Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 February	25 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Teriba

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A11 coined expression Acroterion (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesomebro

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

Unsourced, and appears to be made up, as searches reveal very little. Contested PROD. Adam9007 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vitor Coutinho Flora

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep as the sources provided by Pharaeo of the Wizards show that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL Atlantic306 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Overall consensus is that he meets PROF & GNG. (Although there's a delete !vote present they had withdrawn so it's not really counted as such), Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Treanor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanathdeva Murutenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Article's been improved and sourced since nomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murakami (music group)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep, notability verified. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Academy School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zveri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Joseon

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SLFFVII

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete at best as none of the listed coverage suggests convincingly for the applicable video games notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Sphilbrick, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (پارسا آملی) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Junior Wrestling Championships

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

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

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

For context please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Junior Wrestling Championships and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Junior Karate Championships.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Sphilbrick, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (پارسا آملی) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Masters Athletics Championships

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

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Armwrestling Championship

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

Lacks notability, looks like an amateur competition, also lacks references. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If a merge is still desired, start a discussion on the talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empower Playgrounds

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

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

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

Daily Fail;

USA Today (behind paywall; accessible without Javascript).

Le Figaro (en Francais)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Clearly no consensus to delete, but views are split between keep and merge. I recommend pursuing further discussion to see whether a consensus to merge (in a reduced form) can be arrived at. Personally I don't imagine this having lasting importance outside the context of the campaign. Sandstein 09:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash

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

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

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

What Telegraph article, this one? [13], ah, no, you must mean this one[14].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment I think that the group is substantial enough with many subtopics to warrant its own article. Including it in the main campaign article in its entirety would be a possible solution but I believe there is enough of a separation for it to stay as is with another page. Jason Spriggs ^chat 20:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep satisfies WP:GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an index of stupid facebook groups. I support the merge. Sparse article could easily fit here. -- Kjerish (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BSDMS is widely recognized as a major contemporary cultural phenomenon, certainly on the scale of many other such communities indexed elsewhere on Wikipedia [15] (talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as it stands, this article could quite easily be merged into the campaign article. My concern is that this article is so new that it's hard to tell how big it can get. We could merge it now and end up splitting it again in a week's time. I think for now, it may just be best to let the dust settle. Certainly no case for speedy deletion here. I will keep this on my watchlist and probably advise again at a later date. Jolly Ω Janner 09:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge And heavily redact all the bullshit. Looks like something a middle schooler would submit to FunnyJunk.com. And Jason Spriggs's examples for what he considers to be notable is ridiculous. It's like saying, "Hey! RedState covered it! Therefore, it's notable!" Vice is a stupid tabloid that publishes junk. Yahoo publishes whatever fucktard bullshit they come across, with no journalistic integrity to check them. Furthermore, the sources aren't nearly as ridiculous as this article, for a reason. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 18:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mention that it exists on his campaign page. Possible keep if more notable coverage is found other than the aforementioned WaPo article. --Windy Hands (Frozen Wind public account) (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like it to be noted that the "BernieBros", if you will, are doing some canvassing to prevent a proper consensus from forming here, against Wikipedia rules. Example. Stamboliyski (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

The result was delete. The charts are actually templates so can be incorporated into other articles if desired without requiring a merge. I have placed a list of them on the talk page here should anyone wishes to follow this up. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population (graphical)

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Bandung

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete incomprehensible , unreferenced. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chebolu Seshagiri Rao

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Max Keenlyside

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

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

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

Creating deletion discussion for Max Keenlyside

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE It is clear from the above comments and study of both the article and its subject that there is no contest regarding non-notability and guidelines not met. MERGE with ragtime composers. Amiamy1995 (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nanabhai Bhatt. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of redirect to Nanabhai Bhatt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaalbaaz (1958 film)

