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

The result was Close malformed AfD. The actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabien Duchene (2nd nomination). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to find any substantial coverage to demonstrate that the subject is notable per WP:BIO. The majority of the sources cited are not directly related to this person work (general newspaper article, computer security conference website). The fact that he had a PhD and published few papers like every Phd student does not make him notable. Some of its works or iteration of the same paper are listed multiple times. The majority of the article was written by phony account created just for this task (explained in the article's talk page). The article is not neutral and overstate most of this person work ("Duchene popularized computer hacking").

This article is pure publicity and self promotion, probably written by Fabien Duchene himself or one of his friend.

Beretta vexee (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Tipton[edit]

Kay Tipton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm a bit mystified as to how this survived the first Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kay_Tipton; a closer inspection indicates a lot of untagged single-purpose accounts. The references in the article only prove that she won some awards, as many teachers do. There's nothing whatsoever to demonstrate WP:BIO or WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete She is a high school teacher who has been recognized beyond the high school, but not to the level to make her notable. If she really had the impact some people claimed in the previous deletion discussion, than we could find news articles in both the Birmingham, Alabama press and in publications based outside of Birmingham on her. Until someone can show such coverage this looks like Vestavia Hills boosterism. It should also be remembered that back in 2005 when the first deletion debate happened Wikipedia did not have as well developed rules for inclusion.I am skeptical she is a teacher at Vestavia Hills High School anymore. This has no bearing on her notability, but it would show that her notability is not enough to keep the article up-to-date which is an argument against articles on marginally notable BLPs. I have a strong suspicion that many of the people who commented on the first debate were VHHS grads who had neither a sense of actual importance of either VHHS or anything else they spoke of, or a sense of how such things mattered in the long run.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as none of this has signs of the applicable notability. Notifying the only still active 1st AfDer CambridgeBayWeather. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP was more so the Wild West in 2005 than it is now. Current standards render this an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete In the 11 years since the last AfD nothing seems to have changed to make her more notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject does not pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Should have been deleted in the first go around. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Unlike some editors above, I have not trouble at all understanding why this article survived AFD: the world needs heroic math teachers. We all want to have great math teachers to celebrate. There is some news coverage, and she won the Phebe and Zephaniah Swift Moore Award given to great high school teachers by Amherst College. I wish the press paid enough attention to truly great teaching to make pages like this on a high school teacher viable. Sadly, I can't source it. Delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 15 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 Ponyo, CSD G5: Mass deletion of pages added by User:Itailevi046 Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merkavim Mars[edit]

Merkavim Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability; deprodded by original author without comment (except to mark as "minor edit"). PamD 22:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. If page is to keep, it will need to be expanded. Meatsgains (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  00:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  00:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines. Rollingcontributor (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC). Afd notice also removed by author without comment, only marking it as a minor edit. Rollingcontributor (talk) 14:51, 9 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. Overall consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winter vacation[edit]

Winter vacation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems like an extensive piece of original research and has been unsourced for the past 10 years. Furthermore: according to all the Google results, the term 'winter vacation' refers to the act of going some place else during the holidays, and holds no significance with regards to 'economical savings' or the like —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 22:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable. For example, see Segmenting the Market for Winter Vacations. Andrew D. (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if it can be properly referenced. (Yep having a bet both ways.) Actually should be uplinked to an article about holiday period and seasonal migrations by humans generally (seriously). Not just schools head towards the equator in significant numbers during winter breaks. (If it stays I might even have a go at such a collection of articles. Aoziwe (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this can be improved, unlikely needed for actual deletion. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 14 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawn of Hope[edit]

The Dawn of Hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not for the up-and-coming.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't even find an evidence that this subject exists. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't seem to be a real game yet, much less a notable one. /wiae /tlk 00:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete basically imaginably speedy, no signs of a beter article. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No relevant hits on a WP:VG/RS Google custom search. Way too soon for an article, if this even exists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 10 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QBurst[edit]

QBurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No signs of meeting WP:NOTE Amortias (T)(C) 19:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Notifying speedy tagger DGG and PROD taggers Chrisw80 and SwisterTwister --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I still confirm this, my searches found nothing better convincing for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no evidence of notability. I do not regard the Deloitte placings as showing notability by our standards: they are not an award. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Also see no evidence of notability except for the one site that shows they are supposed specially according to clutch.co which says "... using proprietary research methodology to identify top services companies and map their capabilities. Companies are plotted on the matrix based on their proven ability to deliver and focus on a service type." Even if they were notable, article would likely require complete rewrite to not be WP:PROMO. Chrisw80 (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vasand Thari[edit]

