Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 April	28 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aynishan Quliyeva

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

An Azerbaijani national selection candidate competing to represent her country at one of many Eurovision Song Contests, who happened to make it to the final (like dozens of others from 2008 on) but lost in the end. Also recently unsuccessfully participated in The Voice of Turkey. This "achievements", in my opinion, barely represent notability. Parishan (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. The current sources are mere mentions and there's nothing on Google. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Of course the sources mentions things. She has participated in National final, had participated in The Voice. Sources do verify it. Clear WP:GNG. We dont change guidelines or try to minimize sources importance to get a article deleted. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This "not known singer" as you claim it also has a Azeri Wiki page and when I search for her name plenty of sourcing etc is found. And no WP:Otherstuffexists does not apply to this comment. The fact that she has a Wiki page in her national language is a clear indicator that she is not a "forgotten talent show singer". --BabbaQ (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but your argument seems to me like a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. First of all, an article about Quliyeva consisting of just two words was created on az:wiki on the same day you created this article on en:wiki and by an anonymous user who reached out to other users in English admitting lack of proficiency in Azeri and inviting them to contribute, which (correct me if I am wrong) leads me to a logical conclusion that the you might be the creator of the article about Quliyeva on az:wiki. If my guess is right, then you referring to an article you created in a different project as a sign of notability is rather odd. Later the article did grow slightly, but even its author's self-admitted lack of proficiency in Azeri would not prevent them from noticing that the highlight of the article is still an overly detailed description of Quliyeva's participation in the selection process to represent Azerbaijan in the ESC back in 2011. The rest is divided evenly between describing merits of her family members and a couple of other contest failures. Should I note: all this in Azeri and without citing any sources. Second of all, I must agree with CerealKillerYum: the existence of sources where she happens to be mentioned does not automatically guarantee notability. We cannot be having articles about every single candidate that has ever advanced in the local selection final for Eurovision since 1956 or every participant of every national edition of The Voice. Parishan (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BabbaQ. My searches on Google turn up sources, too, some in other languages unfortunately (since I'm not very proficient in these languages.). Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sources? I double checked and found a few but they mostly don't appear to be notable sources (ie [1] ). [2] This EuroVision mention of her seems to be the only notable source that appeared on Google. It is only a mention though so it doesn't count as a source. If there are no notable sources for a subject, it fails GNG.CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAs per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Megalibrarygirl. Adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best instead because the only best claim here is the Eurovision and even then, this is still questionable. Draft if needed but this is still questionable for better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is references, she has participated both in national final for eurovison and Turkish The Voice. It is sourced and not at all questionable. Pretty strange voting rationale.BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

give us the sources here. They need to be notable sources. A fan blog article doesn't count. CerealKillerYum (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of people have participated in those. How does this make her notable? Parishan (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply here Parishan. Just because other people have participated and are not notable doesnt mean that she is non-notable per association. And Cerealkilleryum, you can twist it all you want. The article is sourced and clear.BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

eurovisionary.com and esccovers.com are not reliable sources. Notability can not be obtain from sources such as those. You need a reputable newspaper with an editorial staff. Because of this, Aynishan Quliyeva fails WP:GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly makes her notable? Being mentioned in a source does not guarantee notability. Parishan (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable in two national level competitions: Eurovision and the voice, passes music notability.Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 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. Sandstein 08:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sweet (police officer)

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

Unfortunately, this policeman who was killed while on duty does not satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ANYBIO CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP (his daughter is mentioned as pushing for benefits due to his death) and WP:MILL (most service-related deaths of peace officers do not make them notable, and, sadly, they are all too common). Bearian (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable by the standards of WP:BIO or WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests any applicably better for notability. Unlikely anything better also to improve the article information-wise. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GNG: massive, detailed news coverage over the course 3 1/2 decades. A 36-year-old murder of a Toronto police officer with horrific detail (held hostage, tormented and taunted by his killer as he bled to death) seemed to have enough probability of passing WP:GNG to make me run a Proquest news archive search. The search turned up far more coverage than I expected. Not only was the event and trial covered in-depth, but 30 years later the mooted probation of the killer provoked an editorial in Winnipeg [3], which is a long way from Toronto. The first page simplest google search [4] on "Michael Sweet" + Toronto turns up sources that carry this crim past WP:GNG, , such as this 2012 story [5]. And coverage [6] continues in a current (2016) debate on which officers to list on an official police memorial. This is not a borderline case. It is the kind of crime that we keep because of enduring coverage, including discussion of this well-known crime in policy debates re:parole and police memorials.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Electoralist (talk) 02:44, 5 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. MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JoAnneh Nagler

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

No significant coverage on the author herself. The article's one source is a link to her book on Amazon. Not reliable OR independent OR significant.

Online I found lots of sources on the book, but not the woman. The book The Debt-Free Spending Plan might be notable, actually. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. She wrote one book, was written up for her tax woes in the San Francisco Chronicle, and that's it. Looks like self-promotion, with the subject providing her own image. Yoninah (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Claim to notability appears to be writing some books, but there is no evidence those books are notable (Top 100 in an Amazon category doesn't mean much; it isn't Top 100 on Amazon overall, and it ain't the New York Times Bestseller list either.) SJK (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails everything.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:50, 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. Sandstein 08:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Lorenzburg

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

Appears to be made up (copy of http://mw.micronation.org/wiki/The_Principality_of_Lorenzburg) with no reliable sources just blogs and social media KylieTastic (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Micronations are made up, that's the point of them. Some micronations are notable (Hutt River Province, Sealand) but this one is not. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly as this article is barely easily comprehensible and there's simply nothing to suggest the seriously needed improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 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. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conduit (convention)

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

No evidence of any notability. All but one of the refs appear to be dead of non-existent. The one remaining one that was available was clearly a press release and not in a reputable publication. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been covered by multiple newspapers and television stations. Whether the links are currently working is irrelevant as they worked at the time the references were added. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, how is KSL not a "reputable publication"? They are one of the oldest news organizations in the country. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I added a bunch more refs and found archives of some of the the other news articles which were no longer accessible on the original sites. This was all within about 30 minutes, so I don't think any effort was spent trying to find articles or archives of articles before this nom was made. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as many reliable sources which proves notability. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as properly sourced. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep per User:Nihonjoe CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as adequately sourced to demonstrate GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – See WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAs per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources. --Fixuture (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strategicon

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

No evidence of any notability. All the references appear to be press releases and none in any robust and independent publication. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep when independent reliable sources reprint news releases, the stigma is erased. Each of the references seems to be reasonable: none of them are the Los Angeles Times, but each of them appears to meet our criteria, and even if 1-2 does not, there would still remain multiple RS references to meet the GNG. Overall, not a tragedy if it's deleted, but if things were leaning that direction, I'd prefer to see it merged into a list of regional gaming conventions than deleted outright. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Jclemens's logic. This is notable, but even if consensus reaches delete, still notable for a list. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did some research and found several individuals in the table top gaming community mention Strategicon. This one in the Jewish Journal [7] is a good example. Nothing here suggests that it's not notable -- it's more likely that table top gaming is something that doesn't get news coverage. User:Jclemens Here [8] is the list of gaming conventions. Strategicon is already on the list as Gamex and Gateway. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:52, 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. MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Keserich

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN career low-minor leaguer of no particular accomplishments; fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. One of a dozen NN articles based around players for a certain low-minor league team created by User talk:Ilamb94. Ravenswing 04:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:53, 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. MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Morrison

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 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. MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hunter

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I don't like WP:NHOCKEY, it prevails.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I don't see enough significant reliable coverage for this to meet GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:29, 5 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. MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Pitton

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 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. Sandstein 08:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zykos

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

Not notable band, searches come up with very little sources, none reliable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a community band local for only five years with no other information to at least suggest this can be applicably improved for notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:25, 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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Switzer

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing evidence of notability. I haven't looked for foreign language sources in some of the other counries he's played in, which I doubt would be fruitful, but if anyone wants to make the effort and finds anything I would be happy to reconsider. Rlendog (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 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. Nakon 20:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shukriya Raheel Sharif

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

This seems to be a non-notable social media term. The only coverage I can find is this, which is a news blog; I could find nothing else of substance in English. I had PRODed this, but the tag was removed by the creator. Delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches came up with nothing better, not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Dont Delete This term is widely used in Pakistan and by Pakistanis. Click Here to see thousands of result for this term in native Urdu Language. Click Here to see result in English. You must also check #ShukriyaRaheelSharif on social media, you may get hundreds of thousands of posts on social media. Please prefer the opinions of Users from Pakistan for this article.Ameen Akbar (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not enough to show that a term is being used; we need sources about the term. Or to put it differently, you need to show that some reliable sources have substantive coverage, which have not yet done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Don't Delete If we can have articles like A fair day's wage for a fair day's work and Khuy Voyne!, then there is no reason why this article should be deleted. --Muzammil (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:OSE. Saying that a certain other article exists is not a reason to keep or delete this one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was only emphasising the notability aspect in the case of these two articles, after all I believe that I am also entitled to express my humble views. --Muzammil (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be little more than propaganda. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, yes, it's a term with a political dimension, indeed. I'm adding that delsort:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Raheel Sharif. Just as Yes We Can (slogan) redirects to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and little brown saint redirects to Mahatma Gandhi, this slogan should point to the person or movement with which it is associated. Cnilep (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as I would've suggested Redirecting as mentioned above, but it's still questionable and also vulnerable to restoring, therefore delete until there's better for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure propaganda, unworthy of a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 5 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. MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Beaverson

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 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 23:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthie's Rolling Cafe

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

Fails WP:GNG. Apparently no coverage outside the Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas area apart from a one-off holiday-season piece^[1] on the Today show. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.today.com/kindness/want-happiness-random-snacks-kindness-food-truck-serves-good-cheer-t56826

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of food trucks. May not be notable enough for a standalone article, but a merge will improve the merge target article, per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is an excellent proposal. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as there's actually nothing better to suggest saving and not improving, having the article then vulnerable to restoring with no adequate improvements; my searches only found a few links, certainly nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Oppose a merge, since the proposed target article says it is a list of NOTABLE food trucks and "not a comprehensive list of all food trucks companies." If we are agreed that this food truck is not notable, it doesn't belong at that list. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 5 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 Tokyopop. MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Levy

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

Levy is mainly associated with Tokyopop. All his works are Tokyopop-related from writing, production, and even music composition. Recommend merging to Tokyopop article as he does not have any other major companies, and putting in a section about Levy's early projects into Tokyopop's history. The stuff about donating Tokyopop material to libraries also fits well into Tokyopop charity section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Tokyopop. Not very notable, but merging makes sense. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tokyopop. Wikipedia is not a resume website. The articles cited mainly cover Levy's business Tokyopop and only mention him in passing. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:NBIO. —Farix (t | c) 21:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a portion of the material and Redirect to Tokyopop, as this seems to be what he is primarily notable for. Works for me. GAB^Hello! 22:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as I originally brought the topic to WP:Anime for opinions. Clearly the article was written as a self promotional piece and little has been done to rectify this. Even if you accept that as head of the company he may be of interest, I don't see the grounds to give him an individual article when any of his involvement with the company can be stated in the Tokoypop article - which this article already has much of the same text. He doesn't need an article to promote his random projects or his athletics involvement. SephyTheThird (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tokyopop, any info that is merged in might as well be started from scratch considering the promotional tone of the Stu article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this article substantially shows he's best known for that company. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 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. Sandstein 08:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayal

