
I note that article was created on 30 April 2006.

"because it's been here since 2006" is not a good reason to keep the article.
"because it's about an Occultist" is not a good reason to delete the article. Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not seeing a whole lot we can use as WP:RS either in the sense of books, newspaper or academic pieces. However given that this guy was around pre-internet, I think it is possible that more sources exist offline. I've seen a couple of works which have been cited which seem to discuss him (which I can't access, just to be clear) and he seems to have written a number of books and works which had a reasonable amount of influence at one time. So my instinct is to merge with Church of Light until someone is able to get to the offline sources which would be needed to show his individual notability (if those do indeed exist). JMWt (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Church of Light. I agree, there probably are sources, and this person seems notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the "Find sources -- Books" link above indicates, hundreds of books by other writers contain at least brief discussions of Zain, his church, and/or his influence on astrology and tarot. I went through the first few pages, and the most substantial such discussion that I found was this; other examples include [21][22][23][24]. A merge may be fine, but this topic is way outside my usual focus, and I hope that someone with a firmer grasp on the subject matter will have a look at these potential sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is a plausible search term so it should lead to the Church of Light article. The only mergable content is the primary sourced paragraph about the "21 courses of the Brotherhood of Light lessons", which can fit in the origins section. The other sourced content is already there. AIRcorn (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nothing actually suggesting the needed independent notability itself, seems best connected to the Church itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 1 May 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 snowball clause applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bartoli family

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

Total lack of sources for just about anything in this article (see talk) combined with some obvious hoaxes on Commons, e.g. File:NapoleonattacksVolterra.jpg which is Keith Rocco's The French Attack on Marengo leads me to believe this article is a hoax. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sourcing can be found. I just looked and found nothing. Hoax? Maybe. Regardless, the content must be demonstrated verifiable and the topic notable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete A search for sources by Sam Sailor (and by me) has found nothing except that Bartoli Family is the name of an Italian ice cream parlour here. And, this page goes into some detail in respect of the Bartoli name without including info. about this alleged family. Files at commons have been nominated for deletion. I agree it seems to be an invention. Eagleash (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't even verify that there have ever been any Dukes of Volterra, let alone that the Bartoli family were amongst them. If the title did exist, it looks like the Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana might be the place to look; I don't read Italian, though, and can't find a copy online, so I'm not the person to check. If someone could verify that the title existed, that would be a start, but that wouldn't be enough to show that the family meets the notability requirement. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the more I think about this article, the more dubious it seems to me. A town in Italy being ruled by the same Ducal family 1190-1530, and then again 1665-1797, and then again 1815-1860, all under the same name? Without the main line of the family ever ending? It seems to stretch the bounds of credibility somewhat to imagine that twice after being overthrown the same family would be able to just waltz back in and re-establish power without seemingly having any trouble whatsoever. When we combine that with the fact that the Medici's rule over Volterra for more than a century isn't mentioned in the article on the Medici, and that the Medici did not lose their power in Tuscany in 1665 as the article states... Well, there's no real reason to believe that anything in the article is particularly accurate... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax, in the absence of any references. Perhaps the article creator should take a trip to the depository of of printed and bound information for refs.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The number of redlinks in the article suggests to me, they are NN. The article on Volterra has notably weak history section, which implies that the town was subject to rule by Florence from the time of the Medicis. That does ot rule out local dukes or other nobles ruling under Florentine suzerainty, but the Grand Dukes of Tuscany were not royalty (though perhaps close to it); an inferior dukes certainly would not be. Whether it is a HOAX or not, it is such a bad article that it requires TNT. If it does have a genuine basis, the author would do better starting off with a History of Volterra, in which he could list the ruling dukes, similar to the articles on every British peerage, followed by biographies of any dukes who were notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone mentioned from Augusto Giovanni Bartoli to Claudio Bartoli can't be confirmed in reliable sources. This is probably a hoax and the author ought to be blocked for persistent disruptive behavior. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, also noting that previous editors think that this may be a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as total hoax.--Yopie (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, very likely a hoax. I'm a bit expert on Tuscan history and I had never heard of this family before this article. I have't found any source about this Bartoli family from Volterra (Bartoli is a common surname in Tuscany and other bordering regions though), not to mention that the title of Duke was extremely rare in Tuscany being that Tuscany was a Grand Duchy from 1569 led by the House of Medici, until the extinction of its senior branch in 1737, and then by the House of Habsburg-Lorraine untill the Grand Duchy ceased to exist on 1859. Furthermore Volterra was never a Duchy. On May 4, 2014 in the Italian Wikipedia an article dedicated to a Bartoli family from Volterra has been deleted for lack of sources and suspected hoax, it was very likely created by the same author of this article. [25]. --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and likely hoax. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, very likely a hoax.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:19, 1 May 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 arguments in favor of inclusion cite existing guidelines including WP:NLIST and WP:PILLAR, Wikipedia does operate as almanac. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by sunshine duration

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

Another case of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and this list will never be completed anytime soon. Most of the data seems to have been copied from their respective Wikipedia articles. Some places, such as parts of southern Chile and the Aleutian Islands do not have sunshine data available, and the amount of sunshine hours received varies greatly from year to year. Also, where are some of the world's sunniest places in that list? Websites gathering sunshine information may be unreliable as well. One city's monthly sunshine information being available on a website may be different on another website. The article may have a problem similar to that of List of places with fewer than ten residents, which was deleted because it was also an indiscriminate and never to be completed list of places with no more than nine people. (edited) Eye snore 12:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This curious list of information appears to have no notability in secondary sources as an overall list topic. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense – see the BBC, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the BBC source - when I looked at the article, I saw what I thought were all primary sources. Still one source, or even two, three or four, don't actually constitute 'significant coverage' in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sunshine is a standard weather measurement which is collected and collated by organisations such as the UN and WMO. Secondary sources report the sunniest cities in the US and the world using this data. The list therefore passes WP:LISTN easily. If there's no entry for isolated places like the Aleutian Islands then that's reasonable because there are no cities there. I am writing this in London which is certainly a city but, as usual, there's an overcast and so the sun is not shining :( Andrew D. (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: Not every large city in the list is present, many of them are missing and I will still mark the list as a dynamic list. Eye snore 15:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as interesting and informative. Long-term averages, like average duration over the last n Januaries, are better and editors should be encouraged to improve the page in this way. Removing the page because it can be improved isn't much of an argument and seems counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator, very WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If one wanted to see each cities average sunshine duration they could go to the respective article. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete somewhat reluctantly. A lot of work has gone into it, even if semiautomated. Seems to be exact duplicate of data from individual city articles weather sections? So the data is by definition notable in itself. By the way, cannot be compared to 'less than 10 inhabitants'. Cities do always have sunshine of some amount so not arbitrary, although the definition of city could be. The next article will be List of cities by average high temperature and the next will be . . . Ideally all the tabulated weather data for each city should be moved over to wikidata and the tables for each city populated from there, and then this article cold be automatically generated and will always be as complete as there are in existence articles for places with weather data (and this I would strongly support) . . . but as it stands this would take a team of editors doing nothing but keeping it up to date and in synch with the city/town/village articles. The top 10 or top 20 sunshine cities cold be useful (section in another article about city livability perhaps), but a list of all cities/towns/villages manually maintained (and it will need to be kept current if it has any value) will soak up far more wikitime than its encyclopedic value is worth. Aoziwe (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps as I also think this is an interesting subject but am questionable about solidity therefore I suggest deleting for now. Asking DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Such lists are appropriate for an encyclopedia like WP, because, according to our most basic principles, WP:PILLARS, one of our functions is to have much of the contents of an almanac. Such lists have been traditional almanac territory. They are lists for which people might very reasonably comes here; they are not indiscriminate: they cover the largest cities in each country, and there is no reason they cannot be complete for them, since authoritative data for the table is very easily available . As for other lists by climate indicators, I might well support them also: they're equally within our scope. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly the topic is notable, since there are multiple sources discussing the sunniest cities in the United States and the World. Also, as DGG noted, meteorological data is permitted as Wikipedia also functions as an almanac. If there is problem with list size, that can be remedied by setting a bar for including a city in the list. Possible criteria could be "only cities with population greater than 250,000", "only the ten largest cities per country", "only one city per quadrangle of width one degree longitude and height of one degree latitude", and so on. But that is for the editors to discuss on the list's talk page: AfD is not for cleanup. Altamel (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very important list as it give the idea of sunlight given in a particular place. I agree with Altamel that some modifications should be made in order to give this list a limit. A bar should be kept like "only the capital cities" or limit it to ten cities in one grid (15 degrees longitude x 15 degrees latitude). The former list would give a limit of no more than 196 cities and the latter would give a maximum of only 2880 cities. (Also since land is there on only 30% of the earth the list would get further restricted to 960) Furthermore, I think that the world "cities" should be replaced by "places" as there are many "places" on the earth's surface which have interesting sunshine data but are not qualified to be called "cities". Arpit.arun.mishra (talk) 10:25, 2 May 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) — Music1201 ^talk 02:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revista Cubana de Física

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

I can't verify any of the content of this article, which was apparently created at the request of the editor of the obscure journal in question. One directory says it started in 2012, the article says 1980, it doesn't appear to have its own web domain and the official website, which is also the page linked in most directories, is effectively a university user's personal page, and is in any case 404. I suppose this probably existed, but evidence of its significance, impact, or coverage in other sources, is lacking. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain ~~Delete~~ [changed vote, per my comment under Randykitty's section]. I've edited the article, entering what I believe is the new url for its web site -- but that doesn't mean much of anything, other than to give some credence to the description in Wikipedia's article. I also found reference to its existence in WorldCat, but again that means little. I tried fumbling my way through some of the Google hits as to importance of the journal. I'm admittedly ignorant in this area, but the sites seemed to indicate that the journal has little importance. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have updated the links in the article and added another database in which the journal is indexed. I have also added two independent sources. The journal is indexed in Scopus, meeting WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Saying it is indexed by SCOPUS and referencing this to the index listing is not an independent source. There are still no sources about the journal, we can't even authoritatively answer the question of whether it still exists. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It still exists, all links in the article have been updated to the new website and these substantiate the info given in the article (I can include that as references, but in a short stub like this, I find using repeated references to -different pages of- a home website mildly promotional). The reference for Scopus goes to the page where the journal listings are linked. Click on them and you get an Excel file that lists all journals included in Scopus. I used to link directly to the Excel file, but that's not good, because the name of the file changes each time they update it (and the Excel file then pops up without any explanation of what it is). Scopus only includes journals after a committee of academics has vetted it and deemed it worthy for inclusion, so it is one of the "inclusive databases" mentioned in NJournals. Academic journals are rarely the subject of articles in other media. That does pose a problem. If you delve into the history of NJournals (still only an essay), you'll see that it stayed an essay because people objected to making it a guideline on two mutually exclusive ground: one group thought it was too inclusive and that we should rigorously apply GNG (incorrect, I think). Another group though it was too discriminating and that any journal that can be used in WP as a reliable source should be taken to be notable (also wrong, I think). NJournals takes the position that a thorough examination by a committee of academics (as done by Scopus) constitutes in-depth coverage an indicates notability. Note that "selective" here means that perhaps one in 5 journals or less makes it through the application process, so journals listed in Scopus (or in the even more selective Thomson Reuters databases - but not the Emerging Sources Citation Index, BTW) are really the top journals in their respective fields. --Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, thanks for that carefully thought out response. I had seen the essay WP:NJournals, but was worried that there was no consensus that it should be a guideline. However, I think you've made a fair point. I'm going to change my !vote to 'Abstain', in the hope that other more knowledgable people will chime in. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added (22:15, April 22, 2016): Keep as DGG's commentary is convincing enough to suggest keeping. Before I comment, I'm inviting DGG for his familiar analysis with these subjects. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I consider the actual situation a little ambiguous. There is agreement that WoS establishes notability ,except for its related database ESBI, which does not. The question is whether Scopus does. I used to think so, and nowI am not so sure, because it seems to have much less discriminating coverage. But outside of Western Europe and the US, its coverage has always not just more inclusive but probably more realistic than WoS, so I would tend to accept it for such areas. That's all that's needed to estalish notability for a journal. Personally I am one of those who would prefer to change our rule to accept any journal usable at WP, but , as Randykitty says, that does not have consensus. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 24 April 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 Deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Projects for protection of animals in India