Vasand Thari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP, written like a résumé and supported almost entirely by primary and unreliable sources rather than actual media coverage, of a person who has no strong claim to getting over any of Wikipedia's SNGs for any of the various fields of endeavour that he's claimed to have been involved in. Nothing about his singing supports or even really claims an WP:NMUSIC pass, nothing about his political activity satisfies WP:NPOL, and on and so forth. Article has already been speedied twice within the past ten days for lacking any credible evidence of notability, but was then recreated again a third time -- so I declined the third speedy nomination and am taking it to AFD instead so we can apply the hammer of consensus and a liberal dose of WP:SALT. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Source provided establishes that he is not the leader of QAT as the article indicates. His politics appears to be local/regional, and there are no news hits under either English or Sindhi forms of his name. GNG/ANYBIO isn't met, but it doesn't look like any set of notability criteria have been met to date (even acknowledging that points similar to WP:INDAFD are likely to apply). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 10:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because despite my good faith assumption that subject is indeed a "politician, activist, advocate, singer, Musician, poet, writer, journalist, research specialist, Lecturer and facilitator on various topic (especially on History, law, philosophy, social science, evaluation, human rights and civil rights, political education) and Human rights activist." I cannot find secondary sourcing ot support these claims. As so often, we stand in debt to User:Bearcat for diligent patrolling of vanity pages and the premature claims of enthusiastic candidates.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 11 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NetHelpDesk[edit]

NetHelpDesk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - Possible notability for the award it received but the subject is not covered in reliable sources and page reads like a puff piece. Meatsgains (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This "award" is a certification process by one company. It's neither notable and from the website for it, not difficult to obtain. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  00:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  00:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best as this is not yet solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is about a company, not a product, but regardless, it does not seem to have yet the needed in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to establish its notability. The award is not enough to meet WP:CORP and most of the references are not independent and the rest are standard mentions, no in-depth coverage.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:54, 12 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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hungama in Dubai[edit]

Hungama in Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.Delete as my searches actually found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry SwisterTwister, I think I looked deeper than you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)':[reply]

• For instance @SwisterTwister: Here's a decent review from The Hindu. Your missing it does not make it non-existent. So pardon, but what else was missed in poor BEFORE? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

expanded searches:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD "Hungama in Dubai" "Masood Ali" "Aziz Naser" "Dheer Charan Srivastav" "DC Srivastav" "Mast Ali"

• Keep My own searches found the film many times referred to as a "successful" or "well received" film,[1][2][3][4][5][6] allowing me to make the reasonable conclusion that in 2007 the film received more coverage. Better that issues be addressed than the topic be deleted outright. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment MichaelQSchmidt has done a great job trying to improve the article, and I had missed The Hindu Review. I'm not convinced it's quite enough, but it now appears quite borderline. Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this one may squeak by, based on the sources found by Schmidt. In addition to the full review in The Hindu, multiple other reliable sources mention the film in the past tense but in positive ways - calling it successful, or saying that one of the stars is still known for his role in this film. I'm inclined to think it has sufficient notability for an article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

California Waterfowl Association[edit]

California Waterfowl Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability claimed. No sources listed at all. Hama Dryad (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Aside from a few trivial mentions in local press, I could not find reliable sources to substantiate this group's notability. If another editor can identify reliable, secondary sources that prove this organization is notable, then I am willing to change my vote. In any event, readers should at least take a look at the profile picture from the Chico, California chapter's Facebook page: "America & Ducks -- Nothing Better" (the text appears with a picture of a duck flying proudly in front of an American Flag) ... because there's nothing more American than a bunch of ducks. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They're mentioned in a number of books as being among the major players in the conservation of wetlands in California (see here, for example), and appear to have commissioned/produced reports which are widely used to determine usage/management of the state's wetlands. According to this book, they've leveraged $57 million for work done on more than 65,000 acres. That sounds far from trivial! MeegsC (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MeegsC, have you found any books are articles where the California Waterfowl Association is the subject of the book or article? All I could find was this article from the Daily Republic about a CWA youth program, this two-sentence mention on ducks.org, this press release from the Napa Valley Register, this press release on a CDFW blog, and this summary of the CWA's history, the text of which was copied and pasted from the CWA's website. The links you provide above only consist of (1) a list of google search results and (2) a brief quotation from a member of the CWA (see WP:GOOGLEHITS). However, none of these sources substantiate notability.

WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis mine). Significant coverage is defined as coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" (emphasis mine). Likewise, WP:NORG also requires "significant coverage in secondary sources" and that "[t]rivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." None of these sources discuss the organization in any depth or detail. I have seen no secondary sources that provide a detailed account of the organization's history, their significance, or their impact (see also WP:TRIVIALMENTION and WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE). I am certainly willing to change my vote, but I would need to see a few articles or books where the California Waterfowl Association is subject. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and draft and userfy instead as this is questionably solid but can conceivably become a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for balance, some mention of the local anti-hunting lobby should be included. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: The only editor in favor of keeping this article has failed to identify any sources that directly discuss this organization, its history, or its significance. Per WP:CLOSEAFD, the closing admin should weigh this against other relevant policy-based arguments for deletion listed above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:02, 15 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 Ugur Group Companies. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Cooling[edit]

Ugur Cooling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Little to no significant coverage from reliable sources. Existing sources aren't significant coverage and (or) not reliable. I see a lot of mentions here, but they aren't enough to make this company notable, fails WP:GNG. Also, seems to fail WP:NCOMP. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as certainly questionable from the current article. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SwisterTwister: That's not really a legitimate argument. Read WP:ARTN. That an existing article does not, in and of itself, show the subject is notable does not meant that the subject is not... the article might just suck. Not claiming this is notable, but you really should check first. Revent^talk 00:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still delete likely as my searches actually found nothing better, only a few links at News and Highbeam and nothing noticeably convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - NeemNarduni2, any Turkish coverage for this company? Thanks and regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 10:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Ugur Group Companies, the latter of which incidentally should be renamed to Ugur Group if it passes AFD. This company's name in Turkish is "Uğur Soğutma", and there are sufficient WP:RS online in Turkish, including national dailies like Hürriyet [7], [8] and several short mentions in the finance news of Milliyet to improve that merged article. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added some more sources and the official web sites under the group companies today. Please tell me any other thing you need i am a Turkish user. Badursun (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)badursun[reply]

• @NeemNarduni2: you might want to reconsider your !vote here too, I guess —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duly reconsidered, thanks, per rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugur Group Companies. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the author of the article and the digital representative of the company. Can you tell me how else I can improve the article then I get rid of the "deletion" sign. It is effecting the company image. Regards. 85.103.146.22 (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)badursun[reply]

• Comment - I shouldn't have relisted this, apologies! —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ugur Group Companies, which already contains quite a bit of information about the Cooling subsidiary. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus for deletion following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dronningens gate (Kristiansand)[edit]

Dronningens gate (Kristiansand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no better convincing for the applicable notability, nothing else for an article it seems. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:RS per WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of notability such as a significant event there has been found.Perhaps draftify in case something turns up.Atlantic306 (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above and nom. No chance of notability. NordicDragon Talkpage 08:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian IVs gate[edit]

Kristian IVs gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:RS per WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 12 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 consensus is clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kongens gate[edit]

Kongens gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and similar articles, not remarkable. Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unlikely independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the article contains nothing about notable buildings or other sites along the street, nor does there appear to be anything on the street's history that would make it notable. Incidentally, when I saw the title I thought it referred to Kongens gate in Oslo, a street which does have a plausible claim to notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:RS per WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kronprinsens gate[edit]

Kronprinsens gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:RS per WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 12 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) 20:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tordenskjolds gate[edit]

Tordenskjolds gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:RS per WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nordic Dragon 08:30, 15 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) 20:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rådhusgata[edit]

Rådhusgata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable street with zero real refs. Manxruler (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:RS per WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waiz Wasey[edit]

Waiz Wasey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article seems to be a bit promotional where it also lacks notability. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this is currently better convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 14:27, 15 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grassroots Out[edit]