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

"Ayal" is simply the Hebrew name for ~~dear~~ deer, probably according to the sources I've seen an oryx or a gazelle. If it really is an acrostic that should go in the appropriate article. Doug Weller talk 19:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You mean "deer", presumably. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a Hebrew dictionary. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Redirect to Deer, As alternative names normally redirect to the animal's page. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. First of all, translation of Hebrew אַיָּל is "Eyal", which in wikipedia may be referred to name of place or person. The disambiguation page for this already exists - Eyal. So, no need to redirect to "deer", but simple remove as not proper word at all. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller, Debresser, ThePlatypusofDoom, and Arthistorian1977: No-one has noticed that this was originally a redirect to Ayaal before an article was put on top of it. There seems to be a consensus quickly forming that we don't need this article, but should the outcome be delete, redirect to "Ayaal" (as before) or to "Eyal (disambiguation)"? Bencherlite ^Talk 09:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need a redirect, since it's just a wrong spelling. Just delete. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor now blocked (not by me) after statements such as "You have violated the sanctity of the words of The High Priest Of Israel, Minister Of God. You are out of your league. You think you are meddling in human affairs. Restore that which you have profaned. You are not a Jew and wholly uneducated and unqualified to even speak on the issue let alone to censor and entire contribution. Correct your mistake. Be aware. God Bless You." Love their new reference for this, The Big Jewish Book of Baby Names. Maybe it was a troll. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely a troll and taking into account the statements I assume it's a teenager troll. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 11:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Copyedit tag removed.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Removed copyedit tag, added {{GOCEreviewed}}. No copyediting will be done unless the decision is to keep the article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:55, 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 Speedily deleted Or...or that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Velez

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

Subject fails wp:GNG and WP:ENT for lack of multiple, independent third-party sources. Up and coming artist, but WP:TOOSOON applies. Has not had multiple significant roles, nor a cult following, and has not yet made "Unique, prolific, or innovative contributions" to the field. The Variety source is good, but the balance of sources are advertisements and show schedules. One can be successful without being encyclopedically notable. Scr★pIron^IV 19:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Scr★pIron^IV 19:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:TOOSOON / Nom. Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm not seeing much of anything beyond the Variety article in the way of reliable sources, and the use of an entry on a "People to watch" list--as in, people who aren't famous/notable yet, but might become so in the future--as the sole source to establish notability does not inspire confidence. I see some other minor things from an incident in October where apparently he acted like a jerk to Bill Nye, but I don't see much more than a few blogs; nothing that would stand as a reliable source. So, yeah, delete, at least right now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself suggested and tagged for deletion, none of this is convincing to accept yet. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I've deleted the article under WP:CSD#G5. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:33, 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 snow TNT. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian refugees in Wales

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

It's not implausible that an article could exist on Belgian refugees in Wales. This is not it. This is so far from it that it is implausible as to how it could even begin to become that article. Not least amongst its problems is a distinct lack of Belgians in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speediest Possible Delete This may be the worst non-spam article I have seen on Wikipedia. Wow, It's amazing how terrible this article is. Probably notable, but we can't keep any part of it by any stretch of the imagination. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I almost want this kept as a shining example of how not to write a Wikipedia article. Presumably it was written as a entirely promotional piece for "Wales for Peace" but the author has managed even to fail to link properly to the website they are promoting. Richard3120 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who wants to move this to WP:BADEXAMPLE and title it "Example of how not to write an article"? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No point, while we have Reactions to the death of Prince Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TNT. Hopefully, it can be properly written in the future... GAB^Hello! 22:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But does it need to be written at all? Belgian refugees are a notable topic and no doubt some of them ended up everywhere from Azerbaijan to Zambia - but did enough of them come to Wales to make a notable group? As Italian POWs and Genoese coal trimmers certainly did do in South Wales, let alone all the many and varied groups who came to Tiger Bay. Belgians though? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath at all. GAB^Hello! 23:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does look like a sizable amount of Belgian refugees came to Wales during World War 1. Somewhere from 4,500 people to 200,000 people from searches. Today, though, I don't know how notable this is. Belgian refugees in the United Kingdom would be a more notable topic. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's worse than I thought. Nothing to salvage. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:16, 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. Consensus has been established that subject is more than a dict def, and that it should be kept (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love declaration

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

Prod contested by original contributor, this is just a dictionary definition that is not suitable for an encyclopedia. There are no sources and I do not see how this can be expanded into a full article -- GB fan 16:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I sort of doubt that this (or even "declaration of love") is encyclopedic. GAB^Hello! 20:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Keep - Alright, works for me. Could really do with some more expanding, though... might want to consider moving to "declaration of love." GAB^Hello! 22:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's a very good 21st-century source about the subject, and here's one from 1676. These cover the concept of a declaration of love, which is surely the more common term, not the phrase itself. These are just the sources that I could find in a few seconds rather than the results of comprehensive searches. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve perhaps or at least Draft if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an important cultural trope. 86.17.222.157 presents some good sourcing. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary. Not a dictionary. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a dictionary, but what makes you think that this topic can only be a dictionary entry? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, both in regards to cultural and historical backgrounds—there is for example an image of South Korean love-locks on the page, but the article doesn't say anything about it, and a lot of other cultures also have their own traditions regarding love declarations, plus of course the difference through the ages—and in regards to literature, where it is a well-known trope. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:18, 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 23:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Switch VFX

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

Non-notable company that has worked on many notable films. Goggle searches in News and Books return only the most minimal of references, mostly list-based. I could not come up with a single independent ref that discusses the company's work. Article created by COI editor-- see talk. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is not a free public relations or advertising platform for companies to promote or publicize themselves. As with all other fields of human endeavour, a company does not get automatic Wikipedia inclusion rights just because its existence can be verified in directories like IMDb — it earns a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source coverage in media which satisfies WP:CORP. But nothing like that has been shown here, and I'm having about as much luck as the nominator at finding anything more — because it's a Toronto-based company, I ran a ProQuest "Canadian Newsstand" search, and came up completely dry there too. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is not inherited and simply nothing else suggests the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 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. Sandstein 08:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lords country

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

Non notable development, has some local coverage but don't believe its enough to meet GNG Gbawden (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the local coverage used as reference is enough to meet GNG, the construction development its of importance in its local region in India, since its a part of an area reconstruction, that is boosted by the local government.Newby006 (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The local coverage seems to be enough to meet GNG, the article is a stub, it should be improved but we should keep it.Wizardlis54 (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above indefinitely blocked sock votes struck. —SpacemanSpiff 16:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this is actually convincing, it's somewhat newly founded with nothing else solidly convincing to suggest accepting, keeping and improving. Simply not convincing, SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable real estate development, sources not available to establish notability per WP:GEOFEAT. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:06, 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 merge to Social cleansing#Latin America. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Pamphlet Scandal

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

Fails notability and unencyclopedic. Originally proposed for deletion last year, but withdrawn by nominator after finding a source: however, source talks about social cleansing in general in South America – there is nothing linking it to this particular event, nor the use of pamphlets. No evidence of any lasting notability: online searches of the name both in English and in Spanish produce nothing. No evidence whatsoever that the name "the pamphlet scandal" was used in association with this event. Richard3120 (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename, perhaps to "Social Cleansing Killings" or "Social Cleansing Homicide" as defined by the article's only cited source, "Violence in Colombia: Building Sustainable Peace and Social Capital" [9], and following the example of Honour killing. No such Wikipedia article seems to currently exist, despite plenty of sources detailing, for example, the widespread killing of "street children" in Colombia. Even the Street children in Latin America article devotes a mere one sentence to that particular issue, and it does not connect such killings to killings amongst other groups and to a wider social process, which the cited source expressly does. "Social Cleansing" + Colombia 1030 results on Google Scholar: [10]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – at best I'd say this could be merged and redirected to Crime in Colombia or something similar, but having a stand-alone article doesn't make any sense to me, particularly one as weakly-sourced as this one. Richard3120 (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose a merge and redirect. I think there is more than enough sourced material for a dedicated article on this "Social Cleansing" phenomenon. Here is a source for the "pamphlet" incident detailed in the article: [11]. And another [12], and another [13] - there are probably many more if we just don't use this article's title as the basis for the search. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, thank you – well, retitling the article and expanding it to cover previous social cleansing threats does seem to be the way forward now, as we have verifiable sources which also include other references that could be accessed for more information. Thank you for your help. Richard3120 (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above evidence, I think the best option now would be to close this AfD and then open up a debate at WP:MOVE to rename the article and add the new sources. Richard3120 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good idea. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Social cleansing#Latin America. Two of the three sources provided by Tiptoethrutheminefield don't look reliable to me. I don't doubt that pamphlets are being handed out but the subject itself (as mentioned) isn't really a thing (at least not with English-language sources). Social Cleansing in Colombia might be an appropriate subject but I still don't see enough material to merit a stand-alone article. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure Chris - certainly the last two sources are blogs and not RS material, but reference [3] is fine, and I've gone through the Google Scholar search and there's a couple of downloadable papers in there that are useful. Plus several of the sources above reference a 1994 article in Semana magazine - this is Colombia's closest equivalent to a serious weekly news magazine like Time or The Economist and is 100% reliable source as well, and the article is also available online. So I think there's at least four RS that could be used to create an article on social cleansing in Colombia. Richard3120 (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I see serious problems with the Social cleansing article. It seems to be almost the personal project of one editor. It lacks a lede - a sign that arouses suspicion for me that a lot of OR and synthesis might be going on in the article. How many of these incidents described in the article are actually called "social cleansing" in the sources cited to support their inclusion? Even the assessment by the GA adjudicator is troubling (and in parts breathtakingly troubling) - he/she seems to be urging an OR filling of the article by expanding the content from modern-day problems to include historical events that someone (that someone being presumably Wikipedia editors) might equate to "social cleansing". From the sources I've looked at in connection with this AfD, the phrase "Social cleansing" seems to have originated as a terminology for events taking place in Colombia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is not a euphemism for genocide. It is a euphemism for murder. And just like we do not call every massacre or minor mass killing genocide even if some activists might claim it is, we should not be labeling things "social cleansing" just because it sounds like it, or slightly resembles it, is or because a minor source claims it is. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at the Social cleansing article closer, and as I suspected it is riddled with OR an Synthesis and with references that don't actually ever use the phrase "social cleansing". Given its state, I don't think merging anything into it is suitable at the moment. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not quite as bad as I thought. The article had been recently vandalized by a single issue account who had deleted the lede and all mention of Colombia. I have restored the deleted content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Social cleansing. That article is unfortunately somewhat deficient in chronology, but it seems to refer to the 1970s and 1980s, when many Latin American countries were dictatorships. This incident seems to refer to (perhaps) agents provocateur, who began distributing pamphlets in 2008, advocating its resumption. This was then denounced by the President, as not being a government initiative. The incident deserves having a sentence (or two) added to the end of the Colombia section of the target. I disagree with one of Tiptoe's comments: the article appears to be well-sourced. In the article under discussion "social cleaning" ought to be amended to "social cleansing". Peterkingiron (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment of the subject matter of this article seems correct. However, how can you possibly claim that the Social cleansing article is well sourced. It is full of faked sources (many sources do not mention "social cleansing" at all) and has much content derived from OR and synthesis. I have already deleted large parts of it that were pure synthesis and OR, tagged other content for sources, and have also restored some legitimate content that was deleted for pov reasons (by someone who seemed to not like bad things being reported about Colombia), but I think it is still in a terrible state. Maybe there is a future case to be made to merge this AfD article into it, once the Social Cleansing article has been stabilized and its off-topic material (which I think still forms the majority of the content on it) removed, but because its content is so much in flux right now I don't think a merge should be considered at this time. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Crime in Colombia article has several subheadings such as Illegal drug trade in Colombia, Corruption in Colombia, Domestic violence in Colombia, etc., all with their own articles – it seems to me it would be better to retitle the article Social cleansing in Colombia in line with the above articles and add the new sources, rather than merge it into the general Social cleansing article. Or at the very least, add the new information as a new section under the Crime in Colombia article. Richard3120 (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Social cleansing#Social cleansing in Colombia. There is only one sourced sentence and it is an overview of social cleansing in Columbia. This can easily be inserted in the first paragraph of social cleansing in Colombia. I think it would be better totry and fix the Social cleansing article instead of effectively starting new Social cleansing killings, Social cleansing homicide or Social cleansing in Colombia ones. AIRcorn (talk) 05:55, 6 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 22:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liwuli