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

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

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

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

Redirect (for now) to director Nanabhai Bhatt, being sourcable as one of his works. IF better sources come forward, I'm okay for its resurrection. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It's already been listed twice, so I'm hesitant to relist it again. Apparently, the large list of references were added after this review started, and may not have gotten a proper review. I admit, this certainly has all the hallmarks of a position paper, but, even ignoring the WP:SPA comments, I just don't see sufficient arguments in favor of deletion to call this a consensus to delete. No prohibition against immediate re-nomination if somebody feels strongly about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agrarian Bonds in Peru

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. AfD WP:NOTCLEANUP. Huge parts of the text are factual. 'Advocacy' may be fixed much more easily than the 'Great Wrong' which look like it was. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to VFA-82. And redirect. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attack Squadron 82 (United States Navy)

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cristobal Model 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Variara submachine gun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Hollow Man2010: how in-depth do the new sources you've provided go about this weapon? If it's just a passing mention (e.g. a name in a list) then it wouldn't be enough, but if there is a reasonably sized entry on it, then that would be acceptable. ansh 666 23:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As no policy backed reasons for this article's retention have been made, the article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Type 79 mini rocket launcher

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I looked at adding a mention of it to Type 69 RPG but it didn't fit and it's a very obscure weapon. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to McGraw Hill Financial#Corporate history. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of redirect as agreed by the two participants. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GradeGuru

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I think that is good and a redirect would be the most sensible option in my opinion. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Jaiswal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect to Online memorial. Nobody seems to be very convinced that this should stay an article, but not a very clear consensus for straight deletion either. Sandstein 08:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital estate memorial

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Kralev

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further comment, having gone through the article's references, most of them show that the subject has done a lot (present refs 4 to 47}, in line with 3. first part of WP:CREATIVE - "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.", but none of those references are useable for the second part of 3. - "In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (instead the article looks like a WP:RESUME, i know this doesn't mean the subject is not notable.) Refs 1 to 3 do discuss/review one of his books - America's Other Army, so that book may warrant its own article, but it appears not so for the author. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Coolabahapple has a point, the thicket of sources is not as strong as it looks, as I looked through it, I was leaning towards delete, but his book on diplomacy did get at least one review and some attention in diplomacy journals, academia when it was published, and his book on airtravel also got a little attention [16], so I guess he squeaks past notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northwood R-76

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Varan PMX-80

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

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

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

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

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

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prado machine gun

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baylè 1879 wallet / palm pistol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karveer Mahatmya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Mohammad Abdullah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inflexion Private Equity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Matthews

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DataLounge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is very clearly a large website visited by many people in the LGBT community for quite a while. PureRED (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi Club. What to move over is an editorial discussion beyond the scope of AfD, but there seems to be consensus that policy dictates that stats not be included. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi Club in Asian Football

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - don't we have a merge consensus here? Fenix down (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David G. Williams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back Back Forward Punch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no legitimate sources. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Zulfiqar

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that someone who looks at singers take a closer look at this one because she does get news hits [17].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pakistan Idol (season 1). (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Sajid Abbas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Year Up

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Goree

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

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

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

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

Delete as unlikely better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'd put this one on hold for now: Goree was just cast in Freeform's upcoming Dead of Summer. (See: [18]). I suspect if this show goes forward, he'll (narrowly) pass WP:NACTOR at that point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M3M India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to London Assembly election, 2016. As there is no rough consensus to retain this article, the proposal by Ansh666 seems the most reasonable course here to keep all sides content. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Hyyrylainen-Trett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RedViking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I believe this is pretty non notable, most of the references are merely fractionally respinned press releases. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Shahnawaz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Sadique ul hassan Gillani