Grassroots Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Three-day old astroturfing group, all sources are based on press coverage of a single event, the launch, and some seem to be primarily based on press releases. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Use of "astroturfing" implies WP:IDONTLIKEIT on part of nominator. Extensive third party coverage: BBC, Daily Mail, Huffington Post UK, Conservative Home, Daily Telegraph. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More press releases, excellent. Perhaps it might even become significant, it's hard to tell when it's less than a hundred hours old. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Campaign that says it is going to compliment whichever main campaign (Leave.EU or Vote Leave) will be chosen as the Leave Campaign by the Electoral Commission. Involves high profile politicians. Mgordon27 20:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really? WP:CRYSTAL applies. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now and draft & userfy for now if it is questionably solid and notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with above commenter. Use of "astroturfing" implies WP:IDONTLIKEIT on part of nominator. 15:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.130.228 (talk)
• Keep: A quick scan of the news sites shows that "Grassroots Out" already notable, with many mainstream media organisations commenting on the organisation. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 18:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Google News (there are other search engines) brings up plenty of coverage in WP:RS. Easily passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This organisation is likely to grow given the widespread dissatisfaction with the other two exit groups. It may even end up as the official campaigning body. Deletion would be highly premature. --Ef80 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This deletion request is just ridiculous. 131.111.185.68 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There appears to be significant coverage on the campaign organization, and does not fit into WP:1E (that's for people; alternatively, WP:BLP1E is for living people). This is also a developing event that is gaining cultural, societal, and economical significance. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shuja Hyder[edit]

Shuja Hyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable singer. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the performer on multiple TV show soundtrack I believe the subject of this BLP easily meets criterion 10 of MUSICBIO. Two of these performances are supported by the citations on the page. J04n(talk page) 22:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - May meet MUSICBIO but without a doubt fails GNG, I managed to find this but other than that I literally cannot find a thing on him ...., The sources in the article are extremely poor (and one source doesn't even mention him!), Anywho fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best and actually draft and userfy instead as this article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 14 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 Drafted and usefied by the user himself (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J. Brenner[edit]

Mark J. Brenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability. I can find brief quotes from him in a number of articles (such as the LA Times one used as a reference), but that's him acting as a spokesperson for his company; he is not the topic. The other sources are affiliated (such as the chamber of commerce he's a director of), databases (such as Bloomberg), or things he wrote himself. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Note: Nominator switches !vote to userfy (see below.)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perhaps at best for now as none of this has better convincing signs of the applicable notability, questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler:I agree with both of you after reviewing the case here. Is there a way I can take down the article, and step it down to a user subpage where I can keep working on it until it becomes notable enough? 716arvin (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's a procedural way to properly interrupt the process here, but I have switched my request above to userfy (i.e., the move you're requesting), which is likely to be the end result. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm going to move the page to a user sub-page. I'm assuming this is the correct action process. If not, someone just ping me and let me know the right way. Thanks. 716arvin (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, based upon this discussion and the previous consensus found at the last AFD. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy coding[edit]

Cowboy coding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Northeastern US residents sometimes use the term "Cowboy" derogatorily to mean reckless or irresponsible. Sticking the word "Cowboy" in front of the word "Coding" doesn't make it a software development philosophy. It is a Neologism - it just means the same thing as "Cowboy-anything" but applied to code.

The first attempt to delete this article failed because Google has roughly 270 hits on "Cowboy Coding." I could not find *any* that are noteworthy. Most link to this article as their source! Wikipedia has a No Original Research policy which this article clearly violates.

The idea behind this article has some merit, in the sense that there can be an absence of development methodology in the same way that Anarchy is the absence of Government. But someone needs to articulate that much better than this article currently does. The article Software Development Process:Other has a section called "Code and Fix" that seems to roughly summarize this article. Maybe that section could be expanded? Also Capability Maturity Model Level 1 seems like the same idea. Actually, I think that's the closest match to the concept of development anarchy.

One person wrote that the term Rapid Application Development is sometimes used when companies don't want to admit that they have no formal development process. Maybe a section should be added there to say a little more about that. Maybe a list of maverick software developers should be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenPeterson (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 February 2016‎

Here is the talk from the first attempt at deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cowboy_coding — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenPeterson (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 February 2016‎