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

unsourced list of random projects Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - any useful content could be added to Conservation in India. PamD 15:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 27 April 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. Article is currently unnotable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra (2016 film)

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

WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NFF. Charles Turing (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

looking further:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Ezra Movie Jayakrishnan Prithviraj Sukumaran Priya Anand E4 Entertainment

Delete for now. While production plans are receiving coverage, I have been unable to determine if filming has actually begun. The moment we have such verification, we'd have a meeting of WP:NFF... but until then this is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon, not an actual release date at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 1 May 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) — Music1201 ^talk 23:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Central Jail

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

WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NFF. Charles Turing (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Welcome to Central Jail Sundar Das Vyshakh Rajan Dileep Vaishaka Cinema Benny P. Nayarambalam

Keep per filming having begun and the project itself receiving coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). All it took was a little WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources that Schmidt has found mean that the subject of the article now satisfies GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the starting of filming establishment is enough. SwisterTwister talk

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

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

The result was Already deleted vis BLPPROD. Michig (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Holliday

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

Although I think he may be notable, this article is written by an user with the same name as this article and the quality is really low Sports Devotee (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Holliday apparently plays for Whitehaven RLFC, which is a Championship side, and therefore does not meet WP:RLN. I cannot find any coverage of him sufficient for WP:GNG, either in Google News or on a general search. Therefore does not appear to be notable. (it is worth noting that simply being written by a user with a COI and being of low quality are not valid reasons for deletion, but reasons for improving the article) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon as this is basically unsourced and there's no other context to suggest otherwise convincingly keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 1 May 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gombak (federal constituency)

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

Seems very similar to Gombak District, maybe could be merged but I'm not sure. Also has no references. Sports Devotee (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done put official sources from the Election Commission as references. You should access this link for data verification.

Gombak District (Daerah Gombak) should not be confused with Gombak Federal Constituency (Bahagian Pilihan Raya Persekutuan Gombak). Gombak (federal constituency) should has its stand-alone article because the article will elaborate more about election result. Take Category:Canadian federal electoral districts as example. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the district and the constituency are coterminous, I believe they are worthy of separate articles (this is certainly what happens in the UK sphere). Number 5 7 22:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Generally constituencies have separate articles, even if they are coterminous with other entities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at best as similar articles have been started and this is convincing enough, no serious needs for deleting. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are 2 separate entities, even if boundaries are coterminous. One is an administrative subdivision and another is an electoral subdivision. The WP:SCOPE of Gombak District is the administrative district while the scope of Gombak (federal constituency) is about the elections in this electoral division. The current article titles are WP:PRECISE and merging both under the name Gombak would introduce nedless ambiguity. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:56, 1 May 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 Nextwave. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Corporation©

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

Unsourced article on fictional Marvel corporation. Search returned little coverage, none from reliable sources that I could find, and therefore fails WP:GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Nextwave. BOZ (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nextwave. Not independently notable and not used much outside Nextwave. No prejudice on recreating this if they suddenly get traction and coverage in reliable sources. Emperor (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nextwave. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nextwave, can be recreated if another title picks them up. Artw (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this was the result of the previous deletion discussion. Not sure why it was nominated for deletion again instead of just being merged... Argento Surfer (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nothing for a solidly independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 1 May 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 qualifies for speedy deletion A10; name is miss-spelled in article. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bowles

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

Article about supposed murderer which is too old to be eligible for BLP PROD. Completely unsourced and a quick search revealed no independent coverage by reliable sources, no coverage at all, in fact. Fails WP:CRIM. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person's name is actually Eric Volz and an article about him already exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point of redirecting when the name "Eric Bowles" was just made up by the article's creator, and is therefore not a likely search term? Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 23:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I assumed this was some well-known alias. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a demonstrable alias, it seems more likely a misspelling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for the necessary improvements for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 1 May 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory Schaffer

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as yet to play in FPL Seasider91 (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was a drafted player who never saw time in the NWSL. Hmlarson (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 1 May 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lubeidak

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

Fails WP:NFILM JMHamo (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~>*Delete as non-notable.~~I have changed my opinion on the topic. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

digging further:

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

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

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

co-director/star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Ashok Mishra Premalata Das Sushanta Adhikari Lopamudra Productions

Keep After learning that this pre-internet film won multiple State Film Awards (a decent assertion of notability), I decided to give the thing a face-lift under MOS:FILM . While difficult to find, sources are available... so this will benefit from editorial attention, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an award-winning film. AusLondonder (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and not confidently as this could be better but the Award may be the only solid lifeline for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:12, 2 May 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) 09:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Biddulph

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a local councillor in a municipality not large enough to get its local councillors over WP:NPOL just for being councillors. Only internationally famous global cities on the order of New York City, Toronto or London get an automatic presumption of notability for their municipal councillors, but this municipality is not in that range. And of the two references here, one is to his own primary source profile on his own political party's website and the other is to a news article which namechecks his existence in the process of failing to be about him, which means WP:GNG has not been met either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality has sixty wards and he's the councillor of Ward 2. Which means there are 59 other councillors. I tried looking for any of their articles but I don't think there are any. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a local counselor of a significant municipality, although I am still unclear how the actually role of him over Nelson Mandela Bay compares to city councilors for Port Elizabeth, or even if Port Elizabeth has a seperate government. I am not sure if this is city council v. county commission as one would see in parts of the US, or if it is slightly different. In the case of city council v. County Comission, at least in cases like Detroit City Council v Wayne County Comission or Chicago City Council v Cook County Commission, the later are further from default notability than the former. Still in all cases I would insist on us having indepth coverage of the person, not fact checking and party profiles. Nelson Mandela Bay has just over 1 million people, but still less than Wayne County, Michigan, and I would not default give a Wayne County Comissioner notability pass, so in this case as well I say delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do have articles on past Detroit City Council members like Gil Hill and Keith Butler. However Hill made his presence on the city council noted, and was especially followed when he ran for mayor. He also has notability from his acting career, even if it was short. Butler is also a prominent community member and minister, ran for the Republican senate nomination, and is currently a Republican National Committee member. He is also the only publicly acknowledged Republican to have been on the Detroit City Council since before World War II, but since the council elections are non-partisan, it is not clear what percentage of council members identify with a given political party, although many clearly identify as Democrats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN. Councilor for a major municipality in an under-represented continent. Wikipedia's systemic bias against non-western countries should give us significant caution when considering deletion of elected figures representing over a million people in Sub-Saharan Africa.--TM 15:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard that a city has to meet to get its city councillors over WP:NPOL just for being city councillors is not just "major municipality" — something which any city with a population of as little as 50 or 60 thousand could claim to be. Rather, it's "internationally significant global city", on the order of New York City, Toronto, London or Tokyo. For anything below that rarefied class of cities, a municipal councillor has to be explicitly shown to pass WP:GNG — but we're at complete zero for GNG-worthy sourcing here. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there may be bias at play here, it is not on Wikipedia's part, but on the media's. Bearcat's assessment regarding councilors is spot on, and searches simply did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show this person passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 13 May 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ucoin

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

I declined a CSD because it did not exactly fit any of our predefined criteria, and PRODed it instead (Reason: Unsourced. Essay or original research (WP:OR) ). DePRODed by author who added some external links to sites that while describing the theory, are not 3rd party independent articles about it of the kind that assert notability. A search for RS has proven unproductive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As the subject is slightly covered in reliable sources, giving it some notability. Meatsgains (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Move to Draft for now as my searches are also finding nothing else outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could be simply mentioned at List of cryptocurrencies. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cryptocurrency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. The Vice ref is the only independent RS ref that actually mentions the subject, and does so in only 1 sentence. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also in agreement with SwisterTwister about moving to draft, maybe it will be notable if someone is able to find other sources. st170e^talk 01:24, 2 May 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 11:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Church Vettithara

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non notable, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The duplicate articles St.Mary's Jacobite Syrian Church Vettithara and Vettithara Kochupally should be removed as well. Bradv 23:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage. Esquivalience ^t 00:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It is essentially an orphan and does not even say where it is. The normal outcome is that we only keep local churches if they are notable for other reasons - architecture, contents, involvement in particular events, etc. I see nothing notable about this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a considerably trimmed version to Syrian churches of Kerala. There is a considerable whiff of Westocentrism here, if you consider how many totally non-notable US churches are able to easily establish "notability" by local papers etc, and how difficult it is for South Indian churches to demonstrate this from the internet, especially in the English language, given local conditions. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - The page is edited and added more details, references also added in the current page including local news paper news. The presence of relic of Mother Mary in this church makes it famous and important. The rare portion of this relic is enshrined in only a few churches in the world. So this church cannot be considered as one amoung many. There is a limitation give the link of the newspaper news as the link of the local newspaper will be deleted automatically from their webportal after a couple of days of publishing the news. This article will be a usefull reference for the people who do the research about Soonoro Churches and Marian shrine. Following are the reference which shows the importance of this church.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] bibinkvjacob 10:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

References

keep - The page seems to be informative, this church is notable by the presence of Holy Relic of Mother of Jesus Christ. This churches attracts a lot of people every year during its feast days. This is one of the important church of Syrian Orthodox in Kerala. So this page should be keep as like this. The references in the regional language is true and can be accepted in the reference link. mathewsvettithara 13:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — mathewsvettithara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep - St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Church Vettithara is one of the important churches in Malankara Syrian Orthodox church. The church become an important one by the presence of Holy Relic of Virgin Mary. There is no dought that this church attracts many people. arunmathews84 20:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — arunmathews84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing solidly convincing to suggest keeping and improving, we can wait for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I edited in the article. It is clearly a notable church, a landmark explained in multiple sources. I think it is even notable as a place atop a hill per wp:GEOLAND. The suggestion to "wait for a better article" appears to be an acknowledgement that the topic is notable. We don't delete stubs or weak articles on notable topics; it is appropriate to tag them for improvement but this is not AFD justification. --do ncr am 02:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable and little coverage from any reliable or independent sources. Note that two of the keep votes appear to be from sock/meat puppets. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 03:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting based on new arguments from Esquivalience Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:18, 23 April 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 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:43, 23 April 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 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:09, 23 April 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 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:47, 23 April 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 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:26, 23 April 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 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:08, 23 April 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 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:47, 24 April 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 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotionalism for a borderline notable church. The legend of St Thomas is applicable to all churches of this denomination, and just needs a link. Mowst of the rest of the content is advertising for church events. Having been built only in1930, it's not of historic stature. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not pass my standards for historic church buildings. Neither it nor the village it is in are listed in DK's Eyewitness Travel Guide to India. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 10 May 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 and redirect to Internet meme. Favonian (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dank memes