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

This seems like WP:OR to me. I looked up on google scholar and did not find a single published reference about this poetic form. There are a few self published sources (blogs) which discuss this and it seems like it was recently created/invented by a certain Singaporean poet. Unless there are reliable published sources discussing this, I would say it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting how this can be improved or if there are the necessary sources for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 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 16:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly looks unpromising; if English language googling is anything to go by (just 116 not very good hits, once non-poetry and social media are filtered out). Are we sure, however, that there are not sources in Chinese or Malay on this topic? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Malay is usually written using the Roman script, so a google search should be able to find Malay sources for the term "liwuli" (that is, if the sources exist). I am not very sure about Chinese but I consider it unlikely, given that "Liwuli" is described as a traditional Southeast Asian poetic form. However, there could be a small possibility that there are old Malay sources (in the Jawi script) or perhaps Chinese translations of the original Malay sources. However, I couldn't find any published research about this poetic form. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I will say Delete, but not opposed to Userfy if anyone thinks they can work up something with offline sources from languages various. Of course, if anyone can locate reliable sources I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 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 redirect to List of TRS-80 games. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meteor Mission II

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

Seemingly NN video game. No coverage found other than forums, etc. Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With the custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine, I get one result. Does not meet WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of TRS-80 games. Long story short, it's hard to find info on games from this era, such that it's closer to original, archival research than using common secondary sources. There's a blurb in this Gamasutra article, but not enough coverage for more than a mention in a list at this point without a whole lot more digging in archives. "List of TRS-80 games" can likely be merged into its parent article too. (Here's the AllGame listing for the TRS-80—though no Meteor Mission—for posterity.) czar 16:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps as there's nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements, at least minimally. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 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 22:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Babson

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

Non-notable actor. Appears to be have mostly uncredited / extra type roles. Natg 19 (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Not sure how to add my voice to the topic here officially, but I'm an actor in Berlin that was looking him here up to see what his background was. I first noticed him as Hess in the Hitler movie, then I was lucky enough to see him in play in London. He's had lots of small roles, looking at his IMDb page, but he's also been great in many other roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.222.79 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 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 16:50, 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 22:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Baez

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

Television show host with questionable notability-doing a google search I seem to get quite a few Dr. Luis Baez results though! Wgolf (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dang didn't realize this article was only 10 minutes old when I put this up either, that makes me feel bad for putting this up already! Wgolf (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:48, 16 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, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 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 16:49, 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 keep (NOT no consensus) and trout all who voted delete due to blatant WP:OSTRICH initial votes for delete was due to complete lack of research, such behavior is harmful to the building an encyclopedia. Sources provided by Coolabahapple shows this unquestionably passes GNG. (nac) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Denay

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

Non-notable person. There are plenty of mentions in reliable sources but nothing that I have been able to find that comes close to providing the substantial coverage that we require. SmartSE (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I still confirm my PROD and planned to nominate for AfD myself, there are simply no signs, from the article and my searches, that this can be better notable and improved. SwisterTwister talk 18:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facebook likes and being a tutor of the child of celebrities does not make the person notable, neither do having celebrity clients. Donnie Park (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing much here; just a lot of what I've previously called "gilt by association". JohnInDC (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of any notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly anything really notable. Bruriyah (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is it just me (probably, from the number of above deleters), or is this a borderline case? have found some book reviews for The Hot Mom's Handbook, Kirkus Reviews, [14] - "Blogger and founder of The Hot Mom’s Club Denay (The Hot Mom to Be Handbook, 2010, etc.) offers fun and useful advice for mothers of all ages. .. Spirited and helpful guide that will bring out the beauty and confidence in every mother."; The Hot Mom to Be Handbook: Look and Feel Great from Bump to Baby, Publishers Weekly, [15] - "Denay (The Hot Mom's Handbook ), blogger and founder of the online community Hot Moms Club, focuses on the mom-to-be in this reissue with a snappy cover and design. .. Though readers seeking more solemn fare will no doubt quickly lose patience with Denay's chatty prose, many moms-to-be will warm up to the Hot Moms Club discounts and shopping tips, and others may simply enjoy indulging themselves with a breezy read before baby arrives.", Library Journal, [16] - "There is a plethora of girlfriend books aimed at first-time moms, most featuring embarrassing attempts at humor via mock horror at bodily changes. Denay, founder of Hot Moms Club (www.hotmomsclub.com), joins the ranks with this handbook for the young and newly pregnant set. .. Some vignettes are fairly cute; most are predictable.". There are also articles (some deemed mentions?) in NJ.com - [17] - ‘Hot Moms’ concept relies on confidence and attitude, not just a pretty package, Toronto Star - [18] - Move over yummy mummy: The 'momshell' is the latest hot mama, Woman's Day - [19] - Break Free from Your Relationship Ruts - Rut #1: Same-Old Date Night, Tulsa World - [20] - Hot moms. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not just you, Coolabahapple. I found her also interviewed on FOX [21] and MSNBC [22], book discussed in USA Today [23], book and author discussed in Philadelphia Inquirer [24]. I'm going with Keep based on what I and Coolabahapple found. I'll try to add and improve the article today if I have the time. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the non-interview sources, and I found other sources not in databases. Please take a look. Note: I didn't have time to add the Kirkus or PW. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was closed as "delete", and is now reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 19. Sandstein 16:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request @Megalibrarygirl: Can you please fix the links you've added to http://search.ebscohost.com/ (both here and in the article) so that we can all access them? I presume that they are online somewhere else? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse, so far, I can't find any non-database alternatives. I'm really sorry. I'm not sure if I can provide copies of the articles because of copyright issues. Does anyone know more about that? Can I provide editors copies for reference review? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Generally, yes, if done only for the purpose of referencing it for Wikipedia and done in a restricted way (i.e. by email, not posting the article freely online; send only one article, not a whole copy of a newspaper; etc.). See WP:RX for more guidelines. ~ Rob^Talk 18:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a grey area to be honest, but yes emailing them is fine. See WP:REX. It's not a good idea to link to databases that few people can access though - an unlinked citation is better IMO. Am I right though that the USA today source is this? If so, that is an extremely brief mention. Which are the best for providing coverage of Denay? (And I mean her specifically, rather than a book she wrote). SmartSE (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I hate dealing with copyright. Thank you for your information, though, BU Rob13. As for the USA today article, Smartse, it's different. It's not super long, but I added it to show the celebrity following she had picked up. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the above sources. Passes WP:GNG, and we should be assuming good faith on offline sources or online sources that aren't immediately available to all editors. ~ Rob^Talk 18:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rob I don't think anyone is disputing that sources exist, but it's unclear whether they are sufficient to pass GNG. I'm not sure how you are able to tell she is notable without reviewing the sources. SmartSE (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Smartse: The plethora of delete voters didn't even see that sources exist. I don't think anyone was contesting anything; they merely didn't know they existed. A good-faith reading of what megalibrarygirl wrote indicates the author was interviewed by FOX and MSNBC. That along with the plethora of book reviews given above meets WP:NAUTHOR #4c. ~ Rob^Talk 18:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sorry I missed the first round of the AfD discussion. As I indicated when I WP:DEPRODded, there is ample indication of notability in a HighBeam search. If anyone needs me to, I can pick out specific sources that clearly make the case. ~Kvng (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to make two of the subscription sources open access, but given the reviews of her book in Kirkius and Publisher's Weekly, seems clear that she meets GNG. Add to that the interviews, the Toronto Star and Women's Day pieces, clearly has had coverage over time in RS. As for substantial, it is not the length of coverage that represents adequate sourcing but the depth of coverage. She is clearly being linked by numerous publishers to a phenomenon that has gathered steam and resonated with mothers. We don't create notability, sources do. SusunW (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the analyses of Coolabahapple and Megalibrarygirl. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:23, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Barlaser

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:29, 27 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) 08:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the necessary notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it fails NFOOTY because he doen't seem to have played in a leage which is considered professional. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:31, 5 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 17:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Delgado (soccer)

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

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by articles creator without providing a reason. — Michael (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Michael (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:29, 27 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) 08:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as still questionable for the independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails everything.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:56, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jokin Ezkieta

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, never played in a fully-professional league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:29, 27 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) 08:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 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 22:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rain (Manchester band)

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

Fails WP:NBANDS. The notability of the band relies on being an earlier project of what would become Oasis (band). The article has relied on one source for 6 years, and has been discussed to be merged since 2014. Some material is already at Oasis. A title like "The Rain (Manchester band)" as redirect is unlikely to be helpful neither, as solely Oasis's experts will recognize it. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 16:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is basically the same band as Oasis, just an earlier name they used. It was always ridiculous to have a separate article just for this name. Now it has been moved, I agree that the current title would be useless as a redirect. The entry at the disambiguation page The Rain should remain but link to the Oasis (band) page. --Michig (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 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 22:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BOOHER

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

Non-notable musical group lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see WP:Articles for deletion/Zykos. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, no reliable sources have covered them. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests the solid signs of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:25, 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 merge to JJ Lin. MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Love (JJ Lin album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Notability is not justified, inherited or presented through multiple reliable sources, charting or awards. Also fails WP:GNG, as the source present in the article mere mention the album, and is not about the album. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 16:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question this has been sitting here among the albums by JJ Lin since 2008, why is it suddenly important to delete this one album among Category:JJ Lin albums, and why now? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I planned to afd it in January 2017, but you insist to remove the notability tag, with minimal attempts to solve the issue. If required I can nominate all JJ albums that are neither notable if that make you happy. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Among Category:JJ Lin albums, this is the only compilation album. There are no references. Unlike the other albums, no article exists on Chinese wikipedia about this one. Top right corner of cover says "Released in Singapore only". No official English title. Timmyshin (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see this has one reference now. It needs to have at least two quality references. I couldnt easily find another one, but my search skills are lacking when it comes to non-English, so I tried this, finding this, which is at least authoritative and provides an online resource for verifying the release date, but little else. What would be very important is a source which describes how this compilation album was received by the public. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to JJ Lin. Article has an offline source now, but the topic may not be notable enough to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 5 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 22:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Love (Shujaat Khan album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Notability is not justified, inherited or presented through multiple reliable sources, charting or awards. Also fails WP:GNG, as the sources present in the article are mere mentioning the album, not about the album. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 16:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of a highly notable artist's opus. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You already know this. But in case you persist to ignore me, notability is not inherited. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails notability. SSTflyer 00:57, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book Review - "Beyond Belief" by Josh Hamilton

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

This is, as described, a book report about a book that we don't even have an article on by an author we don't have an article on. Contested prod and doesn't seem like it fits the spirit of db-madeup. More like NOTESSAY which isn't speediable. Crow^Caw 16:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete - this has no place on Wikipedia being neither notable in any sense, nor encyclopaedic. It also appears to be a copyvio although I can't pin down the URL that Google provides. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete also as I honestly wish there was a speedy for this, G6 housecleaning at best since it's not at all encyclopedia material I would think is the closest. Nothing else convincing, SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 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. Whereas good-faith arguments from both sides were presented, I find delete arguments, referring to WP:EVENT and WP:OR stronger. The keep arguments are that the original accident, 2015 Villa Castelli mid-air collision, is notable, but we already have the article about an accident. If anybody wants to make a redirect, I do not object.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Olympics curse