• Keep The term is reliably sourced and meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that? Two entries from the c2.com wiki (see Wiki is not Wikipedia) and Mick West's personal web site (which starts its definition with a link to this article in Wikipedia) do not constitute reliable sources in my estimation. The reference to Google's 20% Time does not use the words "Cowboy Coding". I don't have a copy of Software Project Management by Hughes/Cotterell to check that reference, so it's possible that 1 out of the 5 sources **could** be legitimate. With all the programming resources available online, that is the best the world could come up with in the 8 years this article has been around? Instead of making vague "the sources are out there" statements, it's time to see those sources if people want to save this article.GlenPeterson (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Ward Cunningham's blog is not a reliable source on software development terms? I added more sources from a software development website. I think the problem, based on your comments on your talk page and the article's talk page, is that it's an term used by American software developers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable, being covered in numerous sources. Andrew D. (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angangba Mayek[edit]

Angangba Mayek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I just closed the first AfD for lack of response. It has been two days since the second relist and no comments other than the nominator. On this AfD, I will ask for deletion for failure to satisfy WP:NFILM, rather than on WP:CRYSTAL as argued in the first AfD. It was just released on January 19, 2016 and no indication at all that it satisfies the notability guidelines. A film's mere existence is NOT enough to warrant an article. Safiel (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Safiel (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Safiel (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FILMNOT -- no evidence of the film's release, production or significant coverage by independent reliable sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now at best as this article seems not yet set for an article. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MorDance[edit]

MorDance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is just a list of gigs. No claim of notability. Bazj (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous 25[edit]

Dangerous 25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced speculation per WP:CRYSTAL. All I can find about this online is some speculation on blogs, and nothing in WP:Reliable sources. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if speculation, merge if the release is confirmed. No need for a standalone article at this time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now at best as there no convincing signs of an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viaedge[edit]

Viaedge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A run of the mill software company that fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH, and any number of other policies and guidelines. (All my best wishes to the proprietors and coders - I use a Citrix app at work) Shirt58 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clearly nothing else to suggest hinting better. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I couldn't find any evidence this company or its products are notable. I went looking for analyst attention (e.g. Gartner, Forrester) and could find none. SJK (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Could find no sources to establish notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:10, 11 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. Consensus is leaning keep, but not enough input was received to close the discussion as such. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Nassar[edit]

Maya Nassar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

She has some coverage but is only known for winning a minor beauty pageant and her blog. Non notable Gbawden (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• She is notable. Much of the press coverage she has received is in Arabic or French. If you search مایا نصار, you will see. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
• Delete for now at best and restart when better, questionable signs of a solidly better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly good and well sourced article of a person who enjoys regional notability as evidenced by coverage from foreign press (alyaqaza and NinaIraq). More source can be added, I will work on that ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passes GNG per sources already in the article and per additional sources in the comments above. Cavarrone 21:11, 15 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 Teresa Hooley. There's reaonable consensus here that keeping the article in its current condition would not be the right thing to do. Unfortunately, there's no clear agreement on an alternative. The redirect seems like a reasonable average of the various suggestions, but the redirect suggestion also included, a slight expansion of the mention of him there, so I'm really going to call this a merge. Whoever does the merge should go with the spirit of a slight expansion, i.e. don't just take all the existing text and plop it down in the new location. Rather, cherry-pick the most significant facts.

If somebody can come up with better sourcing, which would support a stand-alone article, no reason this can't be broken back out at a future time. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Terah Hooley[edit]