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

There was an RfD about this article last year, with the result of "keep for now". Since then, at any point in the article's history, it's either consisted entirely of vandalism or short unsubstantial content. It's more or less a neologism used in the subculture that could just as easily be mentioned on Internet meme or List of Internet phenomena. ProtossPylon 08:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Internet meme or Delete - It's obviously a neologism without substantial coverage. Some individual memes may be notable, but the term "Dank meme" clearly isn't. I have no problem with mentioning it at either of the two above pages, but I don't believe it could even be sourced adequately. GAB^Hello! 14:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. The concept is not distinct enough from internet memes in general to warrant a separate article. πr² (t • c) 18:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason to even have a redirect for this one type of meme, but I would not argue against a redirect. It has more going for it than Living meme did. (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Living_Meme)

Redirect Hmm, there are enough reliable sources now using the term that a redirect is probably warranted. I'll reverse myself and say Redirect, but I wouldn't argue against a deletion. This seems to e an unnecessary fork that would be adequately covered by a sentence or two in Internet meme. Meters (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Internet meme. No independent notability indicated. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Not independently notable, either redirect to Internet Meme or delete. Bakilas (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . The culture and community of Dank Memes have grown to something more than a regular internet meme and should be allowed to stay. For instance the subreddit community r/memes has 64,500 subscribers the subreddit r/dankmemes has 22,400 subscribers. The 35% is definitely a big enough subculture to remain a wikipedia articleDogoMan900 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC) — DogoMan900 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect to Internet meme - page was previously a redirect to Internet meme and I see no reason to make an article for it as it is a non-notable subtopic of Internet memes and a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 13:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dank memes have become a key part of modern-day internet culture, it is essential we keep and improve this article. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 14:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The_Rim_of_the_Sky (talk · contribs) I'd have to disagree. They are not a "key part" of any culture, and often serve to annoy. The page is a joke as it is anyway. HarryKernow (talk to me) 16:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Internet meme or Delete. Does not expand upon the idea enough, does not establish notability of the subject, does not fully explain what it even is, does not explain the point of them, does not explain who makes them, who views them, does not show critical reaction, and is too general. HarryKernow (talk to me) 16:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internet meme. As stated above there is not enough inherent notability to justify a separate article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - At this time according to google trends, Dank Memes has more internet searches the Dassault Rafale, but Dassault Rafale remains a wikipedia page. Also google searches for Dank Memes has been climbing steadily and most likely will keep doing so, even if you make the argument that Dank Memes is not a key part of the internet culture, it will be sometime in the near future. DogoMan900 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Double vote struck. Favonian (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC) — DogoMan900 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see WP:OSE. GAB^Hello! 19:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete the subject has significant overlap in concept with Internet meme, plus this isn't knowyourmeme; we don't need a page on every term reddit and 4chan decide to beat into the ground. IF this page is kept, then it should be rewritten with a more serious tone, and then protected from vandalism. Discant X 02:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internet meme as a plausible search term. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete Dank memes should be a short section on Internet meme, as most of the sources for content about Dank memes will be unreliable/unfindable. Dank memes are also very complex in nature and require first hand experience with them to understand the whole story about them, and it would take a very well written article on them (including sources!) to be acceptable for Wikipedia. Jaym29 (talk) 8:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep I think it should be kept because this incredible moment in history when Wikipedia made an article on "dank memes" should be preserved forever. 172.101.152.13 (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a serious vote to actually consider not to mention how to improve the article itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps an actually applicable search. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Redeeming

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

No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, nor does it meet notability for films. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; maybe the film will be notable once it is out, (though I doubt it considering none of its directors or cast already have articles), but as of now it is not. It should also be noted that the article was created by the film's production company Osmium Films. Opencooper (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Opencooper[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete for now per failing WP:NF. While I have no doubt that the project has completed filming and is in post-production, its production lacking coverage in reliable sources has it fail WP:NFF (paragraph 3), thus making this one simply TOO SOON. The article can be resurrected upon release AND upon the film receiving independent coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no actual release date established, nothing yet convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 1 May 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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majesco (insurance software company)

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

As my searches found nothing better at all aside from a few several press releases, there's no actual convincing coverage. I should note that this was accepted as THIS in May 2014 to which I certainly would not have accepted it myself. Apparently it may have been a subsidiary of Mastek but I see nothing convincingly solid to suggest moving there thus delete seems best. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:CORPDEPTH:

Coverage in 2014 by Gartner, and apparently again in 2015 where they named it "visionary".
Coverage at Seeking Alpha.
coverage by Indianivesh
Coverage by HDFC Securities
2011 Coverage of its "STG Policy" by Celent (which apparently gave it various awards in subsequent years).

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For publically-listed companies, searching for the company code (in this case "MJCO") with the terms "analyst" or "analysis" will tend to reveal coverage.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep The number of references is stunning once the search is done right as per Hydronium. DeVerm (talk) 04:26, 10 May 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Ibe

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

There's no secondary sources on Google, and seemingly only one reliable source used on the living person biography article. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All information on the page was given to me by John Ibe personally and the rest was collected off of interview with him and 718 Magazine that retrieved information directly from John Ibe and/or his Twitter Kevin.chickun (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:30, 24 April 2016 (ETC)

Delete The creator admits that his editing is COI. WP:PRIMARY applies here, and he doesn't seem to be notable. Use reliable sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete college student involved in rapping who has not yet made an impact in the music field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 1 May 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) — Music1201 ^talk 02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Şevval Sam

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

Both the English and Turkish Wiki articles have nothing convincing to suggest noticeably improving this and my searches have only found expected mentions at News and Books, so unless convincing coverage can be found, there's nothing to suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article has nothing but a list of her films and albums. You can tag it for stub. But she is certainly notable. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources using the Google News and other search links atop this discussion in the Find sources template. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 1 May 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:CSD#G11. Article was just cover for WP:REFSPAM. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love spells

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

Seems like a dicdef. Bordering on a CSD but has one ref so not sure. Sports Devotee (talk) 06:55, 24 April 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Childre

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

Known only as the founder of the already deleted non notable Heartmath Institute. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not all convincing any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doc Childre is the WP:AUTHOR of many books[26] that have received book reviews in reliable sources, per WP:AUTHOR #3 "The person has created .. a well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of .. multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Review in Journal of Holistic Healthcare, University of Westminster
Saletnik, Laurie. "Freeze Frame." AORN Journal Feb. 2001: 519. Review of book Freeze Frame (1998)
"The HeartMath Solution." Publishers Weekly 5 Apr. 1999: 236. Book review of same.
Marandino, Cristin. "And the Beat Goes On." Vegetarian Times Feb. 1999: 15. Review of Freeze Frame
Cryer, Bruce. Leadership Excellence. Sep2007, Vol. 24 Issue 9, p13-13. Abstract: "The author cites the stress management program of HeartMath, a company founded by Doc Childre"
Nina Utne. Utne. Sep/Oct2005, Issue 131, p28-28. 1/8p. 1 Color Photograph. Reviews the book "Transforming Stress"

Other Sources NewsBank shows 34 newspaper articles. Most of them are mentions of Childre's books and/or think tank though not dedicated reviews. A couple examples:

Gracie Bonds Staples. "Living with your choices Course of action", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 30, 2010. Quote: "Doc Childre, the internationally renowned stress expert, said.."
Portia Berrey, "The heart has its own brain.literally." Denver Examiner, September 21, 2009. Summarizes Childre's position on the "brain in the heart".
Media sources at the HearthMath website has 100s of "in the media" sources archived (I have not looked through them for reliable sources about ChildreP).

-- GreenC 13:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His books are published by "Planetary Publications" which is Heartmath Institute. Therefore, his books are all self-published. They are held in very few libraries (from 5-99 copies is what I found). The only reliable review source that I can see is Publisher's weekly, which is not enough to give him notability as an author. In terms of GNG, I didn't find anything in the searches that I did to support that. LaMona (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles about self-published authors, there's no guideline against self-published books or authors, only the sources about such books and authors. There is no guideline about library holdings. For an extensive list of sources see my post above. They are not all freely online, but they are all available online, in commercial databases, which are accessible through WP:REX. -- GreenC 00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there have a been a few reviews of his books, they have not been in major, reliable sources, except for Utne Reader, which does not mean significant coverage. I don't see how the subject passes WP:AUTHOR, much less WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers Weekly, AORN Journal, Vegetarian Times, Leadership Excellence, the Journal of Holistic Healthcare at the University of Westminster are used throughout Wikipedia oddly being discounted as "unreliable".-- GreenC 18:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one reliable source, does not pass WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom29739 (talk • contribs)

AORN Journal is a peer reviewed academic journal, to call it unreliable would require justification. Journal of Holistic Healthcare at the University of Westminster same situation. Publishers Weekly is one of the countries largest review magazines we use it all the time on Wikipedia. Vegetarian Times looks reliable but we can discuss if you have reason to think not. Leadership Excellence is held in some university libraries[27] and around for over a decade print publication I see no reason why it's unreliable. Atlantic Journal, Denver Examiner look reliable to me. Once we get past these we can five into the 100+ other sources here. -- GreenC 00:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With due respect to all the delete !votes, I have to agree with Green Cardamom here: there are multiple reviews of his work in reliable sources, which is what we require for author notability. In addition to his written work, note this 1992 Los Angeles Times article reporting that his Heart Zones stress-reduction tape "recently landed on the top 25 'Adult Alternative' list in Billboard magazine six weeks after its release. This is believed to be the first "therapeutic" tape to make the chart." And a March 20, 1993 page from Billboard shows that this album had been on the New Age chart for 49 weeks. The article has a checkered history, and we must continue to be careful not to allow unsupported assertions about Childre's work, but I think there's enough here to establish the subject's notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:21, 12 May 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 is that she does not currently meet the notability criteria PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meggie Royer

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:TOOSOON author. WP:BEFORE comes up with no significant refs. National award mentioned in article was for a prize awarded to high-school students. Fails WP:GNG. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing, too soon. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has already won an important national award.--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either TOOSOON or BLP1E. The award that she won is one that is given to 2000 entrants each year, so although it is an honor, it is not the same as being a single winner. here. I did find her award-winning works here. LaMona (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Royer's poetry has appeared/ she is listed as a contributor in/to numerous magazines/journals (not sure how notable they are - none have wikiarticles) ie. (in addition to those mentioned in the article) [28] Cleaver Magazine, [29] Open Minds Quarterly, [30] Grey Sparrow Journal, [31], Phree Write Magazine [32], The James Franco Review [33], Red Rose Review [34], Crack The Spine Literary Magazine [35], Vine Leaves Literary Journal. However, this does not count towards notability, according to WP:POETRY the subject needs to meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:CREATIVE, ie. "created .. a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. 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.", having the work(s) appear in magazines is not enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coolabahapple, I'm not sure what you are saying in the last sentence of your comment-- the phrasing is unclear with the quote. In any case, the links you give are for publications of her work rather than "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" about her work, which is what is needed. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I get what you are saying. How are you voting? You seem to be saying that sources are weak.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HappyValleyEditor, as afd is not a vote, occasionally (very occasionally

) i only comment. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I, for one, always appreciate your comments. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply does not pass WP:GNG as revealed in searches, and does not appear to pass WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 13 May 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 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Kant Jaisansaria