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

Per WP:EVENT. There's no "lasting, historical significance" about a statistically insignificant number of deaths of people who happen to have participated in the same Olympics. -- Irn (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sort of thing a tabloid would run once it had run out of tabloid stories. Of precisely zero encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete bordering on original research. How is a cancer death related to a helicopter death or suicide? And somehow forms a statistically significant cluster? This kind of rubbish reporting would never make a medical journal. LibStar (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been quite a big story in France sparked by a helicopter crash. We have articles for all the ingredients here: the Olympics, the crash, the athletes such as Camille Muffat. As the topic is notable and per WP:ATD, we should consider merger before deletion. See Sports-related curses for details of other fanciful sports curses which have captured the popular imagination. Andrew D. (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while obviously a coincidence, many reliable sources have speculated on this (BBC [25], International Business Times [26], The Sun [27] and more). Antrocent (♫♬) 18:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That you consider The Sun to be a reliable source is indicative of the gravitas with which your opinion should be considered. Also, you say it yourself, it's a coincidence, and sources are "speculating". This is absolutely nothing that anyone would find in any encyclopedia anyone on planet Earth. We should be salting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears that this is actually less than significant, if we read the report on the actual statistical analysis, "statistically he would expect 28 of the athletes to have died by now" so we're nearly less than half as many, so this is just nonsensical tabloid garbage. It seems incredible to think that anyone would even consider this notable enough to report based on the facts, let alone attempt to write an encyclopedic article about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that this notability discussion shouldn't be centered on whether-or-not there is an actual statistical correlation. Rather, has the topic in and of itself generated enough conversation to merit being discussed encyclopedic-ally? It seems that the conversation is mostly French-based, and so probably someone (knowledgable) should seek out French sources on the topic before the general notability is decided. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I'm included to mention WP:BOLLOCKS and leave it at that there is clearly some notable coverage of this from reliable mainstream media which could meet the general notability criteria. In relation to 2016 celebrity death cluster, another ongoing deletion discussion, there has actually been some interesting coverage of the reasons behind the number of deaths (related to how more people are now perceived to be celebrities, baby boomers reaching older age etc.) but in this case the statistics clearly don't play out. Unless more sources than the BBC and IBT ones are found I'd lean towards delete on the basis of a few journalists having to write something for a deadline but for now I shall reserve judgement - Basement12 (T.C) 10:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - now that The Almightey Drill (see below) has added info to Sports-related curses I think a redirect to there is the answer - Basement12 (T.C) 08:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it needs to be noted that WP:EVENT presents more stringent criteria than WP:GNG for events precisely because so many events easily meet the GNG. An argument to keep the article must, therefore, explain how the article meets the criteria of WP:EVENT and not merely WP:GNG. -- Irn (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added a line on this at Sports-related curses. That's about as much as it deserves. '''tAD''' (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Almightey Drill: I agree that this is the best solution, but that probably means we need a redirect not an outright delete? - Basement12 (T.C) 09:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing else convincing for its own article, unlikely convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article for me is interesting (I quite like Olympics and death lists), but this is a trivial list, put together for lunchtime clickbait on the BBC website (if I'm being harsh, and I am). Look at any cross-section of 10,500 people who were alive four years ago, and a similar number of heart attacks, cancer victims, road accidents, and sadly murders, will be apparent. This simply isn't notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:12, 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 delete. Consensus is that, while the media have covered this, we do not want or need to repeat every piece of gossip the media talk about. Sandstein 07:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 celebrity death cluster

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

Per WP:EVENT. There's no "lasting, historical significance" about an unrelated cluster of deaths of people who happen to be famous. -- Irn (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coincidental deaths and speculations not qualifying for notability. Meatsgains (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable as we have coverage in good mainstream sources such the BBC and here's some fresh coverage in The Guardian: Why are so many celebrities dying in 2016?. A common theory for this phenomenon is that we have a generational peak effect as a wave of celebrities that became famous in the television era are now reaching an age at which they are tending to die. While we cannot be sure what history will make of this, it is reasonable to suppose that it might mark the end of an era, comparable with the Belle Époque or Jazz Age. As we have yet to see the end of the current spike, it would be premature to delete the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Why are so many celebrities dying in 2016?... You asked Google – here’s the answer" Is the complete headline. I'm not convinced there's anything here. What the heck are we supposed to make of the fact that 94-year old Abe Vigoda has finally died, back in January, and how does that relate to Prince? Cuz he's in the article's list. Adding to the Internet delsort, too, for the Google search angle of the Guardian piece. Oh and Medicine, too, since we're talking about mortality. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what is a "celebrity"? We have Deaths in 2016 which demonstrates that at least a dozen "notable" people die every day. That some mean more to the general public than others is pure tabloid garbage. Not encyclopedic, of no lasting impact, purge immediately. If it turns out that these "celebrities" are all dying of a "celebrity-based disease" then we can re-consider, otherwise this is simply lower-than-tabloid fodder. As for "generational peak", see WP:BOLLOCKS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a media-created phenomena. Agree with WP:EVENT and WP:BOLLOCKS basically. Seems to be a list of deaths with a dodgy lede tacked on to give it legitimacy. As we are only in April it does appear somewhat premature. I would wait till some serious scientific media comment on it, maybe in 2018. Get rid of it. Irondome (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article as it stands isn't really that useful but there is clearly a lot of coverage here. Much of coverage relates to a wider phenomenon (not likely to be limited to 2016) and related to the number of people now perceived as celebrities, the ageing baby boomer generation etc. The BBC, Telegraph and Time amongst many others have written about it so I believe there is a case that it passes the general notability guidelines and that a good article dealing with the resons for the perception of there having been more deaths could be written. The article title however is terrible. - Basement12 (T.C) 10:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm absolutely gob-smacked that Abe Vigoda has passed. He was only 94, and had only previously been reported dead several times. Makes ya think. Look, I still believe The Rambling Man's take on this is bang on. But looking at the refs Basement12 has offered above, perhaps a selective merge with Baby boomers is in order, which already has sections on both Aging and end-of-life issues and Impact on history and culture that could benefit from some expansion. In fact, the more I think of it, the more I think this is where it should be. If this news/internet meme is about the cultural impact of baby boomer mortality starting hitting home -- and I type this as a non-famous member of that very generation -- which is the only really notable aspect of those RS, then I can't see the value to readers in forking off to a separate article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c):I like that suggestion Shawn in Montreal, like it a lot. Being a 1961 model myself, the relevance hits home far more. In fact I keep looking for my name on Non-notable screw-up baby boomers death cluster 2016 every morning. If I'm not there then I get up. Irondome (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a made up thing. There is no curse, just a coincidence. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article title states that this is a discrete 2016 cluster, it is therefore an event. So I'm adding to that delsort, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like this should either be treated as part of a baby boomer mortality article, as someone else said, or else as part of some broader article on "death clusters" if indeed anyone has done any scholarly research into such a thing. Otherwise the fact that a bunch of famous people coincidentally died completely unrelated deaths (many if not most of them at ages when death isn't exactly unexpected) is mere trivia and thus an example of "what Wikipedia is not".TheBlinkster (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it needs to be noted that WP:EVENT presents more stringent criteria than WP:GNG for events precisely because so many events easily meet the GNG. An argument to keep the article must, therefore, explain how the article meets the criteria of WP:EVENT and not merely WP:GNG. -- Irn (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been commented on by many mainstream media organisations and public figures, as well as being a common topic of conversation. This is similar to 2009's Summer of Death, which received a similar level of attention. These have been the only two recent years in which this has been the case. No-one's saying that the overall death rate, or the death rate of notable people, is higher this year. What's unusual is the number of deaths of very high-profile celebs who, when they died, had millions of fans. Jim Michael (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is WP:OR and non-notable. A lot of "celebs" died in 2016? You mean just like every previous year? It's essentially a content fork of Deaths in 2016. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You must have noticed that a particularly high number of very famous people have died this year. It's not the number of celebs/notable people - it's the number of celebs who died who have millions of fans. Several people who you immediately recognise, who you don't have to think hard about to remember who they were. We haven't had a previous year that's had so many high-profile celeb deaths in the first four months. If this year weren't different, there would have been many people and organisations commenting during other years about how many celebs died - which hasn't happened since 2009. Jim Michael (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what constitutes a "celebrity" then? We have Deaths in 2016 which lists all the people notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. What makes this subset so much more "celebrity" than those who aren't listed? Why is Chyna more "celebrity" than Blackjack Mulligan? Why is Zaha Hadid more "celebrity" than Vladimir Kagan? This list is garbage and pure original research, about as far removed from encyclopedic content as anything I've ever seen. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of those four you mentioned had millions of fans. Architects and furniture designers rarely have millions of fans. You must be able to tell the difference between deaths of people like you mentioned - compared to David Bowie, Prince etc. Jim Michael (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sink your battleship - two of those I mentioned are listed in this "article". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's because some of the sources mention them, along with the major celebs. That doesn't mean that my point isn't valid. Most notable people aren't properly famous and don't have millions of fans. The large majority of people listed in Deaths in 2016, Deaths in 2015, Deaths in 2014 etc. aren't known of by most people. In contrast, mention Bowie to almost anyone and they immediately know who he was. You must see the difference between a little-known notable person and a very famous person. Jim Michael (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So your mistake. And yes, I see my own personal interpretation on who is little-known and who is not little-known, but that's a personal (original) opinion. What are the inclusion criteria for this list? What defines a celebrity? You yourself told me that two of the people on that list aren't celebrities. So why are they on the list? What is encyclopedic about this list? As I said below, remove the list, leave the term as a dictionary definition, and move it to wiktionary as a one-liner. Cherry picking people's personal lists of people they personally find to match their own definition of celebrity is not what an encyclopedia should be doing, and you know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make a mistake. I'm not talking about who should or shouldn't be included in this list - because that's not what this discussion is about. This is about whether the article should be kept or deleted. The article's talk page is the place to discuss who to add or remove from the list. Not all of the people in the list were very high-profile and I didn't say that none of the four you mentioned were on the list. My point was that this year has seen an unusually high number of deaths of people who have millions of fans. That is why this article was created and why the subject has received so much media coverage. You must have heard/read many people talking about the high number of celeb deaths this year; people weren't saying the same thing about 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 or 2010. Jim Michael (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You made a fatal mistake, claiming that two of the individuals I noted weren't celebrities yet here they are, listed and cited. You have made mistake after mistake, and your continual unsourced claims of "millions of fans" is bollocks. There are "celebrities" in South Korea who have "millions of fans" who would never get listed in these tabloid reports because they're overlooked, because, yes, that's right, the inclusion criteria is pure original research, in other words, it's made up. It's not encyclopedic. As I said before, remove the list, leave the term as a dicdef and link it to Wiktionary. This has no place in a genuine encyclopedia beyond a redirect. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that none of them were celebs - I said that they were nothing like the level of Bowie or Prince. Only two of the four you mentioned are listed in the article. Korean celebs who perform only in Korean aren't likely to feature prominently in the Western World, so their deaths won't be featured in the media outside of Korea. This isn't a suitable topic for a dictionary, so I don't see it being in Wiktionary. Summer of Death is in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. It's not original research - it's backed by reliable sources. Jim Michael (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only picked two to test the water, you fell for it hook, line and sinker. Your last post indicates that this is pure OR, a subject that is non-encyclopedic, i.e. we'll ignore the "celebs" (and yes, you have failed to define "celebrity" for the fourth or fifth time of asking) who die in Korea, and stick to those in the Western world. Utterly subjective, pure original research. Just because they are not featured "outside of Korea" it doesn't mean they are not "celebrities", or should we rename this "2016 celebrities who are considered important by the western world death cluster"? Do you know what an encyclopedia is? (P.S. Summer of Death is going to be deleted soon, just FYI) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is the English-language Wikipedia, not many Koreans will be well-known to our readers. If there's a year when an unusual number of Korean celebs die, that will be covered by Korea's media. Perhaps Korean Wikipedia will create an article about it. Jim Michael (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @The Rambling Man: this relates to your point above. Coincidentally, and at least to me interestingly, an article on this question went up just a few hours ago using stats from Wikipedia as a means to measure fame. I'm not sure how much that website is trusted as a source but it was that kind of statistical analysis featured in some of the other articles liked above that could contribute to making the topic noteworthy, not perhaps as it's own article but maybe as a section within the baby boomers article or elsewhere - Basement12 (T.C) 14:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and something like gizmodo is the sort of place to put this kind of rubbish. A made-up measure of "celebritiness" filtered on Deaths in 2016. How useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Without proper scope (selected by sources to avoid WP:OR) I'm unsure how this differs from Deaths in 2016.LM2000 (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It differs in that a particularly high number of people have died this year who had millions of fans. Jim Michael (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Millons of fans" seems unmanageable and hard to gauge... but if you can find sources that support that scope then we'll talk.LM2000 (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The scope is the celebrities specifically cited in accounts of the phenomenon. All the celebrities currently listed are supported by specific sources as being part of this peak in deaths. Deaths in 2016 contains large numbers of people who may be technically regarded as notable but are not famous celebrities, e.g. Sunil Gudge. Deaths in 2016 has about 20 entries per day including red links. It's that list which is indiscriminate as it's so long that it's largely useless. Andrew D. (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Deaths in 2016 is most certainly not indiscriminate at all. The inclusion criteria are precisely defined. Individuals who meet the notability of Wikipedia, and for those without articles, red links are removed after a month (the red links are initially allowed to encourage article creation). Indiscriminate lists, such as this one, are those where sources are cherry-picked using original research. Why aren't many of those people listed here included? Or here? Or here? Also, can you provide a defintion of "famous celebrity" please? Please note Wikipedia has a special template for that kind of thing, where a term like "famous" or "significant" &c. is used, see {{famous}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2016 is quite indiscriminate because everybody dies and so, over time, everyone will end up on one of these Deaths in yyyy pages.
There's another place where we report deaths and that's the main page which has a Recent Deaths section. Deaths are reported selectively there and this is determined by a vote at WP:ITN/C.
In the page in question, the main topic is the overall issue that we may be seeing a surge in numbers. The list of specific names is a natural complement to this but is mainly illustrative. As it's based on what the sources say, it is definitely not OR and is quite objective, unlike the other cases above which will either take anyone or are based upon a subjective vote.
Per WP:BLUE, we don't really need to explain what a famous celebrity is. But, if you want a detailed analysis, see Is 2016 Really a Bizarrely Bad Year for Celebrity Deaths? Here's the Data to Prove It, which comes to the conclusion that it's megastars which matter most in determining this phenomenon. Andrew D. (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2016 is not indiscriminate at all. It contains all notable people that die.
The ITN/RD section has nothing to do with this discussion.
Remove the list, and you have an non-expandable stub which effectively becomes a dicdef. By all means do that and we can move it to Wiktionary.
We absolutely do need to define what a "celebrity" is because it's clear from those on the list you have provided that it's purely subjective. Please see WP:OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this article is very different from that of Deaths in 2016. This is about the fact that an unusually high number of celebs died this year who had millions of fans (not deaths of merely notable people or deaths in general). It's a topic that's received a lot of media coverage and is one of the most common topics of conversation this year. Deaths in 2016 is a list of all the notable people (and a few notable non-humans) who died this year. Jim Michael (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the scope is very similar indeed, just the inclusion criteria for Deaths in 2016 is objective and encyclopedic, while this list is purely subjective and a result of a few people's opinions on who and who is not a "celebrity". You have summarily failed to define what a "celebrity" is, your own errors in such a definition are indicative that this is purely original research. I have provided additional sources that discuss this with individuals who are not currently listed and who do not list some who are currently listed. In other words, if you took a holistic view of all the "celebs" who have died so far, you'd end up with Deaths in 2016, simply because we have no objective definition of a celebrity and as such this kind of lame intersection combined with pathetic tabloidism should be excised from a proper encyclopedia. (And please, never, ever use "most common topics of conversation this year" as a reason to create a Wikipedia article, Jesus. We'd have a whole topic dedicated to Kim Kardashian's Instagram account. You see my point?) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most notable people aren't celebs. Most celebs don't have millions of fans. We don't have articles about anyone's Instagram account. It's millions of people talking/writing about the unusual number of high-profile celebs dying this year that has made the media cover it extensively - that makes it notable. This isn't imaginary or a fad - many people still remember that June-September 2009 had an unusually high number of high-profile celeb deaths. If someone said to you that many celebs have died this year, would you say: "that's bollocks - there's been no more than any other year!"? Jim Michael (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to Summer of Death? Irondome (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for you to make an encyclopedic definition of a "celebrity" which bounds this list. If you don't want to do that, or can't do that, then please let me know. Your personal theories and original research are great if we're writing a blog, but we're writing an encyclopedia. You surely understand that? And as for Kim's instagrams, plenty of sources have covered those, so why not start an article on that load of old bollocks to match this crap? (P.S. Have you ever heard of statistics? This, along with the 2009 nonsense are nothing at all, just a bunch of bored journos trying to eek out a living based on original research. Why would you ever think that should be part of an encyclopedia? And why is Zaha Hadid here, for example, if you're proclaiming this to be a list of "celebs"? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the celebrities mentioned in the article are supported by respectable sources such as the BBC and Newsweek. Compare this with TRM's position at WP:ITN/C where he declares that recently dead people such as Daniel Berrigan and Jean-Baptiste Bagaza are notable and so should be specially selected. That selection process just seems to be based on personal opinion, rather than objective sources like we have here. Andrew D. (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITNC has no relevance to this discussion at all. This article lists a few people's individual opinions on who is a "celebrity". It's pure original research and non-encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists are meant to do original research. This isn't just the red-tops - this year's celeb death spike has been covered by respected, reliable mainstream media sources. I didn't add Hadid and didn't argue for her inclusion in the list. It's difficult to define the boundary of who is or isn't a celebrity - but several people died in the first four months of this year who have millions of fans. Can you really not see how that is far more that during any other timeframe - apart from June-September 2009? Jim Michael (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 1980 was sexy as hell (in a news sense). Six heads of state, three music icons, a few old-guard actors, a princess, the poster boy for fried chicken in America (disturbingly enduring legacy here) and a goddamned vampire. Countless 24-hour bloggers missing in action, tragically. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one got around to compiling a list three decades later. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Randomness is clumpy. This kind of cluster is expected to happen with a purely random distribution. Should we create an article next time we have a few months with no celebrity deaths? It fails WP:GNG as it is a non event. -- McSly (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic clearly passes WP:GNG as there are multiple good sources. Andrew D. (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This isn't an encyclopaedic topic: it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see in a gossip magazine or particularly stupid tabloid newspaper. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered in and backed by reliable, good-quality media sources - not mere gossip magazines or red-top tabloids. Jim Michael (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's unencyclopedic and lacks clear definition. You yourself have demonstrated that. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are you claiming I've demonstrated that? Every entry in this article's list is backed by reliable sources. If you have a problem with the definition of celebrity, the place to bring that up is Talk:Celebrity. Jim Michael (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have continually missed the point, and continue to do so. I have no problem with the article on "celebrity" but I do have a problem with this list of original research which is in no way encyclopedic. I'm done here, and glad to see that the consensus is clearly in favour of the removal of this tabloid trash. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTNEWS. If five or ten years from now people are still talking about this, then maybe. Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has an essay-like tone. — Music1201 ^talk 21:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick glance at any Deaths in 20xx page clearly shows everyone dies all the time. Some say the "phenomena" predates Wikipedia by about four billion years. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure, it passes GNG, but to me this just looks like a myth created by the media. The deaths are completely unrelated, and just happened to all occur in a similar time frame. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 02:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all different from Fan death in terms of statistic coincidence, minus the popularity and culture background that made the latter important enough for an article. Pattern of death also follows pattern of population boom delayed by average lifespan, and people sit on chairs. JW Noctis^{talk to me} 05:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the West, black cats infamously suck breath. In Korea, black cats famously melt hearts. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brijwood