Basil Terah Hooley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tricky situation here, where the article is in a completely deletable state but might be salvageable. This is a biography of a person which makes and sources no claim of notability in the text itself; as written, the entire article is actually "Subject was born, the end". Technically, that makes this a speedy A7 — but a potential claim of notability for him is made (although not actually sourced there either) in the article about his sister, Teresa Hooley: "was decorated in the Great War". That is a strong enough potential claim of notability that I don't feel comfortable speedying this without giving it a chance at rescue — but the article was created on December 7 and the creator hasn't edited Wikipedia at all since December 24, so it's unclear that asking them to beef up the article and its sourcing will accomplish anything. And, of course, even "decorated in the Great War" isn't an automatic inclusion pass if it's not properly sourceable, and also depends in large part upon what particular decoration he received — so that requires further investigation rather than conferring an automatic freebie just because it's claimed. Accordingly, I'm more than willing to withdraw this if somebody's able to get it up to snuff — but it needs to be deleted if it's just going to linger around in this form. Of course, without prejudice against future recreation if it can be written and sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I rather wonder whether the nominator did any detailed WP:BEFORE, because this book on the Battle of the Somme is the first of two entries on a GBooks search and gives a decent six-line biography of the subject in a footnote. He fought in the Battle of the Somme and, unlike most of the other officers in his battalion, survived. The decoration he obtained was the Military Cross, after later military action, and by the time he died, he had been promoted to Major. Basically, a reasonably impressive military career, but not automatically notable enough for a standalone article. A redirect to Teresa Hooley, and a slight expansion of the mention of him there, would, I think, be in order if a reliable source can be found confirming that he was her brother (I can find plenty of unreliable sources for this, and don't seriously doubt it, but...). Otherwise, we are going to need enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG - I think it worth keeping this AfD open for the moment to see if anyone can find such sourcing, but I suspect nobody will. PWilkinson (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This source (I am unsure how reliable it is, it appears to be staffed by volunteers and employed staff with an editor-in-chief) has a biographical article, fully attributed albeit to local papers, on Terah Hooley, "one of leading world authorities on lace manufacture". Terah Hooley had two sons and one daughter, Ernest Terah Hooley, Basil Terah Hooley and Teresa Mary Butler, presumably her maiden name was Teresa Hooley. In the Teresa Hooley article, she marries Frank H. Butler. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Basil has a biographical entry in de Ruvigny's Roll of Honour, Vol II, Pt 5, pg 88. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft and userfy at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Redirect: Redirect to Teresa Hooley per User:PWilkinson. Insufficient coverage to satisfactorily meet WP:GNG. Military Medal (awarded to over 135,000 people) does not meet ANYBIO#1 per WP:SOLDIER, and nor are any other of its criteria met. That said, additional sources are below and while notability is marginal there's enough to make a small tidy article. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 06:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources: Teresa Hooley dedicates a poem to BTH in her Songs of the Open, and apparently planted three copper beeches in his memory. A scan of de Ruivigny's is online. Birth and census docs are also online. Wedding is in Nottingham Evening Post 23 Jun 1915. More pointers to evidence are in this forum ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 06:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 15 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 Federal Way School District. The article's subject is found to lack the required notability to have a stand-alone article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Way Public Academy

Federal Way Public Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Educates to the school-leaving age in many countries so does count as a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not believe the page should be closed. It is important for individual schools to have their own wikipedia page for incoming students can refer to it as well as for logistical purposes.

Furthermore, the school is very qualified within the district. It ranks in the top 3 college-preparatory academies when contrasted with the other learning institutions situated within the district boundaries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:200:680:1185:e233:3914:87fa (talk • contribs) 02:08, 2 February 2016‎

• Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. Just Chilling (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• THIS IS NOT A HIGH SCHOOL^[1] In the US, grades 6-10 is a middle school. And local sources do not establish notability under ORG. John from Idegon (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grades 6-8 represent middle schools. The grade at which a leaving certificate is issued marks the boundary of a high school. In the US that is Grade 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Chilling (talk • contribs)

• • • Just Chilling, Do you have a source for that statement? I have never heard of getting a "certification" for finishing middle school, and High school beginning at grade 10 is just plain false. Most high schools start at grade 9. Some middle schools start at grade 5. What is unambiguous is that when you finish high school, you are done with your basic education. Very few students leave school at the end of the 10th grade, and with only a few exceptions, the reason students leave prior to the end of 12th grade is failure. If you do not get a recognized diploma for successful completion, the institution is not a high school. Only high schools have automatic notability. Perhaps you are confusing UK practice with US practice? John from Idegon (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to school district It is indeed a junior high school. It is possible that later grades will be added in future years, but calling it a college preparatory school is true only in the sense that it is part of a college preparatory curriculum after the final two years elsewhere, and that it is assumed that the students in it will , when they finish in the actual high school , go on to college. I checked this in detail with their web site--see http://schools.fwps.org/pa/ , and more specifically, http://schools.fwps.org/pa/files/2015/09/201516.jpg?f5991c for their class schedule. If we do not have an article on the district, this can go to draft space as part of one until it can be started. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Federal Way School District as this seems best. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We generally consider all schools that educate to 16 to be secondary schools as that is the school-leaving age in much of the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - two sources were enough as provided on main article. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - FYI, school leaving age in the State of Washington, USA, is 18.^[2] What the school leaving age is anywhere else in the world may be is totally irrelevant. No Child will ever walk out the door of this school and be done. And to those that proffered the argument "sources should exist", I ask "Where?" Local schools are rarely covered beyond locally. To nominate an article for deletion, BEFORE is required. Although in letter it does not apply to !votes, the spirit is there. To make that kind of arguement, in at least one case a cut and paste that I've seen in other AfD discussions, is a waste of the community's time. John from Idegon (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per DGG. Comments about "the school-leaving age in much of the world" disregard the fact the school does not educate to the school-leaving age in the particular part of the world that it is actually in. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. Rodriguez, Carrie (2014-05-21). "Students shine at Federal Way Public Academy; lottery determines admission". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.