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Even no minimal significant coverage.GeeAichhBee (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tuleap (project management)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment. The deletionists have just dug in, refusing to see "clearly" the mounting evidence for notability and reliability of third-party sources coming from academic and media sources. There's also that utter disregard of Pillars of Wikipedia, of what Wikipedia is all about. The scare quotes over "clearly" is a dig at comments above that use the term (and similar expressions) only rhetorically, if not hyperbolically. Psy~enwiki (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Infoworld Bossy award reference and the Opensource.com article are enough to establish notability for me, and there are plenty of non-independent sources that can be used for content (which is not atypical for software). I don't read enough French, but [19] also has several likely hits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That a publication that wants to push FOSS rated it highly is laudable, for the magazine. In a field that has very little competition (how many free and open source software applications for project management are available?). And the german catalogue has been discussed. Stephan Schulz thinks it confers notability on all subjects listed because students wrote about them (os something similar) while two editors, who regularly review RSes for notability purposes feel it proves that the software exists, but not that it confers notability on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Jikaoli Kol and I agree that it was spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xanitizer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Won James Won

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psychea

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Jazz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G. Winston James

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This [20] was t hit that encouraged me to write as I did above, revisiting, I findonly stuff like a bookstore reading [21], micro press publication [22], so, although I have a weak spot for poetry, I have to agree with User:JMWt and change my opinion to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Aljin Abella

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to a lead in Power Rangers Jungle Fury he plays Monkey in the Australian production of Monkey: Journey to the West [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

His role as Joe in multiple productions of The Sapphires (play) has gained enough attention to call it a significant role. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] (That subplot appears to have been dropped for the film adaptation).

Was nominated for a 2014 Green Room Award for his role in La Cage aux Folles (Jacob – Butler, a significant role). [39] [40] [41] [42] [43].

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Whitten

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

Whitten doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria set forth at WP:NHOCKEY. As far as the WP:GNG goes, I'm not seeing much coverage aside from WP:ROUTINE announcements when he got the job. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep His playing career clearly fails WP:NHOCKEY. However, I think his stronger case is WP:NCOLLATH where I would say he meets the requirement "College...coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches...Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." In the U.S. college sports are heavily followed. While American football and basketball are clearly the two dominant sports, college hockey has a strong following and in turn a strong media presence. Further, he is head coach for a former national champion that plays in a major conference. All other head coaches in that conference have articles. In addition to the SNG, here are a few examples of where I think he meets WP:GNG - [44], [45], [46], and [47]. I think this is a pretty clear strong keep not for his playing, but for his coaching. RonSigPi (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Elliott (entrepreneur)

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

Non notable except for his role in Reward Gateway, an organization that is probably notable. All the non trivial refs are talking about the company DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and it may actually need it and then Redirect to Reward Gateway because being the founder may be enough for that; my searches found nothing better and the current article is still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 18:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears pretty self-promotional for Reward Gateway Deku-shrub (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Prinz

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

Individual exists and races motorcycles-- this does not equate to notability. Subject has not won any significant competitive races nor received other recognition in the forms of awards or medals nor does she appear to have been the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. KDS4444^Talk 05:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likely Keep: She appears to meet requirements for WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:NMOTORSPORT (#1 & #3) given the larger (but unsourced) list at de:Nina Prinz (eg: she was 2007 and 2008 European Women's 1000cc Champion), and the coverage shown at GNews, for instance Moto2 wild card, and member of the first mixed-gender team to win a round in FIM Endurance racing. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 13:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... Maybe so. But I am concerned that the German Wikipedia article also has not a single reference in it to substantiate any of these claims, and the only award she appears to have won for a notable bike race is for the ADAC Junior Cup, for which she got 21st place (according to the German Wikipedia). We still don't have a single, reliable, independent, verifiable source covering her non-trivially in either English or German yet, do we? KDS4444^Talk 21:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kepner-Tregoe

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

Article about company which does not seem to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. All references in the article are either primary or listing type, my searches have only brought up press releases by the company I could not find any significant coverage by independent reliable sources. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this better satisfies the companies notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine why delete this article. I vote to keep it, and I (and people like me) will over time add depth add independent/fair critiques of KepnerTregoe(KT). KT is a standard piece of an art/science (root cause analysis) in a constant state of development at present. It is a household name among practitioners and just needs a year or two more to get solidified in the article here from non-company-based critques, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2016‎

Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I found three sources that satisfy WP:RS, WP:GNG, and (maybe) WP:CORPDEPTH - [48], [49], and [50]. But what I'm not seeing is significant coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, and I'm not seeing any (maybe one, listed here) article that covers the company itself in-depth (also required for WP:GNG). Hence, I am voting delete (WP:TOOSOON?) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: you realize all three of the sources you linked are actually press releases by the company in question? Press releases are not considered reliable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McMatter - HA! Well... even more of a reason to delete the article :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. "No references" is not a valid rationale for deletion. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok School of Management

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

No references Prof TPMS (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The normal outcome for an article on an institution of this kind would be retention. Just about the only exceptions that I can recall were where a grand name was just an office over a pub. That doesn't apply here, but I would prefer to have some solid references beyond the one that I have been able to locate and add. AllyD (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mikki Koomar

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

PROD removed by ip user. Endored by PRehse (talk · contribs). Concern was that he is a non notable model, lacking WP:RS Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The original reasons for the PROD were correct. Non-notable - does not meet WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Doesn't meet WP:GNG now.--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tony Chachere. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Chachere's Original Creole Seasoning

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

Little depth of coverage in reliable sources, per WP:CORPDEPTH. The product is mentioned frequently an ingredient in recipes, but not much more than that. Appears to be a run-of-the-mill spice manufacturer of local interest only. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or at best draft and userfy as this is frequently used and is a known name. Unfortunately, searches found nothing convincing but there's no serious needs for deletion because of its current state. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tony Chachere. It fits well in the article on the seasoning's creator and there do not seem to be enough reliable sources to support notability for a standalone article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, although a subsequent merge with Tony Chachere might be appropriate as an editorial decision. I think the seasoning is notable, based on assorted references describing it as an iconic ingredient of South Louisiana cooking, and the company as an core cultural entity in its home town of Opelousas. Examples: [51] (Tom Fitzmorris: the seasoning "is so widely used in New Orleans that 'add a little Tony′s' is instantly understood") [52][53][54][55][56]. Having said that, there's a reasonable argument that the significant information would be more clearly provided in a single article discussing both the inventor and his invention.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Merge. The spice is far from "local interest only." It's stocked nationwide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.113.11.16 (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2016‎

Keep or Merge The information in itself is noteworthy enough for inclusion. The article itself is weak, however it could stand on this own. Barring that, a merge into the inventor's article would suffice. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tony Chachere. As things stand right now, much of the instant article is already about the manufacturer, and not the ostensible subject of the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Stephenson

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

CEO and founder of a web company. Article is more about the company than Stephenson. Refs either source the company or are reliable (linkedIn, Who's Who, Google +). Able to find alot of social media sites about him, but no reliable refs. His name is common. Bgwhite (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as this is another classic example of a seemingly amply sourced article when there are actually no solid signs of the applicable notability. I also suggest Redirecting to Datebook after deleting as this may still be applicable. SwisterTwister talk 08:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. No objection to redirecting per Gene93k either. Rlendog (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability.. page seems to be self promotion. Also, the Datebook page itself has been redirected so redirecting this page is rather pointless. Spanneraol (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate the non-sense namedropping people do to try an establish notability. Who cares that he stayed with "Scott Kazmir, Evan Longoria, Justin Upton, BJ Upton, and David Price after the World Series (a group who has made close to a billion dollars combined)." It's not even relevant and I think a thorough cleanup of the page is necessary should it be kept. However, it appears he wrote this book and his exploits earned him some notoriety in 2012. There's this and this. Alex (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the last comment by Alex--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book is not notable and the sources listed by Alex dont seem to rise to the level of coverage needed for an article. Spanneraol (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iran and Red and black colonization