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

I can find no reliable references mentioning the term. Term was supposedly coined by "Jais Chauhan". Article was initially created by user:Jschauhan2013, and user:Jschauhan2016 just re-created his biography at Jais Chauhan. In my opinion this term fails our notability guidelines, see WP:MADEUP. Amalthea 15:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a Neologism announced by Jais Chauhan (blocked user Jschauhan2013) see this press release which, despite Chauhan's attempts to broaden its usage, has not caught on. - Arjayay (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as this is still questionable for the needed notability improvements, nothing else or any better context to suggest this. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are two spellings, Brijwood and Brajwood, but even when searching for both of them I can't find sources that the term is notable. The -wood suffix is very productive but every coined word ending in -wood, and denoting a cinema industry, is not notable. --bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. This could almost be WP:CSD#A11 obviously invented. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more:

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Brijwood Brajwood

Delete for while the term is not made-up, it lacks wide enough usage to meet our notability criteria. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- FTR, your searches point to Times of India pages which apparently uses the categories from the respective Wikipedia pages for its content (without attribution, as far as I can tell), one of them being Category:Brijwood. That's why the term showed up there, citogenesis. Amalthea 11:33, 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 delete. —SpacemanSpiff 15:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chetan kamble

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

Article dePRODded by article creator (probably the subject himself) without reason stated. Prod reason still stands: "Local politician with minimal coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:POLITICIAN." Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal councillors only get an automatic presumption of notability, just for being municipal councillors, if they serve in an internationally recognized global city — which Aurangabad is not. Outside of that deliberately narrow range of cities, a municipal councillor is eligible for a Wikipedia article only if they can be explicitly demonstrated as passing WP:GNG, which this article very much fails to do. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He serves as the Mayor of a city of nearly four million people. Dozens of discussion on American mayors of much smaller cities have resulted in the articles being kept. Some coverage found here as well AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to our article on the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation as well as their own website state that the mayor is Trimbak Tupe. Note that the creator of this article has now removed almost all text from it, not sure what to think of that. --Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's not the mayor, he's just a "corporator" (=councillor). Bearcat (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity article, which in earlier versions made false claims of significance. Looking only at content which is actually sourced to reliable sources, he is not notable. (I don't know where AusLondonder got the idea that Chetan Kamble was a mayor. That claim is not made in any of the past versions of the article that I have seen. Maybe it's there somewhere. Or did Chetan Kamble just assume that "corporator" meant "mayor"?) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The (incorrect) claim of being mayor was made in the very first version of the article. As stated above, it is not supported (and, in fact, contgradicted) by reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Randykitty for that clarification. I'm not sure how I overlooked that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - does not meet GNG or notability criteria for politicians. This recent edit makes it clear that it is an autobiography. The user is now focusing on promoting himself as a writer and had created articles about a book and a movie script he has written - but he does not seem to meet WP:CREATIVE (and his publications are clearly not notable either). --bonadea contributions talk 07:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only notable thing is the author's blatant attempt to promote his book. Bazj (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator is creating articles with the same name link [28] Fitindia (talk) 11:36, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MC Conrad

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

WP:PROMO article of non-notable musician. Only two references on page, both to low quality music blogs. I'm not seeing any further reliable sources online. Article seems to make some assertion for notability, but no references to back up claim of his "distinct vocal style." FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's well known on the drum'n'bass scene, but that isn't enough to warrant an article on him as he fails WP:BIO. Richard3120 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are user contributed. No independent coverage evident. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder2D

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

Promotional article for non-notable product. No coverage in reliable sources at all. Previously speedied twice as G11 and recently prodded for the same reason. I am bringing this here to establish a clear precedent regarding the article, which I believe should be deleted and possibly salted. Thparkth (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable software, fails WP:GNG. Like nom pointed, speedy deleted twice already. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (The PROD would have been enough...) Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 14:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Source are not that unreable, some games including Seaquest Remake have been using this engine. The engine is on the commercial status. If there is any problem help cleanup instead of deleting.Ash.Taheri 20:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Ash.Taheri (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. None of the four sources are what Wikipedia defines as reliable, and even beyond that, 3 out of four wouldn't constitute "significant coverage" anyways. (That's being generous, it could be argued none of the 4 are significant coverage too, if it mattered.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 24 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} 12:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. No significant coverage by reliable sources. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting better for the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:57, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramy El-Batrawi

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

Inspite removal of promotional material based on PR sources and self published sources, the sole purpose of this article is clearly to promote the subject and get him wikipedia backlinks, google ranking etc. It also clearly shows violation of Wikipedia ToS by the undisclosed but obvious paid editor.

The article does not establish significance and sources lack in quality and number for the criteria of an article. I requested speedy deletion after reading the talk page but it was not fully on the criteria so I am sending it to AFD.