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

Non-notable author. Has published two books, one of them on the Notion Press "self-publishing company". Three of four refs in article are for the same interview that is not a WP:RS. Does not meet WP:BKCRIT or WP:AUTHOR. Article creator started with "book was self-published" but then said it wasn't in subsequent edit. Click here for the author listing at Notion press, and on "packages" to see how much it costs to publish your own book there. I'm starting to think "Notion Press" should be added to an edit filter somewhere. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One book is self-published, the other is a collection of stories that he solicited from others. None of the references are reviews (they are all interviews; one may be a "self-interview" based on the tone of the web site). I didn't find anything else, but I assume that references will only be found in Indian sources. If someone has access to those and finds good sources, I can reconsider. LaMona (talk) 23:38, 7 May 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 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Austin (poet)

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

Non-notable person. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing imaginably better including for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I hate to lose this since there undoubtedly are not many Cherokee poets who write in German listed in Wikipedia, but the only things I could find were two references in German books that don't seem to say much about him: here and here. The latter is a poem of his, so it's not a primary reference. We'd need access to more German sources, I believe. LaMona (talk) 23:49, 7 May 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. including the possibility that this is a hoax. —SpacemanSpiff 08:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhabhipedia the film

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

This appears to be an as yet non-notable unreleased film. This seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. LadyofShalott 04:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now and wait for better as nothing is convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking more:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Bhabhipedia Saumyy Shivhare Bizarre Media Nitin Sharma Hrishitaa Bhatt Gireesh Sahedev Rajkumar Kanojia

Delete per failing WP:NF. I gave the article a face-lift, and while it may well be completed and awaiting release, It has no coverage in reliable sources. If it ever gets coverage, the article can always be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Bhabhipedia was previously deleted as a blatant hoax. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 25 April 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. Nakon 01:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Telecoms Limited

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND AM (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. I'm glad to hear that they beat out some other companies, but that's not enough to justify an article. Furthermore, I was unable to find sufficient sources. GAB^Hello! 22:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - found some coverage (more available, will bring it here at a later time) [36], [37], [38] etc. Passes WP:GNG. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 18:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful stub, additional rs source.[39] 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 07:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft instead for now as the current article is still questionable for solid improvements and I'm currently not entirely convinced by the listed sources. We can wait for a better article, SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UY Scuti. There is enough comprehensive coverage here to meet WP:ORG and WP:ORGDEPTH. There are a wide variety of reliable sources to establish notability. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:37, 9 May 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 consensus for a particular action has emerged in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AOA Black

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

Not notable for a separate article as they have only one release with the information covered in the history section of the article AOA. Rockysmile11^(talk) 03:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. They only have one release so far and there isn't enough information for a separate article. This isn't like Girls' Generation-TTS, who have multiple very successful releases. Random86 (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting better for the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this article have to keep. AOA is famous in korea and also famous k-pop singer. so each member of AOA has notability for Wikipedia. it is also AOA unit : AOA Black, AOA Cream, and AOA White.--Berlinuno (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berlinuno, notability is not inherited. That's why Youkyung and Chanmi don't have articles, even though they are members of AOA. Random86 (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is stated in Wikipedia:Notability (music) that a band needs to have a single or album on any country's national music chart. With their debut single, Moya, hitting the Gaon Music Chart and Korea K-Pop Hot 100, they're worthy enough to be called "notable" and have their own article.Igetitcrackinlikebagbag (talk) 13:23, 6 May,2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with parent group AOA article. This subgroup doesn't appear notable enough to warrant a page on its own, and like its "sister" subgroup AOA Cream, it would benefit the reader more if they weren't looking through 3 different pages about what is essentially the same group of musicians. DeviantAttitude (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with only one release, and no talk of a future one, it not only seems unnecessary to give aoablack a separate article, but it also seems like people will just forget the sub unit ever existed if it's not put on the group's main page.Peachywink (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reluctantly re-listing this for a third time: further debate would be beneficial for this AfD discussion. st170e^talk 17:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 17:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly Keep. The most sensible thing is to merge all "sub-units" on the same page. But it would be inconsistent to leave the other one and delete this one, if they had a single on the charts. Someone could go ahead and merge them all, after this discussion closes, though it will probably get reverted by whomever it is that's being paid to promote them. How many times can a band have a "comeback" in one year? What is a "single album"? I don't get it. -- IamNotU (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IamNotU, I doubt anyone is being paid here. The page creator is a K-pop fan who has created many articles, some on non-notable topics, and all unreferenced. A single album is a CD single and all promoted releases are called comebacks in South Korea. Random86 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The K-pop industry is a legendary promotional machine, and I'd be surprised if they didn't have some paid editors on here. But I don't have any evidence that any are involved in this article, so it probably wasn't an appropriate comment. Some of the language in the AOA articles does sound a little promotional and advertising-like though. I supposed it's to be expected, given the subject. -- IamNotU (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Igetitcrackinlikebagbag comment. Donottroll (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per previous comments. I don't think AOA Cream merits its own article either; they're essentially one-single project groups. Yannaynay (talk) 21:47, 23 May 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. J04n(talk page) 12:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Button Gwinnett (band)

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

The band, their sole album, their sole single, and their record label have no external references online (other than those using this article as a base). The only two sources used in the article are two out-of-print music compendiums. The article includes a purported cover of the album, which was modified from https://www.flickr.com/photos/52844469@N05/4898777348. Martey (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since notability is not temporary, the fact that the available sources are out of print has no bearing on these proceedings. However...I have a copy of the Martin Strong discography right here in front of me, and Button Gwinnett doesn't even have an entry in the book. I'd feel more comfortable if someone had the opportunity to check on the Larkin reference (it's not readily available at my local library), but we may have a hoax on our hands. Chubbles (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Delete: If it couldn't be found by a search engine, then it probably does not exist. Search only returned a 18th century statesman and something with a computer game. However, do note that infobox including album art are added by another editor 3 days after the last edit by article creator. I'm going to request a CheckUser here. JW Noctis^{talk to me} 15:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And request sent. JW Noctis^{talk to me} 15:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much would be coming that way - Pending more evidence pointing towards notability, I'd say if it couldn't be found by several good search engines, it probably does not exist. JW Noctis^{talk to me} 02:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any online sources apart from [40], which is a very passing mention on the obituary of someone not mentioned in the article. I can't find anything for the quoted record label either. I think that even if the refs given are valid, they are not quite enough to assert notability. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 15:45, 8 May 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. Article's subject lacks notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oontini

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

TV show with questionable notability, the cast that was deleted for the most part were made by separate single purpose accounts (one page said "age 11, writer of a tv show" that alone sounded fake.) anyway, I can't find any info about this (apparently only one episode aired) And I'm not even sure if this is real or not! Wgolf (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, that these 2 other shows are in question made by the same person: Munkareen-e-Haq and Raajkumari, both of there refs are just for the channels, not anything about the shows at all. Wgolf (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all minimally convincing, delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - No sources whatsoever found (although there may conceivably be some in Urdu). GAB^Hello! 22:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-BTW can someone check out the other shows I mentioned? They might need a AFD also. Wgolf (talk) 22:52, 24 April 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. — ξ ^xplicit 03:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance of K-pop

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

I don't really understand the scope and purpose of this article. It seems redundant to other existing articles, including List of K-pop on the Billboard charts and List of Oricon number-one albums. Random86 (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list of a list of compilations of a single genre. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the reason stated above. There is no clear reason behind the article, especially when there are other pages (as noted by the nominator) that cover the same ideas. Aoba47 (talk) 23:14, 27 April 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 11:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Sparks

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO. Little coverage in reliable sources. Several sources cited don't even mention this person, and of those which do it's by name only, or one sentence. No significant awards or honours. Does not appear to have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her field. Also fails WP:NEQUESTRIAN. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the reappearance of this article (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karen_Sparks ) appears to be based on Sparks recently receiving a "40 under 40 award" from the Ottawa Business Journal, given to "accomplished business leaders who are under the age of 40" in Ottawa. At least 680 people have received this award over the years, and this year, out of the 160 applicants, one in four received the award. While I applaud Mrs. Sparks for the achievement, I'm afraid the basic requirement of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" has still not been met. I wasn't able to find a single example via Google, and out of the 22 references in the article, only two were specifically about her. Both were published by Equine Canada; the second of which was announcement of her appointment to their board of directors. My main concern though, is that the article's (re)creator Beaverbrookottawa (contribs) may have an undisclosed conflict of interest with regards to Sparks. This warrants further review of edits to multiple Wikipedia articles about her immediate family and their business interests, which may be primarily promotional in nature. IamNotU (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not currently convincing for notably better. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep: meets WP:GNG per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. comment added by The.sparrowhawk (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The.sparrowhawk and article creator Beaverbrookottawa have been blocked as sockpuppets of Andy.w.sparks. -- IamNotU (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to be fair, I thought I should point out a reference that was slipped into the article under the wire, before the user was blocked: [41] - an interview published in "Faces Ottawa" a free magazine with a circulation of 100,000 in Ottawa; and another reference to the magazine having named her "Entrepreneur of the Year for 2015": [42] I don't know about significant, reliable, and independent though, particularly considering the full-page ad from one "Andy Sparks Realty" on page 47 of the same issue, and the back cover ad from her father's Brookstreet Hotel (Wikipedia article created by Andy.w.sparks) on the previous issue, plus Brookstreet being one of the sponsors of the 2016 awards: [43]. Oh, billionaires... -- IamNotU (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:. Fails BIO for lack of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"; there is really only one source given, it isn't known to be reliable, and does not appear independent. Being the director of a barely notable equestrian park isn't notable by itself anyway. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with all of above arguements for deletion. Not notable. ツStacey (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of this constitutes a strongly credible reason why a person would warrant coverage in an encyclopedia — and the referencing is about half primary sources and half media coverage which namechecks her existence but isn't about her, which isn't how you get a person over WP:GNG. It's not impossible for people of purely local notability to get into Wikipedia, but it takes a lot more sourcing and substance than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 11 May 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. The arguments for keeping are both the majority position and better argued. Michig (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M. S. Ramaiah

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

Queried speedy delete as advertisement Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The page needs heavy copy editing to make it according to Wikipedia standards however person was very notable. Mr RD 17:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Endorse the argument above by @Mr RD:. AusLondonder (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft at best because this is still noticeably unsourced and would need better improvements, none of which I see happening. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This has clearly not been written on the basis of what reliable sources say about the subject and would need a complete rewrite to become compliant with our sourcing and verifiability policies. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 04:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this again, as it still hasn't had a lot of attention. Last relist. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 01:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 01:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the nominator for deletion of this article stated for their doing so was speedy delete as advertisement, I’m not sure where to begin other than stating the fact that this articles subject has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. And without this deletion nomination pointing exactly towards what material is being challenged, or likely to be challenged,, again, it’s hard to know where to start for an article that has existed for 7 years and now finds itself here.. Anyway, I’ve rewritten the lead for this article adding references (and added the reference section to contain them) and believe that it should be remembered by everyone that the bar for providing actual citations for deceased people is lower than that required for those who are living. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note This articles subject has been linked to the Oregon State University and List of Indian entrepreneurs articles. Picomtn (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Hi @Omni Flames:@Anthony Appleyard:@AusLondonder:@Sportsfan 1234:@David Eppstein: (cc @Titodutta:@MichaelQSchmidt:@Checkingfax:) Please note that there are unique issues dealing with this articles subject matter that that is referenced in Wikipedia:Points to note while debating in WikiProject India related AFDs that should be a part of this discussion. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And through WP:INDAFD: M. S. Ramaiah Dr. M. S. Ramaiah