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

Fails WP:GNG as far as I can see. Yes this has been mentioned in books, but one or two lines in a book is not enough to warrant an article. As there are four editors who routinely team up whenever an Iran/Shia related article is brought to AFD I would like the closing admin to consider their age old arguments and the counter arguments on my part which I will just write here beforehand. These editors usually say "There are a lot of sources dude!". WP:LOTSOFSOURCES addresses this. This article is about a subject which has only trivial mentions, nothing more. Keep voters should show which source/s have enough material to write an encyclopedic article in a neutral tone. As per WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE "The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view". There is not enough material to even write a stub, let alone an article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The ~~only~~ good argument for keeping this article is expressed here: "Ayatollah I love you".-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Keep. Mhhossein proved notability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article title seems to be also translated as "Iran and red and black imperialism" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be kept because it clearly passes WP:GNG. The main logic behind this AFD, as the nominator says, is that "one or two lines in a book is not enough to warrant an article." So, let's see the sources;

) Three rather long paragraphs here (published by Yale University Press).
) A chapter of this book (by Simon and Schuster) is dedicated to the subject.
) A section of this book (published by SUNY Press).
) Some paragraphs of this book. (published by University Press of Florida)
) Almost two pages of this book (by Routledge).
) Some paragraphs of this book (published by Harvard University Press).
) Some page of this book (published by Harvard University Press).

Now, are they 1 or 2 lines really? I think the nominator payed no attention to my advice, suggesting him to make enough searches before making such awkward nominations. By the way, I did not check some of the Refs already used in the article and I suggest the article creator to add my list to the article. Mhhossein (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article makes little sense in its current form. As a native english speaker, it is so full of poor grammar that it is hard to know what it is actually saying. At the very least, it needs a dose of WP:TNT. As for its notability, having looked at the claim of "a chapter of the Simon and Schuster book" (link provided in the sources listed above) very little is about the newspaper article which is the subject of the Wikipedia article; it is about early activities of the revolution. As the nominator specifies, these are brief mentions. All of the important information here can be found in the Iranian Revolution article, where it belongs. Scr★pIron^IV 14:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your points. At least the first 4 pages of the chapter 7 in "Days of God: The Revolution in Iran and Its Consequences" are dedicated to the article and the reactions toward it. Is it very little? Mhhossein (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Mhhossein. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mhhossein and also added new sources.Saff V. (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chek Whyte

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

The only possible notability is of buying a very unimportant football club 1 pound, and then losing it in bankruptcy. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best coverage sources I found were only at News and browsers, simply expected local coverage and nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Association with football appears to be so minor as to fail to satisfy any aspect or spirit of WP:NFOOTY. His general business dealings appear to have only attracted routine local coverage. Not convinced GNG is satisfied here. Fenix down (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Wikipedia space.. I assume the "delete" people don't object? Else it can still be nominated for MfD. Sandstein 08:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiyear ranking of most viewed Wikipedia pages

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

This doesn't belong in articles space. It either belongs in Wikipedia space or tools, where most of the links in the See also section comes from. Other lists, such as number of edits by Wikipedians, articles with most references and other Wikipedia stats, live in Wikipedia space. Prod was removed with reason given on the talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: very "meta", not a topic covered by any cited reliable sources outside of Wikipedia itself yet. Maybe one day it will be, but that day does not appear to be now. LjL (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too early to have an article about the topic. Also lacks coverage outside Wikipedia to establish notability.Maharayamui (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently questionable for a better solid article, can be restarted when better if needed. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia namespace, I do not see any perspectives in the article namespace--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP: space per WP:ASR. ansh 666 04:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Can Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash Swing the Election?". Vice.

[2] "How Bernie Sanders became the lord of 'dank memes'". Washington Post.

[3] "Bernie Sanders is Going to Win (Because of the Internet)". Daily Kos.

[1]

[2]

[3]