The WP:BLP article is based on 3 sources after removal of promo material. All other sources are PR and self published or bare mentions. It should be deleted as it does not fulfill wikipedia's notability criteria in anyway. Drewziii (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator As stated in my Articles for Deletion nomination, the article should be deleted because it is not notable enough. Drewziii (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially he is a businesman who was sued for securities fraud. That is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests anything better for needed applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edureka

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

This somewhat newly founded company still seems questionable for the applicable companies notability and although my searches found links here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The company is 5 years old, founded in 2011. It has featured on top TV channels like NDTV and in top national publications, it was rated fastest growing tech. start-up by Deloitte, has a verified Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/edurekaIN/ with 100K+ followers and regularly features in almost all top national publications. Here are some examples:

Sources

Edureka on NDTV (the most watched news channel in India): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJHaV931IKw
Economic times (Leading national daily, part of Times of India) - Bengaluru Police declared that they are going to get their workforce trained by Edureka: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-08-27/news/65928812_1_edureka-cdr-lovleen-bhatia
Economic Times first page: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-08-21/news/65706289_1_unicorns-esops-uk
The Hindu (top 3 national newspapers): http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/education/edureka-to-offer-scholarships-worth-1mn-in-small-towns-rural-centres/article7429074.ece
Business Today: http://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/features/companies-are-hiring-more-freelancers-than-ever/story/230742.html
Times of India (#1 national newspaper): http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Edureka-is-top-among-Deloittes-Technology-Fast-50-India-2014-company/articleshow/45122748.cms
Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Edureka-hires-ex-executive-from-Facebook/articleshow/47904258.cms
Business Standard: http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/edureka-talend-team-up-to-train-professionals-on-real-time-data-integration-116041300235_1.html
Economic Times: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/education/edureka-teams-with-talend-to-train-big-data-professionals-on-real-time-data-integration/articleshow/51809430.cms
Yourstory (leading tech news portal in India): yourstory dot com/2014/06/edureka/
Business Today (leading business magazine by Today group): http://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/event/leading-entrepreneurs-and-hr-on-startups-freelance-marketplace/story/228915.html
Deccan Chronicle (Among top newspapers in South India): http://www.deccanchronicle.com/technology/in-other-news/220216/break-ke-baad-tech-professionals-looking-to-online-tools-after-career-breaks.html
DNA (Zee News): http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-start-up-india-action-plan-here-s-what-education-sector-demands-2166233
Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/We-were-days-away-from-bankruptcy-but-we-persisted/articleshow/50591995.cms
Economic times: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-15/news/66568675_1_coursera-daphne-koller-andrew-ng
Economic times: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-08-06/news/65280999_1_h1b-visa-holders-total-enrolments-indian-women
Mentioned in LiveMint: http://www.livemint.com/Companies/1Jo0llEEgibGplDozNYoCP/Simplilearn-buys-Market-Motive-for-Rs64-crore.html
Mentioned in HinduBusinessline: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/variety/crafting-the-india-story-as-eduprenuers/article6823948.ece
Featured on Livemint: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/nsRceISXDoZLkqqpwUBh5N/Bold-steps-in-teaching-and-training.html
Mentioned in The Economic Times: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-11-28/news/56540273_1_data-analytics-business-intelligence-edureka
DataQuest - http://www.dqindia.com/edureka-ranked-1-fastest-growing-technology-company-deloitte-technology-fast-50-india-2014/
NDTV (top news portal in India): http://profit.ndtv.com/news/industries/article-this-tech-company-grew-around-3000-in-3-years-698853
The Indian Express (among top 5 national newspapers in India): http://www.newindianexpress.com/education/edex/The-Eureka-Moment-in-Education/2014/05/12/article221
On Facebook for Business( Featured by Facebook) - https://www.facebook.com/business/success/edureka
Nandan Nilekani too spoke from Edureka's platform to reach a wider audience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHy2kBUG18o
This is a partial list, some other mentions can be found here: https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=edureka&tbm=nws

Besides this, Edureka's youtube channel gets more than half a million views with 70K+ subscribers: https://www.youtube.com/user/edurekaIN

The website (edureka.co) is among top 3500 websites in India and among top 30,000 websites globally. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/edureka.co

This does confirm that Edureka is one of the more notable companies in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.158.165 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per some of the sources presented above and those found from additional source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Edureka is regularly featured in the top news and business publications and is a reasonably well known company in Edtech. Here are some sources from last one week alone:

Sources

The Economic Times (#1 financial daily in India): 20th April 2016: Online-only learning platform Edureka launches three new courses in cloud and data analytics http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/education/online-only-learning-platform-edureka-launches-three-new-courses-in-cloud-and-data-analytics/articleshow/51907611.cms
Business Standard (India's leading business site for Live Markets): 13th April 2016: Edureka, Talend team up to train professionals on real-time data integration http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/edureka-talend-team-up-to-train-professionals-on-real-time-data-integration-116041300235_1.html
Economic Times: 13th April 2016: Edureka teams with Talend to train Big Data professionals on real-time data integration http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/education/edureka-teams-with-talend-to-train-big-data-professionals-on-real-time-data-integration/articleshow/51809430.cms
Mentioned in The Entrepreneur: 20th April 2016 https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/274386
Quoted in FirstPost: 21st April 2016: http://www.firstpost.com/business/twitter-seva-experts-say-effective-implementation-crucial-for-its-success-2741804.html
Edureka Topic on Economic Times: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Edureka

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.251.249.218 (talk) 05:36, 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} 11:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH; notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:56, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory W. Cappelli

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

Fails WP:GNG. While there are a number of articles that quote him, those articles are not about him (generally, they are about University of Phoenix). About the most focused-on-him coverage I could find on him is in this Mother Jones article, and even that is really one sentence on him, one sentence on the performance of his company's stock. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps or at least perhaps Redirect to the company as I know DGG and I have suggested that CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies are considered notable and that may suggest keeping this but I'm also somewhat uncertain because the article itself is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the company if that is considered necessary. I don't find any substantial sources about him (only the above-mentioned short quotes). I haven't heard of this "CEO's of multi-billion dollar companies are considered notable" policy - it seems to me that they still have to meet GNG. If that is not the case, a link to the policy would be appreciated. LaMona (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The CEO of the parent company to the infamous University of Phoenix is notable by any reasonable standard, and if it isn't notable by the GNG that shows the GNG an unreasonable standard. But it probably does: some of the citations referring to his role in the firm discuss not the firm generally with a mention of him, but him specifically, and do not seem to be all press releases. . The general statement Swister Twister cites is not a formal rule, but is generally true o most decisions here, & I;d depart from it only if there are special factors. DGG ( 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, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is clearly notable, CEO of a large company. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:49, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#A10. Jujutacular (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackroom (game)

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

Duplicates Blackroom (video game), which is already of sufficient quality and uses the more common disambiguation 'video game' for this type of content. Xymph (talk) 11:16, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you bot, I tried to add it to the log but Save Page kept returning me to the edit form. No captcha was displayed (FF 38.7.0 ESR on Linux, if that matters). Xymph (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either Delete or redirect to Blackroom (video game), per nom. I'm not sure there's anything in this article worth merging. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above. Blackroom (video game) is a more superior article in almost every fronts. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't even need an AfD. You should have just redirected it or nominated for speedy deletion (WP:A10). --The1337gamer (talk) 08:23, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Scarlat

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

Previous AfD marred by extensive socking. Closing admin stated that there was no prejudice against immediate re-nominating, recommending that the recent work on the article by DGG should be taken into account. However, DGG did not add any sources, nor did any come up in the debate. Hence, the original AfD rationale still stands: "Deceptively sourced article. References are to YouTube, Scribd, dependent sources, or show that the subject has written some books. However, not a single source discusses the subject (or his books) in-depth (or even in-passing). Some references do not even mention the subject. No evidence that this meets WP:BIO (or WP:ACADEMIC for that matter)." Pinging non-blocked participants to previous debate: @Arthistorian1977:, @Gilabrand:, @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:, @DGG:, @Xxanthippe:, @Onel5969:, and @Agricola44: (hope I didn't forget anybody, please ping as needed). Randykitty (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still pro-Delete, since I didn't find any proper Hebrew sources, supporting notability claim. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am still pre-Keep after editing the article to remove puffery, reorganizing it to align with other biographical articles, and adding material. The man is clearly notable in his field, and won awards for his work. He taught at universities, published a large number of books and manuals, was the head of a committee that drafted the Israeli standard for building regulations in connection with earthquake risk and was cited by Haaretz, a reliable source by all accounts. It is simply incomprehensible to me why anyone is pushing for the removal of THIS article, which is perfectly fine, when there are hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that are pure crud and no one could care less. Is there some personal grudge at work here? Or perhaps some political bias? Beats me...--Geewhiz (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assuming good faith... As for your argument: yep, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with Haaretz article is that it mentions him briefly as a head of committee in 70s and that's all. Also, no extensive information about him is available in Hebrew. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete. The attributes listed by Gilabrand above (published books, taught at university, received awards etc) have never been sufficient by themselves to demonstrate notability (and we don't need the oblique accusations of bias). Rather, one must be noted, which would mean his research is highly cited (it isn't), his books are widely held or widely used (they're not), his awards are highly prestigious (they're not), etc. (see 1st AfD for documentation). Scarlat appears to have been a competent engineer who did interesting work, but that does not equate to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Worthy professional but work has achieved little notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Almost completely unreferenced when you subtract the many unreliable sources. Prhartcom (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only things in here that point towards notability are the book Approximate Methods in Structural Seismic Design (unlike the others, by a major publisher) and the honorary doctorate. But neither is enough, especially in the absence of major and reliably published book revews. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps at best since I voted at the first Afd also that it was still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Succession Recapitulates Phylogeny

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

Article is based on a paper written by Felix Bast, who agrees that he is the author of both the paper and the article. The one citation is therefore not independent, and is indeed subject to conflict of interest. There is no reliable, independent support, so the topic is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete besides the fact that this is not notable, this is not salvageable due to it's complexity if it was, and it's an Autobiography. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any independent sources for this theory and the paper itself doesn't show any citations in GScholar. Hence it fails WP:GNG. --Mark viking (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Clarke (Drummer)

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

Article about a drummer. Sources are low quality and at best have trivial mentions about Clarke. Most of the page is about the bands he played in - information about Clarke is unsourced. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Insufficient evidence of notability. -IagoQnsi (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources, and the references listed in the article aren't much help. Lulu.com is a self-publishing company, and the Rolling Stone article never mentions him. There are a few articles about Fasway that mention him, like this band bio from Billboard, but that's not enough to establish notability independent of the band. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:46, 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. It is clear from the discussion that there is a "rough consensus" for deletion. A number of the sources that have been raised qualify as reliable sources and do mention the OCLA, but in-pass mentions are not "significant coverage". Hence, the arguments for deletion have merit and deletion is therefore warranted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Civil Liberties Association

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

Non-notable organisation; purpose of the page is promotional. There are not sources that are no reliable sources that are primarily about the organisation. The page was created by an editor who has admitted a conflict of interest (see Talk:Ontario_Civil_Liberties_Association/Archive_1#Rancourt_conflict_of_interest) and is maintained/guarded by a Single Purpose Account Von Zepherus (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, not notable. It looks like self-promotion for a minor local volunteer group run by a grad student and mentioned only barely and in passing by reliable sources, despite what looks like a calculated play for publicity with their dominatrix award. Rancourt's conflict of interest doesn't help matters at all. Vi Dwell (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: I've moved my still delete comment under the line below. Vi Dwell (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Do Not Delete. I disagree with deletion for the following reasons: 1. No grounds have been provided for lack of notability based on WP:NOTE. 2. No grounds have been provided for criticism of the sources based on WP:RS The grounds provided for deletion consist of nothing but baseless assertions. In addition, the editor responsible for the current content of the article was an independent outsider, Jytdog. He was not the person who created the page nor was I. I agree with the current content of the page and have been monitoring the changes to this page because it seems to be under attack by an individual and his associates. Baseless, prejudicial changes have been repeatedly made amounting to vandalism which concerns me. I have also been the target of personal attacks as a result which is simply motivating me to remain involved. Tobeme free (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ADMIN I would like an extension to review the information provided by Ceosad. I would also like to note that OCLA is the main Civil Liberties Association for the province of Ontario and by virtue of that fact alone is notable. However, I can and will address the issues raised but will need some time do so. There have been several main stream media articles talking about OCLA, the work they do, and some have been focused on cases that OCLA has handled. I believe these address notability but in order to be sure I have to understand what the issues are in the references provided below and locate the articles. Tobeme free (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Tobeme free: Feel free to provide better sources, but read this first: WP:ORGSIG. Ceosad (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TY Ceosad I've been busy the last few days so I'll starting to prepare my case today and will hopefully be able to post it tomorrow or the next day at the latest. In the meantime I came across a rather interesting article that the editors might want to read. I have noticed a big difference between how this Wikipedia article has been handled by editors and Admins and how much more controversial articles have been handled in the past. I have followed the discussions on some of the articles and in the past the Editors and Admins handled them with objectivity and fairness which resulted in controversies being addressed properly. I'm actually shocked at the way this one is being handled and it seems that it could be because there has been a general change in the way Wikipedia has evolved. Evolution isn't always positive. It can be negative as well. This article is just an FYI and not directly related to this discussion. Wikipedia Is Basically a Corporate Bureaucracy, According to a New Study Tobeme free (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biscuittin You might find this article above interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeme free (talk • contribs) 13:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/tobeme_free Vi Dwell (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has serious trouble with both WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:INDEPTH. I could not find any good sources on the organization itself, and all of the events it had been involved with seemed to be more or less trivial, as proven by lack of varied media coverage. Neither notability nor reliability can be established. Ceosad (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No better references to support notability found. I was about to elaborate on notability as defined by Wikipedia but from looking at Tobeme free's user talk page, it appears that attempt has been made already, unsuccessfully it appears. --Finngall ^talk 14:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userify: No indication of notability for now, but creator has said they "will address the issues raised but will need some time do so". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. History of both article and user indicates User:Tobeme free is a single purpose user who has been playing games for months so is underserving of more time. His claim that "OCLA is the main Civil Liberties Association for the province of Ontario" is untrue. The OCLA has no such status or reputation, is a new organization, unknown, and is entirely volunteer with no professional staff and seem to be largely based around disgraced professor Denis Rancourt and his complaints against his former employer, the University of Ottawa. If anything, OCLA is trading off of the name of the well known and established Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) which is also based in Ontario. I don't think it's a coincidence that the OCLA chose a name that is so similar and implies an affiliation where there is none or that Tobeme free has been incredibly aggressive against any attempt to clarify in the article that OCLA is unaffiliated with CCLA. I also suspect, given that his editing has been almost entirely concerned with this article, that User:Tobeme free has some sort of undisclosed affiliation or association with the OCLA. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails ORGDEPTH and has notability problems. Per nom. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TY Reviewing this as well.