     The article notes:

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

     ...

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

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

     The article notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

     The article notes:

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

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

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

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

     The article notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     The article notes:

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

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

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

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

     The article notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The article notes:

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

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

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

      ...

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

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

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

      The article notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• With significant coverage in the Federal Way Mirror, The News Tribune, and The Seattle Times, it is clear that Federal Way Public Academy passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The article should be kept, not merged, regardless of whether it is a considered a high school or not. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Local schools will be covered in local papers. All of the sources you mention are local papers (Sea-tac). Hence, still fails ORGDEPTH. And just in case it wasn't clear, as the nominator, the outcome I was looking for is Merge to Federal Way School District. John from Idegon (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Seattle Times is a major regional newspaper, the largest daily newspaper in the state of Washington.

  From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience (my bolding):

  The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

  Since The Seattle Times is a regional newspaper, Federal Way Public Academy passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

  Cunard (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment - This concept is quite unique. One can hope that somewhere down the line a paper will be written and vetted on it. Until theses academic sources are created, though, we are at TOOSOON. John from Idegon (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Federal Way Public Schools. Not a high school so WP:OUTCOMES doesn't apply, and the coverage is only from local sources, so it doesn't appear to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaStella Winery[edit]

LaStella Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as certainly questionable, restart later if better at best. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Le Vieux Pin Winery[edit]

Le Vieux Pin Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Questionably notable local winery. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RotoQL[edit]

RotoQL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

• Delete I speedied this as spam, it's still promotional in tone and non-notable as per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best for now as the article is not yet better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under-16 Ball Hockey World Championship[edit]

Under-16 Ball Hockey World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

• Delete What about also including the Under-18 Ball Hockey World Championships because none of those have sources either. Matt294069 is coming 00:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If I had predicted that not even the page creator could be bothered to comment on this deletion, I would have just used WP:PROD and this would be deleted already. --RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article is not yet better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:QUORUM (I have disregarded SwisterTwister's !vote as the argument is not clear). Closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Salem Sugui[edit]

Khalil Salem Sugui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

• Delete - virtually nothing about this person on any of the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now at best if the article is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 9 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) Yash! 00:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed during Euromaidan[edit]

List of people killed during Euromaidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks was deleted on December 20th, mainly per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. You can also "take a pick" from ^theWOLFchild's brilliant list back in the other AfD discussion (WP:BIO1E, WP:BLP, WP:NLIST, WP:VICTIM, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:UNDUE, WP:N, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE). While I don't necessarily agree with most of the arguments there, I see no reason why this article shouldn't be deleted as well. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This turns into an indiscriminate list, which is something we avoid on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perhaps at best as this would seem acceptable but it may simply be best mentioned through the main article. Notifying 1st AfDers Fram, Clarityfiend, Amortias, Spirit of Eagle and Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename The term "Heavenly Hundred", which refers to the killed Euromaidan protestors, has gotten some substantial coverage in English sources[14][15][16][17], the Ukrainian government has named an award after them and several memorials have been built. As such, I'm not particularly convinced by indiscriminate arguments, since many of the deceased fall within a clearly defined and notable group. I think it would be preferable for the article to be written primarily about the Heavenly Hundred with a list of the specific members attached under a collapsible at the end. If we wanted to go this route, then a lot of the information needed to build an article about the Heavenly Hundred already exists within the current article; we'd just need to re-arrange, re-word and snip a few things here and there, plus do some general clean-up. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Each individual in the article's sourced and it's a lot more than just a list, There's all of the history included as well, I have to agree with my previous !vote ... It's well sources and it still passes GNG... –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think it should be renamed to "Heavenly Hundred" because it is the common name for these people and ussualy these people are mentioned as "Heavenly Hundred". There are some reasons to keep the article:

1. This article is about the extremely notable thing in history of Ukraine. These people changed history of Ukraine for a future century. Notability of this article is absolutely obvious: "Heavenly Hundred" have been written about and shown in hundreds, if not thousands, newspapers and TV-news in nearly every country of the world (in Ukraine, in USA, in UK, in Poland, in Germany, in Lithuania and I can write thousands of these links). It have been much talken about in whole world, and was on a front of ukrainians mind for the the first half of 2014. They been mentioned by many politics, not only in Ukraine, but around the world. There are even movies about them. The notability of this article is colossal.
2. Nearly all of them were recognized as Heroes of Ukraine which makes them even more notable.
3. It is not just a list, here are a lot of facts. In this article the list itself takes a bit more than a half of page with other half being facts, and there are enough facts for article to exist even without the list.
4. If the article Casualties of the September 11 attacks exists, this article has the same right to exist.
5. From WP:NOTMEMORIAL:

   Wikipedia pages are not:
   ...
   4. Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.

Mark this: must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. This article perfectly satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. This rule is about not creating articles for any person dead and is the particular case of the rule of not creating articles about yourself or your friends.

--Tohaomg (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It seems to be that some misunderstanding of the rules took place. There is clearly written in the rule, that articles about deceased people could not be created only if this people are not notable. Since there are 120 references on the page in question, its notability is undisputed.--Trydence (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not memorial list. Almost all of members of list are Heroes of Ukraine, so it is it list of notable people famous for notable event.--Anatoliy (Talk) 20:40, 15 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. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural venues in Ireland[edit]

List of cultural venues in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No narrative or explanation of what is a "cultural venue", information contained covers various types of venues, include school venues, conference centres, theatres and music venues. Article is based on the creators interpretation of what should be included. Murry1975 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Venue capacities are uncited causing WP:VER issues, inclusion criteria is selective causing WP:OR issues. But the biggest issue under the LISTNOTABILITY guidelines is that the subjects of the list don't appear anywhere else together. Probably because of the unclear inclusion criteria, the list subjects have not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Which is what WP:LISTN guidelines expect. If not deleted, at the very least, the content should likely be merged/redirected to one of any number of (less subjective) existing lists - like List of Irish theatres and theatre companies and/or List of Irish cultural institutions. Not sure what additional value this list adds. Guliolopez (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perhaps if still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no clear criteria for list inclusion. LibStar (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody's Gone[edit]

Everybody's Gone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I have added a book reference, but otherwise there are very few WP:RS that I can find anywhere. I think the award from the Chicago Film Festival should count for something, but I can't find a reliable source for this claim. There has not been significant coverage of this film in the media or elsewhere, so in my view it is dubious whether it meets the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete at best as none of this currently suggests better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Day Hollywood Died[edit]

The Day Hollywood Died (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. The only non-Wikipedia source given in the article is a fawning review on someone's personal blog. The only reliable third-party source I could find is this one which predates the film's release and says little beyond it being mysterious. That's not enough for an encyclopedia article about the film. Huon (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that the Inside Film article already is cited in the article. Unfortunately it does not confirm the sentence it's cited for. Huon (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Below are a list of news article in relation to the Film to vouch for article inclusion. These were previously not included in the article. I will now include them in the page also. Please note that the cited sentence from inside film was added later by another party and not included in the original article. I am in the process of finding more sources and will list and include also.

The Torch, 2nd May 2012, Local Film that's on the Rise, Page 4 - Film and Company Write up. The Day Hollywood Died - Write up in the Torch

FirstPost, 6th January 2012, The Day Hollywood Died Link for Firstpost write up

Rouse Hill Stanhope Garden News, 10th October, Article by Kylie Stephens, Homegrown: Big Film on Tiny Budget Homegrown: Big Film on Tiny Budget

News Local Hornsby Advocate, 10th May 2012, Article by Declan Gooch, Mt Colah Actor's Film Impresses Europe

StMarys Star, Article by Kylie Stephens, Young Actor heads to the top of his field Young actor heads to the top of his field

If.com.au, Rising Pictures announces Short film comp and date of The Day Hollywood Died NickyR2015 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not sufficiently notable. Aeonx (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the extra sources are more convincing, more would be betterAtlantic306 (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best as simply none of this currently suggests a better notable and improvable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Outside of a little indiscriminate hyper local coverage there is a lack of coverage about this film. No national reviews. No major awards. Lacks national distribution. The industry IF article is not enough by itself. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Wombats[edit]

Edmonton Wombats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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