Keep and encourage imrovements through regular editing. I find the wide and in-depth coverage of this man and his works meets WP:N and WP:BIO, and as he passed in 1997, it is not a BLP issue, just one for editorial attention, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I agree with the views of Mr RD and MichaelQSchmidt, but the article will need a lot of work to change the highly positive (and nearly promotional) tone to a neutral view on the subject. ~~A heads up, Earwig's copyvio detector detected close paraphrasing to this site [44]; this content seems to have been added by Webmaster.cg, and might be a major copyvio.~~ Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That phrasing has been here since 2013 and the spammy blog link is dated 2015. So I think the copying went the other way. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the clarification. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Exactly what Schmidt has said. Passes GNG, I think. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:49, 30 April 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. Debate has been relisted three times and still there seems to be no consensus for any outcomes. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corina Abraham

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This is more a coatrack to talk about Roe 8 than it is a BLP. Not notable. Abraham herself lacks coverage about her in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep referred to in the Australian Parliament as significant person(Whadjuk Noongar Custodian), involved in multiple events over multiple years, artist with works within a government collection. Currently challenging the WA Government in the States highest court which has potential flow on implications to Federal Government. Yes it has Roe 8 information but thats because Roe 8 is complex and significant, Abraham easily meets WP:N. There are also a number of article from Melville Herald from 2010 but those arent online I need to find time access their archives in person. and the Koori Mail in 2001[45]. This is what happens when AfD s get launched within an articles first 24 hours, if aint a prod give content creators time or even ask them a question as to the articles status I would have happily laid out that I have multiple sourcing for over 15 years that indicate this is a notable person, but given the coverage of Roe 8 (229,000 news articles so far [46]) and the fact she has lodged writs it seamed logical to push the article out so that people could find out more about this person before I had been able to organise access to the other sources. Gnan garra 09:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being referred to as "significant" in such a manner is meaningless in terms of notability. "artist with works within a government collection". Which one? City of Melville's art collection? Whoopty fuckin doo. Koori Mail? All is see is a photo with lots of people who attended a conference. Trivial coverage. Melville Herald? A local paper. Whats the nature of the coverage? Given the coverage of Roe 8 let's write an article on not Roe 8? She's not the issue, Roe 8 is. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability going back before Roe 8, passes WP:GNG quite comfortably. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the notability prior to Roe 8? How does she pass GNG? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a writ submitter over a complex issue in the public eye in Perth, with earlierreporting Melville Herald and Koori Mail as stated by Gnangarra, it is just a short matter of time that extra refs will clearly further indicate notability of the person against the afd argument JarrahTree 10:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a writ submitter is not Inherently notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but significantly trim "Corina Abraham#Opposition to Roe 8". See Talk:Corina Abraham#Proposal to trim Opposition to Roe 8 for my proposal. (For what it's worth I wrote the bulk of "Proposal to trim Opposition to Roe 8" yesterday, before the AfD, and only posted it today.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep? WP:JUSTAVOTE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Corina Abraham is notable, and meets WP:GNG.
Your claim of "coatrack" is understandable, but I don't think it's correct. I do think that the Roe 8 section looks like a WP:SOAPBOX, but that's a surmountable problem and I've already proposed a solution. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed solution would solve the BLP1E issue but does nothing to address the lack of notability demonstrated by the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. notability passes requirements. VanEman (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of source coverage, including at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment suggest a WP:SNOW close before the nominator does something that should be avoided Gnan garra 00:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What, like accuse someone of racism? Oh, wait, it was you that did that. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt accuse you of being racist, I said your actions in nominating multiple Noongar Women had a point appearance given you had prod'd an article that I then converted to merge discussion that triggered your nominations and that you should also take care when doing such multiple nomination. Then you come along and respond to every person all of whom said keep, with comments like Whoopty fuckin doo Gnan garra 04:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've characterized my actions as being racial motivated. then you try to suppress discussion on an article you worked on. and your concerned that I wrote fuck? Why were you keen to suppress discussion? You say I replied to all with comments like Whoopty fuckin doo, please identify some such replies (note plural). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those saying she passes GNG and that there is plenty of sources. Could you please be specific? What sources? What significant coverage outside of Roe 8? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If she has been notable for some time, why did it take until 2 April for an article to be created, an article whose entire lead is Corina Abraham is a Whadjuk Noongar elder who in 2016 challenged the Western Australian Government for failure in procedural fairness during its change to the Aboriginal Heritage status of the land to be impacted by the extension to Roe Highway known as Roe 8.? That seriously smacks of WP:BLP1E and supports the nom's argument that this is coatrack, as does the fact that there is nothing in the article establishing notability outside of the one event. Most of the article (and obviously all of the lead) speaks about opposition to Roe 8, with the woman's backstory added as an attempt to unsuccessfully establish notability. Looking at the 8 references, 6 are related to the Roe 8 issue. A 7th is an extract from a list of items in the City of Melville Art Collection. That alone does not generate notability. The 8th is a news piece about a major water leak in a hospital that used Abraham's story to pad out the article. Interesting to some, but not enough to establish notability. Sorry, no WP:SNOW close here. Notability needs to be adequately established, because it hasn't been yet. If notability can be properly established, I'd be happy to change my vote. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete definite case of WP:BLP1E. she is only getting coverage because of one issue. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: I can appreciate the arguments about BLP1E. On the other hand, if Wikipedia existed in the 1980s we would've called Eddie Mabo a BLP1E back then too. So I suggest we move it to draft or user space and wait for further developments. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is notable with plenty of refs. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having "plenty of refs" doesn't mean a subject is notable. Six of the refs refer to one event and the other two don't go anywhere near establishing notability. An article can have 1,000 references and still not meet GNG. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well said aussie. Lots of coverage doesn't override WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roe 8 and create that article, keeping a good summary of who this person is and her role in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't necessarily disagree with this proposal I'm not sure how this would work. According to Perth Freight Link#Roe 8, Roe 8 is a 5km extension to the Roe Highway while Roe Highway says that Roe 8 is The Perth Freight Link, which is a bit circular. One would expect that if the extension goes ahead, Roe 8 would cease to exist as it would just become that extra bit of the Roe Highway, or the Perth Freight Link, or both. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is questionable for better signs of solid independent notability and I'm not confident with any better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 01:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current state. An article about Roe 8 may be notable. SSTflyer 13:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - outside the one issue (for which BLP1E would apply), searches turned up virtually no in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extensive coverage in the sources. BLP1E does not apply per reasons including her artistic work in 1997, coverage in the Melville Herald (2010) and Koori Mail (2001) , all well before Roe 8 kicked off. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in the sources is not even close to extensive, and they certainly weren't enough to result in an article until Roe 8 came along. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FeydHuxtable, could you look again at the Koori Mail source? Count the number of words of coverage dedicated to her then tell us how that qualifies as extensive. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP1E does apply: her artistic work is trivial, her persona story of the hospitalization is wildly inappropriate content. It is not clear from the article whether she is the principal figure in the opposition, or the person in whose name the opposition is taking court action. I redirect to hte article section on the opposition to the road might be appropriate, at least now. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 22:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, BLP1E over a relatively minor issue, no international coverage. Aeonx (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- World Highways has coverage[47] thats a UK based magazine it even mentions Corina Abraham in regards to activity in December 2015, the writ was lodged in March 2016. Then there is the International Business times based in New York[48](noting it doesnt mention Abrahams by name just the specifics of her case), that has 13 million subscribers publishes in 10 countries and 7 languages Gnan garra 13:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

noting it doesnt mention Abrahams by name just the specifics of her case that's laughable. If a source can't even name the subject, that's not really a good source for establishing notability of someone. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

two sources the first mentions Abrahams, 3 months before the writs Gnan garra 13:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires significant coverage in sources. It says "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail." The first source doesn't provide anything close to significant coverage and the second doesn't address the topic (Abraham) at all, let alone directly. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough sources. Articles related to rights of Indigenous people are often difficult to source due to being ignored by the press in general. Adequate indicia of notability and though concerns of BIO1E or recentism are apparently made in good faith, the topic passes. If someone wanted to create Roe 8 and merge this into it, I suppose that's not beyond the pale, but I don't think it is needed. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been established that the quantity of sources is irrelevant. Six of the 8 sources are related to the Roe 8/BLP1E issue. A 7th is an extract from a directory of items in an art collection and the 8th is a news piece about a major water leak in a hospital that used Abraham's story to pad out the article. WP:GNG requires significant coverage and that simply isn't there once you remove the BLP1E content. As a standalone subject, Roe 8 hasn't been notable enough to warrant creation of its own article. It is, after all, just opposition to a 5km road extension and these things happen all the time. A non-notable event can't be used to establish an individual's notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything to do with all of the Roe highway extension plans are linked with a particularly messy aspect of current Western Australian politics and is almost reported on daily basis in Perth, Western Australia in relation to the component parts of moving trucks from the eastern suburbs into Fremantle. Just because local editors are not full time producing potential on the subject is not necessarily a reflection on the impact of the issues being squeezed into an assumed 'non-notability' state JarrahTree 06:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Roe 8 not having a standalone article isn't because of notability, but because it would be a redundant content fork, given that Roe 8 is covered in the Perth Freight Link article. - Evad37 [talk] 08:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might note that I said "As a standalone subject, Roe 8 hasn't been notable enough to warrant creation of its own article." (emphasis added) If the opposition was great enough, and there were enough sources, there is nothing stopping a separate article being created. Roe 8 coverage in both Perth Freight Link an Roe Highway is pretty limited, but quite appropriate given my knowledge of the matter (my daughter is in Perth for nine months and she has been keeping me up to date) so I do agree it would be a redundant content fork to create a separate article and you can't claim an individual is notable because they oppose something that isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article. -_AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roe 8 has been an ongoing issue for over twenty years, because someone related to you has lived in Perth for nine months doesnt make them an expert on Perth, or Roe 8. Gnan garra 11:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say, nor did I imply, that it did make them an expert. Please note that here in the east we have controversial road projects going on for a lot longer than 20 years. The Newcastle Inner City Bypass, for example, still isn't complete even after 50 years of planning and construction. That Roe 8 has been going on for so long makes Abraham's contribution even less significant. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that because Roe 8 doesn't have an standalone article it therefore isn't notable is fallacious reasoning, given that notability isn't the only thing that determines whether something has a standalone article. Per WP:N "This [meets GNG or subject-specific guideline + not excluded under WP:NOT] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. I haven't yet !voted, and am still on the fence about Corina Abraham, but arguments that "Foo isn't notable because it doesn't have a standalone Wikipedia article" just don't make sense. There are plenty of sources for Roe 8 (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), and much room for expansion in the Perth Freight Link article, which is only start-class at the moment (we're all WP:VOLUNTEERs with WP:NODEADLINE, so not everything that could be written has been written). - Evad37 [talk] 15:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that because Roe 8 doesn't have an standalone article it therefore isn't notable - That's not what I said. You're concentrating far too much on the road and not the subject of this AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're the one who brought up Roe 8's notability in your comments of 06:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC). Is the notability or otherwise of Roe 8 really relevant here? - Evad37 [talk] 02:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant insofar as it is being used to establish Abraham's notability. If the notability of an event has not been demonstrated (this is different to an event actually being notable - an event can be notable without its notability being demonstrated - a lot of articles end up deleted because of this) can we use opposition to that apparently non-notable event to establish notability? Remember, while Roe 8 might be notable in WA, the rest of the world doesn't even know it exists, so to us it's not notable as it hasn't been demonstrated in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me a guideline or policy that says we need to consider notability as demonstrated in the article? Because as far as I am aware the usual interpretation, as stated in the WP:N guideline, is "Article content does not determine notability" and "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". In any case, there are sources from beyond WA for Roe 8 such as constructionindustrynews.net, Construction Index (UK), The Guardian Australia edition (1) (2), Shanghai Daily, Lexology.com and heaps of coverage from our national broadcaster ABC[49] (and I recall TV coverage being on ABC News 24, not just the local version of the ABC TV news bulletin) - Evad37 [talk] 00:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BLP!E doesnt apply because Corina Abrahams doesnt stem from the one event, she is also a Whadjuk Noongar Custodian, that makes her an authority on Noonagr traditions related to the region or equivalent to Chancellor at any Grey stone University, Supreme Court Justice, Queens Council or even a minister in any Government. Gnan garra 08:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being a custodian, on its own, does not establish notability. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we ignore the Roe 8 matter, the subject just does not meet notability requirements. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Only notable for one event, therefore should be placed under Roe Highway page. If not, then delete. If a person is only notable for one event, that person should not have their own wikipedia article, but instead be written in the event.EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question The only significant coverage I can see is in relation to Roe 8. While others above have said her opposition to Roe 8 is a BLP1E, is it really one event, or one issue with multiple events? That is to say, there is coverage in relation to three things: the 2010 protest (Koori Mail), the letter read out in the senate in December 2015, and the Supreme Court writs (March 2016). While clearly related, is the whole lot one event, or is each thing a single event? - Evad37 [talk] 01:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also being part of the Aboriginal Heritage assessment that resulted in the site being listed, Roe 8 has a long history as protection of the area, has been already we have a court case from Roe 8 that has impact beyond Roe 8 on the WA Government run by the Save the Beelier Wetlands group which is who Corina spoke for in 2010 6 years before this event. Then the letter addressed to the Prime Minister read into Parliament which is while not unique isnt common either. Now we have her a plaintiff in Supreme Court writ(highest court in WA to commence an action) which also will have impact on some 1600 other sites that the current WA Government has removed from the heritage register. Corinas involvement is not BLP1E because it is significant, her impact reaches beyond the event to other areas and when you look at the FSH aspect her being written about even if you want to describe it as padding for the story wouldnt have occured without her already being of note as a Noongar custodian and public figure, oh and whats not covered in the Fiona Stanley Hospital article is all the controversy related to that, the flooding was just one symptom of the failures in the management that project which had materialised in the first 12 months of it being completed. Gnan garra 06:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"whats not covered in the Fiona Stanley Hospital article is all the controversy related to that, the flooding was just one symptom of the failures in the management that project which had materialised in the first 12 months of it being completed. " — That may be true, but it is completely irrelevant to Abraham's notability. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