Delete. As was suggested previously, userfy may be an option, but considering that significant coverage in RSs appears to be difficult (or impossible) to come by, it's unclear how fruitful any amount of effort on the part of the creator(s) will be; in the near future, at least. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is 'userfy'? I'm certainly willing to look at all options. TY Tobeme free (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobeme free: There's a good overview of the process at WP:USERFY. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON as being too new and small. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm reviewing your reference today. TY Bearian Tobeme free (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete, continued. As per WP:GNG ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Here are examples of significant coverage and provision of detailed information regarding the organizations creation and founding. Mainstream media in Canada as well as independent media have picked up and written about OCLA because the creation of new provincial level organizations is significant. Until recently the only civil liberties organizations that existed were CCLA (national) and BCLA (provincial) both of whom (like OCLA) are independent of each other and unconnected.

Radio-Canada is part of the CBC National News network. It is mainstream media and only reports on developments of significance to Canadians.

L’Association ontarienne des libertés civiles voit le jour, Radio-Canada

2013-01-24: Une nouvelle association qui défend les libertés civiles des Ontariens, Le midi-trente Ontario, Radio-Canada

CBC Radio

La Rotonde, services French-Canadian students at the University of Ottawa. The creation of OCLA holds some significance to this community which must address the implementation of french language rights in Canada.

2013-01-28: À la défense des droits civiques ontariens, La Rotonde

La Rotonde Wiki

CJFO is a french language radio station that services French-Canadians in Ottawa, Canada's bilingual capital. Again, the creation of OCLA holds some significance to this community which must address the implementation of french language rights in Canada.

2013-01-25: Entrevue sur la création de l’ALCO, En directe d’ici, CJFO FM

CJFO-FM Wiki

There is one major national media outlet, and two local media outlets reporting on the creation and founding of OCLA in some detail. Note that Canada only has three national media outlets. The other two are newspapers. CBC is the major one.

Later Coverage based on my own Google search:

BBC, UKs largest mainstream media outlet. This article does more than just announce the award. It explains why she was given the award by OCLA.

October 22, 2014. Canada: Dominatrix given civil liberties award.

Globe and Mail. Canada's major national newspaper reports on an issue that OCLA intervened on. It is an in-depth article on the issue and quotes from significant people involved in the issue in a significant way including OCLA.

Jun. 07, 2015. Toronto Mayor John Tory to introduce motion to end carding in the city

McLean's magazine. A long running major national Canadian magazine writes in depth on this issue and interviews and quotes from OCLA to get their perspective on this civil rights issue.

October 22, 2015. Naming names on the virtual bathroom wall

All of the above are major national media.

The OCLA page has a more comprehensive list: http://ocla.ca/our-work/media-coverage/

Argument for Do Not Delete

This is a new organization but, in my opinion, despite that, it is meeting the basic criteria for notability and reliability of sources. This is clear after reviewing each article and reviewing the sections provided as references.

It is not a corporation or an events organization (which would be event-driven). It is a civil rights organization which intervenes on behalf of the public in defense of their civil rights. This incorporates many types of activities.

Like the ACLU, OCLA has intervened on behalf of and/or supported controversial people in the extreme left, right, etc. This has made them controversial.

Some evidence of that can be seen in this thread where we have drive-by accounts, suddenly appearing out of nowhere, and putting exactly the same deceptive spins on the same normal things in order to create false impressions. If you actually look at their history and their comments, some of the allegations are almost word for word identical from different accounts and IPs.

For example, they attack me by calling me a 'single purpose' account when my account has existed since 2008. While I've only intervened twice on Wiki articles, once to correct some minor factual errors and this time, I have followed discussion on other controversial articles many times. Those situations didn't require any intervention on my part because experienced editors were engaging in objective and fair interventions.

In this situation, we have drive-by accounts driving the entire process of complaints. Some of these accounts have a history of disruptive behavior, very few interventions and those that exist are very recent. In some cases, these drive-by accounts have no other interventions and are by definition, themselves, single purpose accounts. At least one was blocked by an Admin for personally attacking me.

Yet these drive-by accounts are being taken seriously and given credibility by editors and admins who apparently don't do any research into them, despite their constant baseless false accusations, their time-wasting false complaints, and their troll-like behavior. This behavior has resulted in the OCLA page and contributors being effectively harassed and now the page is threatened with deletion. Another process instigated by them.

I would agree that the article might be considered 'borderline' based on the references provided by editors above. However, being borderline should err on retention not deletion in the case of an organization that has demonstrated by it's actions over a three year period, that it isn't some fly-by-night organization, is likely to be around for a long time, and will easily, eventually, meet the criteria in full.

In addition, in my opinion, the following WP reference that I located demonstrates that OCLA exactly meets the criterion for notability and reliability. It does so based on the articles I have referenced above from CBC's Radio-Canada (national), BBC (UK - national), and the Globe and Mail (national). There are more articles by national main stream media on the OCLA media list I provided.

WP:NONPROFIT "Non-commercial organizations. Nationally well-known local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeme free (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing enough coverage, including from English and French-language CBC and the Ottawa Citizen. Seems to me we do have significant, multiple reliable sources. Ontario is Canada's most populous province, by far. It's cited prominently in The Globe and Mail, the largest national newspaper, as well as Macleans, a national newsmagazine. And indeed, their involvement in the dominatrix case was covered by the BBC newsite. Some or all of the CBC coverage is indeed non-national, Ontario-region stuff, but taken as a whole, I'd say OCLA does just meet WP:NGO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow users who !voted prior to the addition of new sources to reconsider should they wish to do so. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete - To be me is just rehashing the existing inadequate sources and adding more spin. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete: Sources listed [above] by Tobeme Free are weighed and found very much wanting.

It's quite disingenuous, for example, to refer to a local CBC story as having appeared in 'a national media outlet' when you mean 'only the local affiliate of a national media outlet,' unless you can demonstrate that the piece was taken up nationally by the CBC.
"Le Rotonde" is a student newspaper.
A lone mention on the local radio station CJFO doesn't do much to establish notability, no matter how you spin it.
The BBC news story is a one-off news-of-the-strange story about the OCLA having given a "free speech" award to a dominatrix. Nothing else the OCLA has done has interested the BBC.
The Globe and Mail only brushes against Hickey and the OCLA in passing once in a much longer story; it's forty-two words out of a nine-hundred word story. Simply being mentioned briefly in passing in a story is too little to hang your hat on.
The McLeans story also only mentions Hickey and the OCLA in passing once in a much longer story; it's seventy words out of sixteen hundred. Again, too little to hang a hat on.

This is simply not a notable organization at this time. And it is simply not the case that any organization whose name occasionally pops up for a second or two here and there, glancingly mentioned in passing in larger stories, [is entitled to] a Wikipedia entry. Vi Dwell (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I perused the newly-added sources above and came to roughly the same conclusions as Vi Dwell. My opinion stands. --Finngall ^talk

23:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Still Do Not Delete for all the legitimate (evidence-based) as well as WP sourced reasons I provided above in three identified sections. My Argument For Do Not Delete provides the rationale and the WP source it's based on. Tobeme free (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: IMHO I think all accounts which are too lazy to provide actual WP Policy references with quotes that support their positions should have their 'votes' ignored for reasons which should be obvious to everyone. Just my personal opinion. Tobeme free (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I count and verified 68 independent corporate-media sources in the list of links linked by Tobeme free.

Editors are applying too high a threshold and inconsistent interpretations of WP policy. By comparison: The Canadian Civil Liberties Association article has a single source with depth about the association itself and that source (its reference 2) was written by a Board member of CCLA.

The OCLA article has a history of attacks from single-purpose accounts with an apparent agenda related to an aspect of OCLA's work, all IPs were blocked for a month, one IP was banned for insistent personal attacks.

Multiple persistent attempts were made to trash the content of the article prior to the instant Deletion application.

Not a nice WP situation at all. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rancourt I mentioned above. Vi Dwell (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to special contributor Vi Dwell: I have stated my conflict of interest here, and the current content of the article is not mine. It's editor Jytdog's, as per here. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 02:52, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Zhao

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

I do not see why this person is notable. Among the references, Huffington Post mentions his name twice in an article, but this is about it. Seems to be a run-of-the-mill enterpreneur. Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The Huffington Post blog just contains a couple of mentions of his name. This article about his company seems to be some kind of a press release (and it just mentions him in context of the company). Sinovision has a brief mention as part of an article. At the moment there doesn't seem to be any coverage focused solely on this person. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for at least WP:GNG, sources and information themselves are not convincing of any notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 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 House church (China). Overall consensus is for a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese neo-charismatic house churches

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

The article has multiple issues, including being orphaned and with questionable use of sources, and duplicates material in House church (China) Caorongjin (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into House church (China). STSC (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into House church (China). St Anselm (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or just redirect). I understand there to be about five streams of house churches in China, many of them operating without registration. Efforts by Westerners to promote their union have come to nothing, apparently because the Chinese authorities want to keep them separate, so that they will not became a threat to the status quo in PRC. Ideally we would have an article on each stream (as a denomination), alongside the Three-Self Patriotic Church and the Chinese Catholic denomination, but so much is clandestine that this is probably impracticable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can make sense to merge, though it would require a significant rewrite of its contents (1) which are not of good standard to begin with and (2) that would add much different into House church (China). I agree with Peterkingiron's comments and would be fine with a redirect. It is worth noting that the actual phrase "Chinese neo-charismatic house churches" does not seem to exist anywhere on the web and the article itself is orphaned. So, I am not sure what advantage it is to redirect. Caorongjin (talk) 09:03, 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 keep. Just because an article is written for promotion does not automatically make it non-notable, but because this is a BLP, cleanup is required. Note that she does not meet WP:MUSBIO because she was only a guest vocalist. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 09:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Belanger

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

Even aside from the fact that this is a self-promoting article by someone that believes they're a vampire (heh...), it fails to have adequate coverage in non-trivial secondary sources. Jtrainor (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of sources and notability. (20+ books, several TV show appearances, and credited with a music release on the Billboard charts). I don't see any indication of self-promotion. In fact, this article looks better than it did when it was nominated the first and second time, and was decided to keep. Ebonyskye (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked the references and many are dead; others do not verify the content in the article. There isn't much left. She is an author, and some of her books are in as many as 100 libraries; I did find two of her books in lists on Publisher's Weekly, but no reviews here. . She has appeared on minor television programs on the paranormal, but like her authorship, I don't find substantial reliable sources. LaMona (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete frankly as I found nothing better and the current article is still questionable overall, I'm not convinced this can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 21:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although this is stupid, she is notable as Ebonyskye confirms. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is very silly, too, but she's in the media and has been written about over time. LaMona, you should check The Internet Archive in order to retrieve the dead links using the WayBack Machine. I've rescued a good number of them. I also added a couple of sources, but have to sign off Wiki for the time being (it's late.) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cleaned up the article a bit, added references where needed, and there shouldn't be any more dead links. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. third nom. time to give it several years until next nom.BabbaQ (talk) 14:27, 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 speedy close. Withdrawn by nominator. Didn't see the 2nd AfD, which ended in delete, will CSD G4 this instead. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt International 2014

AfDs for this article:

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

Official site http://www.manhunt.com.sg/ indicates that the 2014 contest has been indefinitely postponed. The previous AfD ended in no consensus, but given the information on the official site, I think we can safely delete this now. Safiel (talk) 06:27, 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Mohiuddin

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

WP:1E, this article reads like a prose resume, this person is notable only for a single event, otherwise it can entirely be covered in Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 06:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable for multiple reasons. Bobs and Anna Politkovskaya Award winner. Also for the attacks on him and imprisonment. Mentioned in numerous national and international sources. - Mar11 (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is definitely not 1E. He is one of the leading atheist blogger/activist from Bangladesh. We have tried before to cover him entirely on Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh, but he can't be fully covered there. --nafSadh did say 20:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 3 other bloggers were also arrested.why only asif mohiuddin should have a article?where is is complete biography.when was he born.where did he study.anything?something.too much lack of information --Souravdgx (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Souravdgx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 10:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 10:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in reliable, secondary sources is available and referenced to a degree that confirms subject fulfills WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 09:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_political_magazines

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of political magazines

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

This article is unlikely to ever meet WP:V. Only one political orientation has a citation, and it seems to just say that Newsweek has new owners who are conservative. That doesn't imply the magazine will be conservative. That same article describes Time as conservative, yet the list says it's Liberal. Many of the publications may not even meet the definition of "Political magazine." If we remove all the unsourced (and the sole, poorly sourced) material, there is no article left. Michael Belisle (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN. See The Political Junkie Handbook, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only keep magazines that focus on politics, not ones that cover a bunch of topics that happen to include it, e.g. The New Yorker, Time, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Political magazines. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and list-worthy by the standards of WP:LISTN, WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:24, 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 and redirect to List of Wikipedias. Sandstein 09:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adyghe Wikipedia

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

Disputed PROD. This is a Wikipedia language edition with fewer than 400 articles. I can't find any independent references to the website's existence. It clearly fails WP:WEB and notability is not inherited by virtue of the notability of Wikipedia as a whole. Graham (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedias, like all other websites, need to meet Wikipedia:Notability (websites). I don't see how this one does it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adyghe language. It is a likely search term and would fit reasonably well into the language article. Also, anyone reading the language article might well find it informative that there is a Wikipedia. Thincat (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia fails to meet it's own notability standards. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not delete. 188.32.104.152 (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC) — 188.32.104.152 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias as non-notable topic but reasonable search term. SSTflyer 09:08, 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 delete. czar 05:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Orpik

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing evidence of notability. Maybe there is an opportunity to redirect to his brother's article. 14:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN hockey player of meager amateur qualifications and an ephemeral pro career. Fails NHOCKEY going away, no evidence of passing the GNG. I'm not opposed to a redirect to the Brooks Orpik article; I just wrote in a sentence about Andrew there. Ravenswing 11:06, 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. Consensus is that this fails WP:NHOCKEY but has sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 09:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Siegenthaler

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the first point of NHOCKEY is "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league", and Siegenthaler has played 80+ games in the National League A, a top professional league, I think that makes him notable. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Obviously passes WP:NHOCKEY as he has played for a team in his country's highest professional league.~~ Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NLA is not necessarily enough for WP:NHOCKEY per comment below. However, there is I think sufficient coverage for a keep vote: the links below, here, as well as more hockey-focused sources such as this, this shorter article (French), a profile here... (NB the first link says that he has played a game for the Capitals, though as it was pre-season I don't think that counts for WP:NHOCKEY. Still, I think the GNG is satisfied). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment doesn't regard the NLA as a "top professional league." But given that he has close to 100 games there (and the 200 game threshold for 2nd tier leagues may be overly restrictive for the NLA, which only plays a 50 game season), and has been prominent for the Swiss junior team, it may be possible to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a start: [29] [30] , which is having me leaning Keep. 14:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 18:09, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DocuLex

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

Software company with insufficient coverage. The article has four references. Two are dead links, the other two appear to be 2009 press releases. Furthermore, two years ago the company was bought by DocSTAR which has it's own article, and that article doesn't even mention DocuLex. MB (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The ecmconnection reference is available at the Wayback machine. Looks like a press release. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this is actually convincing of better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's proof of notability, I haven't found it. As an aside, the article doesn't really say much, anyway (perhaps because there are no good sources). --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:31, 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 keep. There is consensus that this article meets notability. The quality of an article is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. Any merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resting bitch face

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

This is not a memopedia. As for the purported literary references:

'Texas Women's University academic Rene Paulson stated that those with resting bitch face have a stronger sense of self-awareness and a better ability to communicate'
- Cited to an op-ed in Quartz referencing a 1960s study. Yes, really.
'whilst New York University psychologist Jonathan Freeman carried out a study showing that slightly angry facial expressions make other people think you are untrustworthy'
- The NYU study makes no reference to BRF.
'In 2016, two researchers reported that a computer analysis using Noldus’s FaceReader indicated that celebrities previously described as exhibiting RBF showed a significantly higher level of contempt on the faces.'
- What I've gathered has actually happened here is a bunch of big-data folk tagged facial expressions for a range of emotions, which included contempt but not BRF, trained their software on a larger dataset, then fed specific BRF images to it. 'Contempt' is no less and no more perceptual than BRF-ness. This isn't science; it's a waste of everybody's time. Izkala (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sad to say, but the phrase has gained wide popularity and is used substantially in reliable sources with 36K hits on Google news.Meatsgains (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero improvement found compared to the first nomination for this topic under another title; I don't care if JAMA has a four-year study on this condition ready to go in the future, this relies mainly on junk science about the condition and mainly observational stories about the topic which are under different scientific terms, and the rest are still sourced to fluff tabloid garbage, a 'sigh, this term exists' mention in the New York Times, a joke YouTube video and listicles like the last nom. There should be no pictures posted in this article as this is a WP:BLP nightmare if a rep for a figure mentioned in it finds out about it. It's no wonder with articles like this our feminist renown definitely isn't high by any means. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that there should not be any images included on the page. Studies and science on the condition aside, the "term" is now even being used by reporters. Its use is a controversial societal issue. Meatsgains (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems well-sourced but maybe there's a better term for the more substantial phenomenon behind the term? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Facial expression. Not enough to have a standalone article.--Auric talk 14:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article cites an abundance of sources that substantiate notability. Any disputes about the article's contents (or whether it should be merged elsewhere) can be carried out at the article's talk page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadly, this is very notable. It's stupid, but meets WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is notable, there are articles in good sources (e.g., The Washington Post), and while some folks may object to the term, that's not enough of a reason to delete. RossPatterson (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to facial expression. Per WP:NEOLOGISM. Also, this is the sexist trolling that give Wikipedia a bad image.
Comment: It should be noted that the word "bitch" is not nearly as offensive in other English-speaking countries such as Australia. Also, it is not necessarily a "sexist" term, since it has Kanye West as a poster boy. Finally, it should be remembered that the article is not about the phrase, but the concept - and the concept may be described under another name, or no name at all. St Anselm (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Facial expression. A good deal of this article from research that doesn't itself mention resting bitch face (a term which was added when the research was discussed in popular media). I'm not opposed to mentioning the term at Facial expression and having a section on it, but I see no reason to split this off of the broader concept. It is notable, but that doesn't mean it's an appropriate fork. ~ Rob^Talk 02:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The two journal articles aren't concerned with BRF and may or may not be appropriate for inclusion in an article with as broad a scope as facial expression. Is this a tactical vote? Izkala (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies, I seem to have misinterpreted your first point. Izkala (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is definitely a reasonable search term. CNN and the Washington Post have articles using this term. Whether "resting bitch face" is a separate article or is changed to be a redirect to another article such as facial expression is outside the scope of a deletion process. That conversation can be held on the article's talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There actually is a merge discussion ongoing at the talk page, but this was nominated by an editor who appears to be unaware of that discussion. Actually, Izkala, you may want to take a look at that discussion given that they're similar. ~ Rob^Talk 04:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect is a possible outcome at AfD but I see no article where it might be appropriate to redirect this to. As for the two articles in the press, they can be charitably described as clickbait. Izkala (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Izkala. "Resting bitch face" is a type of facial expression. The article's lead sentence notes this and the page is categorized in Category:Facial expressions. How would redirecting this term to facial expression be inappropriate? (To be clear, I'm neither arguing nor advocating for a merge here, I'm just responding to the notion that there's nowhere on the English Wikipedia that the term "resting bitch face" could redirect to currently.) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The topic comfortably passes WP:GNG, and as such, qualifies for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to facial expression. In 3 years nobody is going to remember this meme or care about the topic, and the article is short anyway. It can be included in the FE article without any loss of knowledge. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NTEMP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:CFORK. Having multiple articles on highly similar concepts is not always recommended even when a specific term is independently notable. ~ Rob^Talk 01:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - See WP:SPINOFF: "there are two situations where spinoff subarticles become necessary, and, when done properly, they create the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible...(1) Articles where individual sections create an undue weight problem, (2) Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Northamerica1000: Which do you believe applies here? ~ Rob^Talk 02:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Spinoff. The article is easily expandable per the availability of sources about the topic. Merging would likely end up dumbing-down the topic to keep the text concise so that it does not create undue weight at the Facial expression article. However, this is an encyclopedia, so ample information should be provided. If anything, a short section should be included at the Facial expression article with a "main article" section hatnote linking to this article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to facial expression. This is a WP:NEOLOGISM and a content fork. No need for a separate article. It is also a highly misogynistic concept used almost exclusively to demean women (though, apparently, also targets the occasional black male). Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Montanabw. I'm confused by your last sentence. Even if everyone agreed that the term is highly misogynistic and used to demean women, how is that relevant to whether Wikipedia should document this concept? Wikipedia contains a lot of objectionable and offensive content (e.g., Female genital mutilation), but it does so to provide information and knowledge about the concepts. That's our purpose here. Wikipedia is not endorsing the these concepts by including them in our collection. A few commenters in this discussion and on the talk page seem to suggest that because the term is potentially misogynist or demeaning, it should not be included in Wikipedia. I don't follow this line of reasoning. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)**[reply]
  - Huge difference between documenting real oppression (FGM) and glamorizing a neologism that is simply a new insult for women not smiling. There are a number of articles about similar insults (notably related to Obama) that have been merged or deleted (one less-insulting but more silly example was Michelle Obama's arms). Montanabw ^(talk) 20:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Facial expression or Delete. This is a just a passing meme and does not warrant its own article. It's probably notable enough to be mentioned in Facial expression though. Kaldari (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The term has well over 700 results from a Google Books search: those results will remain even if the term falls out of popular use (it has survived at least 3 years, and since about 2003 according to G Barret's 2013 NY Times piece (cited in this article). Google Scholar search gives 11 results (some appear genuinely scholarly, some not). Page stats for the article show it has been viewed 154149 times from 03/02/2016 - 02/05/2016 (averaging 1713 per day) so the article is plainly fulfilling a need. Mungefuddler123 (talk) 14:54, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Baez

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

Non-notable actor. Has been tagged for notability since 2011. Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:35, 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.

[1] ttp://www.today.com/kindness/want-happiness-random-snacks-kindness-food-truck-serves-good-cheer-t56826

[1]