but it is relevent in the sense that Corina was affected by those events, it demostrates that she has a level of community recognition(notability) before/beyond the court case. Gnan garra 13:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being reported in the news might be relevant to her notability, but the "controversy ... failures in the management [of FSH] ..." have no bearing on her notability, which is why I said that they were irrelevant to this discussion.

Actually I'm not so sure that the article adds to her notability - she was mentioned because she was in surgery at the time of the FSH flood, not because she was a notable Indigenous elder or Roe 8 opponent. The FSH article does not mention anything of those; it merely describes her as "A 38-year-old woman". Wikipedia:Notability#Events says "routine news coverage ... is not significant coverage". I know that is about events, not people, but the principle is the same - the news article is about FSH, not about Corina Abraham. If the Wikipedia article is kept, then the FSH item and ref is worth keeping (it's related to her health issues, which are notable if she is, and also covered by another ref), but I'm not so sure it actually attests to her notability. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that we don't need to keep any of the FSH content or the ref. There is already a ref that supports the claim about her health problems. The FSH issue is just being used to pad the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're drifting off topic here. Perhaps we should defer discussion about the FSH content until if/after any decision to keep the article. (Similar to Talk:Corina Abraham#Proposal to trim Opposition to Roe 8. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 01:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lots of refs does not equal notability, especially when most are about one event (and not the article subject). In addition, the article suffers from a disturbing amount of WP:OR and with the Roe 8 content removed, the article is mostly about her family and her medical issues (with references almost entirely from primary sources - interviews and her own writings). Chrisw80 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are obviously sensible alternatives to deletion which should be considered before turning this into a redlink. Andrew D. (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could suggest something that is relevant to this. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BASIC. I see a lack of significant coverage and a large number of primary or non-independent sources. Ignoring the story about her time in hospital, which is obviously tangential to her notability, the only independent source specifically about Abraham is a profile piece in the Fremantle Herald, a free weekly community newspaper. The campaign against Roe 8 is certainly notable, and Abraham could (or even should) be mentioned in connection with it, but notability is not inherited. Obviously no prejudice against re-creation. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:41, 1 May 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Montero

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

Vanity page for a non-notable person. Article creator has but two edits: the one to create the article and another to link to it from a name page. Three of the four references are primary sources, fourth is trivial. Can't find any other coverage other than things like LinkedIn profile. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of this article's username is "Fmontero1", I think there's a bias here. Also cannot find any sources besides things such as the law firm's page and his LinkedIn, I'd say Delete. I also looked for news articles, couldn't find any. Sheepythemouse (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not currently convincing for his own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is in doubt. and the subject most likely doesn't pass GNG. GAB^Hello! 22:38, 24 April 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 is that the converage of the award is not in sufficient depth to meet the criteria to indicate notability. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future for Nature

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

I see no references except to its own web pages, and routine promotional articles and notices for people given the award. I note that not a single one of all of the winners are at this time considered notable at WP. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches are unfortunately finding nothing better and the current article is still not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The given reason to delete is lack of sources, yet I found a few sources in only a few minutes of searching:
- NatGeo and numerous related articles.
- mnn.com

These seem to suggest that the award is much more important internationally, even "prestigious", which means that most of the coverage is probably in other languages and simply not all that notable in, say, the U.S. Not trying hard enough to find sources is not a good enough reason to delete. Also, whether the winners are notable by Wikipedia standards is a straw man argument: completely irrelevant. -- RM 20:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's irrelevant whether any of the winners are notable. I don't think most winners of Macarthur Grants are notable, for isntances.

However, be careful about accusing others of "not trying hard enough to find sources". The two sources you provided aren't qualifying sources under WP:GNG. Each of them discusses a person who, it is mentioned, has won a Future for Nature award—and neither article says anything beyond that about Future for Nature. This isn't the required "significant coverage". —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should be more specific with my objections. The reason given for deletion states: no references except the ones mentioned (emphasis added). NatGeo is reliable reference, even if you believe it to be non-significant coverage, it is still a reference. -- RM 22:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, what would make an award / awarding organization notable? Fundraising coverage? or for giving the award (and why), since that is its raison d'etre. The source I cited does this: highlighting a recipient and going into detail as to what good things they've done to merit the award. Reliable sources on people who have received the award tells you the award is notable. The converse is not true: reliable sources about the award for non-notable people means the award, not the person, is notable. -- RM 22:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, NatGeo is a reliable source. A reliable source may support a finding of notability for a person to whom it gives substantial coverage. But it doesn't support a finding of notability for every single thing about the person to which it happens to make a passing reference. Given other reliable sources that give the person a comparable level of coverage to that received in the NatGeo article, it might support a finding that that person is notable. As for the award, the article merely mentions that it's a prize that this person has won, and then it never says another thing about it, and it says absolutely nothing about the organization awarding it. This helps with verifiability—few are likely to question the existence of the award—but not in the slightest with notability. (In case it helps clarify things, see the article on how notability is not inherited.)

See the general notability guidelines for information about what makes a topic notable. If you'd like, you can also look at the guidelines available for finding organizations to be notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cited WP:ORG, so let's start there. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". The coverage is not deep, that's obvious. But it's an award, how deep can it be? Expecting deep coverage is bordering on silly. It is, however, quite reasonable, required in fact, to expect multiple sources for the award. You can search the names of the winners (and guest of honors) along with the name of the award and you'll get quite a number of sources, almost every one of them in a different language. Once again, I bring back my original point: there are a lot of sources to be found, but this AfD isn't being raised because the sources are bad, but because there are not enough sources. This has not yet been established! Deletion is premature because we have not evaluated the existence or the reliability of these sources. I'll be happy to support a deletion if the sources turn out to be insufficient, but simple searches indicate enough basic coverage that deletion is not automatic. -- RM 01:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A passing reference isn't coverage at all. It's just that—a passing reference. You might find a thousand people who claim in their CVs "Won Award X", and 100 might have articles written about them that include a mention of Award X among their achievements, just because it was on their CVs, and it still won't be coverage of Award X.

Do you mean "passing reference" as in "trival mention" in WP:NOTE? If so, the mention of the award is not trivial and it is not required to be the main topic. And WP:SELFPUBLISH does not apply here. -- RM 02:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "deletion is premature because we have not evaluated the existence or reliability of these sources". That's what this process is for. This is the period during which interested parties are asked to produce evidence of applicable coverage, once the initiating editor has expressed his doubts. If satisfactory coverage hasn't been demonstrated by the end of the discussion period, then the article will probably be deleted. If "there may be qualifying coverage that we just haven't found yet" were a valid argument in favor of keeping an article, then no article would be deleted the grounds of a lack of notability, ever. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about being unable to find sources, there are plenty. I've found over a dozen references ~~in other languages~~. And they appear to support notability, to the best of my ability to determine this. If interested parties can assist, I can change my mind. -- RM 02:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you're keeping them a secret. Awesome strategy. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. -- RM 13:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's dive in:
- [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]

I didn't try to filter out the good and bad here. These are mostly quick google news results. Running a standard google search on each subject would take quite a while. -- RM 13:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you have no idea whether any of these supports a finding of notability. I'm not saying that they don't, but your approach to this remains a bit oblivious. You seem to think that it's up to other people to do the work to support your claims. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable to choose to keep if the reason given for deletion is invalid. DGG did not state a policy reason for deletion, so I objected to that. There may be other reasons to delete, and that's fine. That's why it's a discussion. As for this list, I only ran the search a few minutes ago per your request. (It turns out I was wrong about my estimate on the number of sources. Memory is unreliable.). I already felt that the NatGeo source supported notability and gave my rationale for it. It's OK that you disagree. -- RM 13:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG disagrees with you. "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ... passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." Identifying a person as having won an award is comparable. It's quite clear from this what's meant by "passing mention". It isn't clear, if you think the mention in NatGeo was more than a passing one, what you imagine even less of a mention would consist of. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is a passing reference: an aside. The NatGeo reference is not. The article begins and ends with a reference to Future for Nature. All indications are that NatGeo decided to run a biographical piece on the recipient because he won the award, not because he was otherwise notable. -- RM 15:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, there appears to be plenty of sources that at least mention the recipients of the awards: NatGeo, IUCN, semana.com (news), mongabay.co.id (news), mnn.com (news), gmanetwork.com (news), jpost.com (news), etc. I'm not going to rehash my argument here, if you don't accept it, fine. But it is not an argument based on nothing. -- RM 14:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there are quite a few mentions, all appear to be of a trivial nature. Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find (and this has been commented on above) example after example of news coverage in the form "Person X wins Y award: Person X feels happy". I've yet to see from what seem to be reliable sources any discussions on the award itself. I've plenty of sympathy for what the broader organization is trying to do, but I don't think that the award itself is that notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:17, 15 May 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. The subject is presumed notable per meeting aspects of WP:NCYC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Graf (BMX rider)

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

Non notable person. Few sources listing him are brief and most are simply rankings of his place in his sport EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Bad nomination as many sources can be found and the person meets several times WP:NCYC: 1) competed at UCI world championships, 2) competed at UCI world Cups, 3) won a UCI category race (Echichens 2015). Besides of is one of the best BMX riders over the last few years after winning bronze medals at World Championships (2012 & 2015) and the European Games. I also don't understand the nominator that there are only a few sources about him. A quick Google search found many articles, 5 random of them:1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 06:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep very clearly based on WP:NCYC. If the world #3 isn't notable, then we have a problem with our guidelines. -- RM 03:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why relisting Northamerica1000 while the cyclist obvious meets WP:NCYC?! What is otherwise the function of WP:NSPORTS?? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 07:42, 24 April 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. This article's subject has been found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Malta

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

Newly formed pageant with no independent reliable source coverage. Search for sources yielded 3 copies of the same press release. Unrelated to Miss Malta. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is likely too soon and thus there's unlikely enough to suggest confidently keeping. Delete at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can understand why the article creator created this article, as Malta has been away from this pageant since 2001. Here is a reliable source that I found that tells about Malta's return to the Miss Universe, a source that was not yet included by the article creator: "Malta at Miss Universe". Times of Malta. April 10, 2016. Retrieved April 24, 2016. (By the way, the first sentence of this article does not do an adequate job summarizing the article subject.) However, I cannot find other reliable sources about this role who ends up representing Malta each year at this pageant, so I do not believe this article's subject is notable. Note: I feel the need to play devil's advocate and say that, under Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, there are other Wikipedia article about others who represent their countries at this pageant, such as Miss Universe Great Britain or Miss Universe Vietnam or even for specific years like Miss Universe Slovenia 2003, however I strongly suspect many of these should be nominated for deletion as well. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 18:48, 24 April 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. Michig (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Fukuhara

AfDs for this article:

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

Essentially a Repost of a userfied article with none of the reason for the original AfD (2 months before) decision being addressed. Still as per WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing much addable to the article. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Verified principal role in a major release DC/Warner Bros. film. To say its too early to tell if this person will have major coverage is willful ignorance. The essays, not guidelines, WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING are for unverified speculation and personal opinion as to the future potential of a person, not verified confirmation of her principle role which is already in post-production. --Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not willful ignorance - that was reflecting the opinion in the first AfD. Even after the movie comes out she would not meet WP:NACTOR (also as pointed out in the AfD 2 months ago). Assuming coverage is WP:CRYSTALBALL.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There will be zero question of her notability when the movie comes out. The only ones who would attempt to delete the article on her, which will be either still around or re-created, are the Wiki Lawyers who will hang on the word "multiple" in the sub-clause of a clause buried in WP:BIO as if that somehow will negate the barrage of coverage on this person on the approach of the release of that film. --Oakshade (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's on all the posters and marketing material for a film that could probably be one of the biggest super hero movies of the year. People will wonder why she doesn't have a Wiki page when the time comes.--Jonipoon (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additions - With no surprise, since this AfD started there has been a great amount of new coverage of this person, internationally no less. [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82] This is only the beginning. The TOOSOON train has already left the station. --Oakshade (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now perhaps as this seems enough. My next alternative would've been to Redirect. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 1 May 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 Connecticut College#Athletics. Michig (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut College Men's Soccer Team

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

Non-notable collegiate sports team, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG, even for sports teams Donnie Park (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I'm not seeing any signs of actually merging and there's also nothing confidently keeping, still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Connecticut College#Athletics. Giant Snowman 07:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Connecticut College#Athletics. Looks like it fails GNG on its own and no sourced, useful content in the article. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 17:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Connecticut College#Athletics. Fenix down (talk) 11:10, 28 April 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. Nakon 22:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kokkolan Tiikerit

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of sources exist in Finnish. It's typical news journalism in coverage, so takes some piecing together to properly source everything in the article. I'm not up for the task, but I can assure you, there are sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve perhaps as I had waited for others to comment before finally coming. This is will better familiar attention if it need be improved. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 8 May 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. Nakon 02:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International School Twente

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources showing the verificability of the article has been given and listed. The article should no long fail WP:GNG and should thus no longer be a subject for deletion. Any questions are welcome. (User talk:Powerofvoice) 15:31, 17 April 2016 (WET)

None of those references appear to provide significant coverage in independent, reliable sources - most are just mentions of the school in listings. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional independent and reliable reliable are provided now - including articles from local newspapers and the record of the speech given by the Queen's commissioner on the governmental website. More sources will be added soon. (User talk:Powerofvoice) 18:44, 17 April 2016 (WET)

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches for "International School Twente" and "Internationale School Twente" (Dutch spelling) don't reveal enough independent reliable sources for the subject to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I am mistaken since I am new here, but if you perform the search, you would find links to governmental websites(like of the city Enschede) and quiet a few media press. It is true that it is a very new school with less media coverage than some others, but I do not think it would fail WP:GNG - the host school of the secondary department has a Wikipedia page in Dutch but there are not much information covered on Google about that either, but it does exist. Also searches in Dutch may not reveal much information because this is an international school for the English-speaking community nearby. You could search for the school on the Cambridge school finder and you will find it there. The school is supposedly receiving more coverage in the summer. Please do not mistaken me with trying to market the school, I am one of its students and the school needs a lot of improvements, but I think it is significant enough to simply be on Wikipedia as it is somewhat quite known by many other international schools across the Netherlands. --Powerofvoice (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Powerofvoice. Wikipedia's notability guidelines generally require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Inclusion in listings such as the Cambridge site doesn't count as significant coverage in my mind, as they are routine mentions rather than in-depth coverage. The fact that nl:Het Stedelijk Lyceum Enschede exists doesn't really change things here, as each Wikipedia operates to different policies and standards. What is considered notable there might not be here. If more media coverage is going to be forthcoming in the summer, then perhaps it is worth waiting to create an article after that coverage exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure I don't really have to point out again, consensus says that all secondary schools are considered notable as long as their existence and status can be verified. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most past AfDs on secondary schools have been closed as keep, but that doesn't mean that consensus can't change or that we are bound forever more to keep all secondary school articles even if they fail to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate this, I quote the closing statement at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 March 30: "All of the various outcomes essays are just compendiums of how we've done things in the past, which doesn't necessarily mean that's how we should do things in the future". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the consensus to change the way we do things and I'll agree with you! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus emerges through discussion on pages such as this (genuine discussion informed by policy, rather than mimetic pointing to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note those who support the retention of secondary school articles have been saying all along that we should keep these articles because longstanding consensus at AfD says we should! Yet here you are saying that consensus is created at AfD! Yes, that's exactly what we've been saying! The consensus has clearly not changed no matter how often the handful of opposers of the consensus say it has or should. No matter how often you ridicule SCHOOLOUTCOMES it illustrates consensus. No more, no less. I just can't help feeling that you won't accept a consensus unless it's a consensus you agree with! That isn't how consensus works. I certainly don't agree with every consensus on Wikipedia, but I accept it because it is consensus. Time for you to do the same, I think. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't allow for people to disagree with consensus, and therefore leaves little space for consensus to change. If, every time someone suggests deleting a secondary school article, you jump in to say that we can't do that because consensus is to always keep, then how could that consensus ever change? I'm not saying consensus has changed. I just think that editors should be free to disagree with it without it being suggested that they are somehow being disruptive. I think we agree that consensus is created across AfDs, but the point of disagreement is that I think policy-based reasons for deletion should be given, rather than editors simply pointing at SCHOOLOUTCOMES and refusing to engage in discussions about the need for sources to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem with disagreeing with the consensus. The problem is with those who claim there isn't a consensus when there clearly is and that pointing out the consensus isn't a valid argument, which it also clearly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the long-standing (unchanged despite recent efforts) consensus of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES AusLondonder (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is just a summary, not an argument despite recent efforts to claim something else. (And that removal was not overturned.) The Banner talk 17:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, editors sought to overturn SCHOOLOUTCOMES and failed. The school that was deleted had practically no sources, unlike this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusLondonder (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

This article certainly has more sources, but the rationale that resulted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Shepherd English School being closed as delete was that the article failed to meet WP:GNG. Look at the sources cited in the current article, and you will see that many are not independent of the school, hence why I think this also fails GNG (after having searched for potential additional sources). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources given are related sources, so not sourced conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 17:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, the school is not even a separate school but is just a department of a bigger school The Banner talk 18:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The school's wi-fi allegedly (but did not) make a kid sick. Beware! [83][84]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with many others that as a secondary school, it is notable enough to be kept per longstanding consesus. Although changes should be made to the page to improve the quality(e.g. adding sources to unreferenced materials). I believe deletion is not necessary in this case. 192.87.100.27 (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC) — 192.87.100.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you suggest some sources, 192.87.100.27? I have struggled to find many. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches simply did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school has received significant coverage here^WebCite and here^WebCite from RTV Oost. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three relists? Really? Just close it as no consensus already.—S Marshall T/C 21:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Even a "no consensus" close will provide aid to those arguing against the "every school is precious" folks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that is what you want to prevent at all costs. Milowent. That is load and clear...

The Banner talk 18:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a secondary school, it apparently has some coverage, I see no reason to delete it. Fieari (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is a section of a secondary school. Not an independent school. The Banner talk 18:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourcing is not great but I think secondary schools that seem non-temporary have a right to have articles on them. Blythwood (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is not a separate school.. The Banner talk 18:22, 23 May 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 Wings of Tomorrow. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lyin' Eyes (Europe song)

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Europe (band)~~ Wings of Tomorrow per WP:NSONG. clpo13_(talk) 16:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wings of Tomorrow, the album containing the song. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as not convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album article for now per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for songs is met. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:50, 24 April 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 clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Troon F.C. season

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

Troon don't play in fully professional league therefore fail WP:NSEASONS: Dougal18 (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for the needed separate notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is a crafted compendium of detail on Troon FC's activities in the current season, sourced to the team website. However the Junior league in which they play is some levels below fully-professional football in Scotland, which means the article fails the primary WP:NSEASONS criterion. (Note too that the second paragraph of WP:NSEASONS says articles should be text-based rather than statistics.) The key information on the players is already featuring in the main Troon F.C. article. Note too that there are a significant number of other seasonal articles: [85]. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have many past articles of the individual seasons of this team. While not professional league anymore that isn't reason enough to discontinue it. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "While not professional league anymore" - not sure what you mean by that? Troon have never played in a professional league, and the league they currently play in has never been professional?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear WP:NSEASONS failure. Not sure how any season article on this club would satisfy any guideline. Fenix down (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, club does not (regularly) play at a national or professional level. All of the other season articles should be nominated for deletion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 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) — Music1201 ^talk 20:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Robert Murray

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

I'm not certain this is still ready for a separate article. Conrad Murray (the normal naming convention) was created and then fought over and finally redirected in 2010 and has remained protected since then. A move to this page seems like gamesmanship almost of the prior version but nevertheless, evaluated as a separate new article, I think this is still basically a WP:BLP1E situation that should just be deleted and if kept rather than a redirect to California v. Murray like the regular Conrad Murray page does, that page should be restored and the history merged or something. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and move to Conrad Murray) - I'm seeing years of coverage in numerous reliable sources. It's true much of his notability is likely because of his relationship with Jackson, but it appears he's had plenty of coverage from beyond any single event. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be kept as is or moved to Conrad Murray? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it should be moved. Amending my vote. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. simply.BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as convincing enough for his own article apart from Michael Jackson's own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one condition of deleting under BLP1E is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Indeed, Michael Jackson's death was highly significant, and Murray's role is both substantial and well-documented. GAB^Hello! 22:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intro sequence

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

I recently AfDed Outro (video gaming), and I think all the same reasoning applies here. This is a thing that exists in video games, sure, but it's not covered as a separate entity. The best you'll do is find mention of particular intro sequences, not a discussion of the concept itself. Essentially, it fails WP:GNG in the same way outro did. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not finding anything confidently better. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, with my same rationale: there are intro sequences, but without reliable sources writing about them, this is just WP:OR. A quick search on the custom WP:VG/RS search engine brings up some results, but nothing in-depth about the actual concept. Notable intro sequences can be mentioned at its respective game. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons that Outro was deleted. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article isn't prepared to do much better than a dictionary definition. czar 07:39, 29 April 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 00:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inbox 2.0

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

A Yahoo marketing code-name that never caught on as an actual term mentioned in a single New York Times 2007 article. --Michael White^T·C 04:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Web 2.0 given that the term has been mentioned by independent sources. editorEهեইдအ😎 17:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2.0 - sometimes I'll suggest these be redirected to the 2.0 page but there doesn't seem to be a need here. Artw (talk) 01:26, 2 May 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 11:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic social network

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

This is not a commonly used term, this article was created by its originator, and references are mostly papers written by promoters of the concept, and a couple web links of semantic web-promoting websites with questionable reliability for establishing notability. Thus, it fails to meet the general notability guideline. --Michael White^T·C 04:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep?. Lots of cites in GS and GB. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

That's true, and I probably should have checked that more. Some of the matches are not quite germane. GS search for "semantic social network" -author:neumann -"semantic social network modeling" -"semantic social network analysis" -"social semantic network" returns 595 results but a lot of them are in citations or passing uses of the phrase. "Semantic social network" is a term that has probably been used a fair amount by semantic web researchers but no notable semantic social networks exist and the term does not seem to have been significantly used in any reliable sources independent of semantic web researchers.--Michael White^T·C 05:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an emerging discipline, fairly well documented, nomination does not meet WP:DEL-REASON 009o9 (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 1 May 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 Fabio Zerpa. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 23:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Los Hombres De Negro y los OVNI

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

Fails WP:NBOOK JMHamo (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fabio Zerpa. It's difficult to source anything that references the paranormal, as they are rarely covered in places Wikipedia would consider reliable. That it's difficult to source anything pre-Internet or wasn't published in English goes without saying, and this book has all three things going against it. It's possible, albeit probably unlikely, that sources do exist out there off of the Internet. I didn't find anything in my searches, but if anyone can provide RS in the future I don't mind this being restored. I do note that Zerpa's article has some issues with notability, so that might need to be looked at as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 April 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, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as not seriously needing deletion but also not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources mentions this book. HealthyGirl (talk) 20:50, 3 May 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Al Ajlouni

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

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral. If article is to be believed, passes WP:JOURNALIST. Xxanthippe (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find sources that verifies he passes WP:JOURNALIST; I can't even find sources that makes him pass WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 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, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting the necessary notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article written with too much fluff. Seems to be written for self-promotion. Leaning towards delete, due to too much fluff, yet not much notability. Conspirasee1 (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:43, 1 May 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 Chaos magic#The gnostic state. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 20:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excitatory gnosis

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

No indication of notability. Sources are anything but reliable. Edward321 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chaos magic#The gnostic state, where it is discussed. I haven't found multiple independent RS for this aspect of the occult, but basic facts about it are verifiable. Best to merge back into the main article, and since I think there is little to merge, redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 17 April 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, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as still questionable for a better improvable separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 24 April 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. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 05:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chengdu

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

is there a need for a list when only 1 person has held the post? secondly we have very few list of ambassador articles, so I question the need for a list of Consuls-General who are lower ranked diplomats. Also nominating :

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Makassar

LibStar (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a way to Merge and redirect is found. After looking through some consuls-general related pages, I have not found any pages to merge this one into Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Not-very-high-ranking or significant diplomatic posts. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both The scope of a Consulate General is definitely international, and it is certainly notable, this has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Further, if there are very few lists of ambassador articles, then that is a gap rather than a reason to keep other notable topics out. I would suggest the reason it is termed a 'list' for one person is for consistency with other similar articles. Here are some of the secondary sources covering the Chengdu Consulate General with significant depth:
- Sainsbury, Michael (20 March 2012). "Australia to open new consulate in Chengdu". The Australian. News Corp Australia.
- Wen, Philip (31 July 2013). "Mission opens door to vast interior". The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media.
- "Australian Consulate-General in Chengdu Opens Officially". Gochengdu.cn. 11 November 2014.
- One year on: A message from Ms Nancy Gordon, the Consul-General in Chengdu, Australia China Connections Pty Ltd, archived from the original on 21 September 2014
- Peng Chao (14 November 2015). "Australian visa application center opens in Chengdu". China Daily.

Clare. (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this coverage makes a list of Consuls-General notable. You've given coverage except one about the consulate not consul general. It's a separate discussion if the consulate is notable. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also how can you argue keep both when you've provided zero coverage for Makassar? LibStar (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you've also attempt to canvass someone into this discussion [86]. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the page about canvassing it says 'In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus,' which was what my aim was. Here's coverage for Makassar as requested:

"Islands in focus: Australia opens consulate general in Makassar". The Jakarta Post. 23 March 2016. Retrieved 4 April 2016.
Darmawan, Awang (22 March 2016). "Bishop to Inaugurate Australian Consulate-General in Makassar". Tempo Co.
"Australia notifies VP about plan to open consulate general in Makassar". Antara News. 21 March 2016.
Hajramurni, Andi (2 December 2015). "Australia to open consulate general in Makassar next year". The Jakarta Post.
"Australia strengthens presence in Indonesia". Antara News. 25 March 2016.

Clare. (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is coverage about the office of the consulate not coverage where the person who is consul general is the subject LibStar (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing accusations about canvassing isn't helpful, especially given that I'm the author of the Chengdu page (I.E. an 'Editor who has made substantial edits to the topic or article') and I had no notification of its deletion until Clare notified me. I see the problem being solved by moving of these pages to a title that focuses on the consulate itself, rather than merely the office-holders, with a bit more info on its functions thrown in; say to Australian Consulate-General, Makassar/Chengdu? This has been done here.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both I agree with above. There is clear notability and modern diplomacy often means that most consuls-general have many delegated and policy roles that would normally be the sole responsibility of an ambassador. These posts fulfil this role. If deletion is approved, perhaps a single page listing various Australian consuls-general (like I did with the special interests abassadors and envoys) could be a possible compromise. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is presuming ambassadors are inherently notable which they are not. And consul generals even less so. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

consuls do not have sole responsibility of roles assigned to ambassadors unless no ambassador exists in that country. The ambassador always retains full responsibility. In this case, there are ambassadors in China and Indonesia. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps a merge of certain material into the ambassador pages (i.e. for china and indonesia ambassadors) is a better compromise? Not notable enough for their own page, perhaps, but enough to warrant inclusions in a page dealing with the closest subject.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ludicrous lists given the number of entries and questionable notability of the individuals. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best, still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:LIST in so many ways. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seriously? Both of these roles have only been held by a single person, so what's the need for a list here? I agree that an article on this could eventually be useful, but it's WP:TOOSOON for that. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:33, 11 May 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 00:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kallan Holley

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE JMHamo (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Notable, has had lead roles in tv shows like PAW Patrol. http://www.moviefone.com/tv/paw-patrol/286599/credits/ , the upcoming Angry Birds film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1985949/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 . And many more. Thursby16 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Thursby16 is the original writer of and primary contributor to the article in question. crh23 (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has a main role in Paw Patrol, which is in its third season. She will also be in The Angry Birds Movie, though I'm not sure how big her role is. She has also won a young artist award, and was nominated for another. Finally, despite the articles short existence, it has already been viewed 137 times. JDDJS (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps and certainly Redirect' to Paw Patrol as this is still frankly questionable and the best two works are listed, too soon at best. I'm also no longer convinced by the Young Artist Awards to save articles. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the last time so the debate (hopefully) receives some more attention. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a public relations platform on which people in any field of endeavour are entitled to have articles just because they exist — it takes reliable source coverage about her in media to earn her an article. If you have to rely on cast lists in cast-list directories like Moviefone or IMDb as your only "sources", however, then you have not gotten her over the bar — and no source present here is anything more than an IMDb-like cast-list directory. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when her sourceability gets a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR. The only sources that can be found are very routine things, nothing that shows notability in any way. When trying to scrape together sources for an article, if the best we can find is something like this, it's a good hint that it's not quite time to make such an article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minimal career (so far) and there appears to be zero significant coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not noteworthy at this time. Kierzek (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately as she hasn't done very much yet (she is very young of course) there are very few sources that can be used to prove notability. She may well become very famous and we may see her name again in the future. ツStacey (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep' Adequate indicia of notability. I'm noticing a lot of bias against children's programming lately; these programs are themselves of adequate notability and while they are not as extensively covered in the mainstream press as "adult" films, one needs to look to the standard of the world of children's programming and assess within that level. Not everyone has to be Hannah Montana to meet GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:56, 4 May 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 tallest buildings in Italy. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 09:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torre San Vincenzo

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

Totally unsourced article without any indication of notability. It's a large office building, and that's it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Genoa, or perhaps Weak Keep, because the Italian Wikipedia seems to have a sizable article on this building - however, I can't read Italian so it may be an article on another building with the same name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepythemouse (talk • contribs) 01:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it certainly appears to be the same building as the Italian Wikipedia has an article on, but I wouldn't call it "sizeable": it's under 2Kb! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My knowledge of Italian is rudimentary, but even so it is adequate to convince me that this article is an only slightly shortened version of the Italian Wikipedia one - the differences seem to consist of a couple more names for the building, one not very substantial reference and links to other Wikipedia articles which actually work. The building was not the tallest even in Genoa when built, so unless being over 100 metres in height for a building from before 1970 is automatically notable, I am not currently seeing any reason to keep. PWilkinson (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at least minimally better for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. No convincing reason to merge, and none of the content is sourced. Nothing much found from a web search to indicate that the building is notable enough. --Michig (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Support redirect per Cavarrone below. --Michig (talk) 05:48, 3 May 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 // 06:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Italy, there are a few results in Google Books but they are only visible as snippets so they are difficult to evaluate. Possibly notable, possibly not, for now a redirect to the relevant list (where Torre San Vincenzo is 29th) seems a reasonable solution. Cavarrone 05:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would be reasonable, although the entry in that list also appears to be unsourced. --Michig (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Italy. Not finding source coverage to qualify an article. However, it's listed at the list article, and this is a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 9 May 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] ttp://www.mathrubhumi.com/ernakulam/malayalam-news/piravam-1.833005

[2] ttp://syrianyouthvoice.blogspot.ae/2012/01/blog-post_29.html?m=1

[3] ttp://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-fridayreview/the-revered-relic/article5097889.ece

[4] ttp://sana.sy/en/?p=10227

[5] ttp://www.soc-wus.org/page.php?id=109

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to Central Jail}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connor Holliday}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locating engine (2nd nomination)}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locating engine (2nd nomination)}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gombak (federal constituency)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Corporation© (2nd nomination)}}