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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Khan (actor) (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)

Actor making debut, notability not established, fails all criteria at WP:NACTOR, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obviously non-notable person. Maybe, if the movie is published and it turns into something big which results in him having a big career, then he might be notable. Not now. Fails GNG. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now at best as none of this suggests solid notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because of the mentions in newspapers. He can become notable after release of the film. I think it should be kept and unsourced material should be removed.--Musa Talk  10:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Let's see what happens when the film comes out first. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's nothing that suggests notability: not close to enough based on general notability guidelines; not even close if you use WP:NACTOR. Speculating on future notability is not relevant. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That he may appear in a film does not imply that he is notable now. He has not received significant coverage; his name is mentioned only in passing in articles about the film (if it is mentioned at all). Fails GNG. Ca2james (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Brunt (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)

Completely unsourced WP:BLP, edging into advertorial/fansite writing tone, of a singer whose strongest claim of notability is that he competed on, but did not win, Canadian Idol. He has had no identifiable career as a recording or touring musician since then, and thus has no claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and the media coverage of him doesn't even remotely approach WP:GNG. (I'm listed as the original creator here, but I'm actually not — I merely cleaned up a WP:COPYVIO issue which necessitated the deletion of all prior edits by other people. And at any rate, our notability and inclusion standards are much stricter now than when this was first created in 2005 — so even if this was technically a keepable article at one time, it isn't a keepable article by today's standards.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete total lack of indepedent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as none of this suggests the necessary solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Canadian Idol per WP:MUSBIO, which says Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable. He's known only for participating in Canadian Idol but did not finish in the top three of that season. I could not find any evidence of notability after Canadian Idol. Ca2james (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 23:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Carbone (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)

It is unknown whether the actor is dead or alive and the sources provided are dead links and/or unreliable. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lack of coverage is because the actor's movies were produced in 1960's. [1] [2] and [3] document that he was in The Pit and the Pendulum as well as The Vince Prince Collection. The Pit and the Pendulum was also translated into French [4] which, IMO, would show that it was a notable movie in the 1960's. The article needs to be rewritten, not deleted. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a New York Times obit generally means the deceased was notable. He was active long before the interwebs. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep also but only because the NYTimes is convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The source from NYT is a dead link. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Blaskie (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)

Fails WP:BASIC. Almost no coverage in any reliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Has not been nominated or won a well-known and significant award or honor; has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her specific field. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP and planned to nominate since it's questionable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is based 75 per cent on her own self-published primary sources, and 25 per cent on a glancing namecheck of her existence in a listicle which isn't substantively about her. This is not the quality of sourcing it takes to get a person into Wikipedia, regardless of how credible their notability claim might be in principle (which is not to say that the notability claim here is very compelling or credible, because it's not.) As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody in any field of endeavour becomes entitled to an article just because they exist, and people really need to stop treating it like that's what it's for — it's an encylopedia, on which reliable source coverage is the determinant of whether an article gets to happen or not. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per-nom. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I found thousands of Ghits, but almost all of them are self-written, and since she blogs for the Huffington Post and tweets a lot, her essays get picked up on mirror sites. She has a few times in local news, and gets quoted by other bloggers. I'm not sure that's enough for us. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm seeing brief mentions and primary sources, but not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone above. Ca2james (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Development Coalition of Southwest Indiana (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 relatively small local organization . The references, according, come from only that region, and thus do not show notability. Furthermore, most of them are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing suggesting solid independent notability and also the necessary improvements, still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleete per nom. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As much of the coverage appears to be local and routine, and the notability of the organization is questionable. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW close--no other result is possible DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosophia (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, indeed downright obscure, fringe theory with little notice or following. Orange Mike | Talk 22:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT: Just a footnote that there is a different usage of the term "psychosophia" from the 17th century. See http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2009-04990-000/. Mentioned here for posterity just in case some future Wikipedian decides to write an article on that topic. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 14:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches apparently found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Self-promotion, no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as non-notable fringe science, very obscure and minor even for a fringe theory. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable fringe theory lacking RSs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If Orgone energy and MBTI got together and had a baby, I guess this would be it. I did find these 17th and 18th century sources [5] [6], but they don't seem to be about the same subjects as this article. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available reliable sources.- MrX 01:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable fringe vanity rubbish. --Seduisant (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:SNOW time. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't appear to be written in any extant language. -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Medieval alchemist Johann Joachim Becher published something called "Psychosophia" in 1678 -- but this isn't it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nuestra Belleza México states (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 affair, most likely WP:OR; fancruft The Banner talk 21:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete original research.--Richie Campbell (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly a blatant violation of no original research, especially considering the entire article is an unreferenced list. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to George Saunders.  Sandstein  10:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln in the Bardo (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:TOOSOON article about a novel whose publication is almost a year into the future still, with no indication whatsoever of the reliable source coverage needed for it to already warrant an article today. Delete, without prejudice against recreation early next year when actual book reviews actually start showing up. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too soon, nothing yet suggesting an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to George Saunders. Saunders is an important author and there has been some substantive coverage about this upcoming work, his first full-length novel, e.g. [7][8][9][10]. But it would be very unusual to have a separate article for a book to be published in the future, and there's not enough to warrant such an unusual separate article here. It's a reasonable redirect, however, given that the upcoming book is already mentioned (and sourced) in the Saunders article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Arxiloxos. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Božulić (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)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a writer and social media personality with no strong claim to notability per WP:AUTHOR. The only source cited here is the amazon.com sales page of his book, with no evidence of any media coverage in reliable sources shown at all. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; real media coverage, supporting a genuine claim of notability, must be present for him to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing actually suggesting better for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inadequate sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Briefer (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 of a writer with no strong claim to passage of WP:AUTHOR and no strong reliable source coverage. His only potential claim to notability is a self-published e-book on Smashwords, and the only sources here are the Smashwords profile and a Blogspot blog. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- reliable source coverage, supporting a proper claim of notability, must be present before he becomes eligible for an article on here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP and planned to nominate myself, nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. GS gives nothing. Fame is too slender. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete page was created by a WP:SPA [11] might be Briefer himself. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given that the original version of the article already linked to a site attacking the subject (a BLP violation, since it isn't a reliable source) it seems unlikely to be an autobiography. Regardless, we have no reliably published sources with in-depth and independent coverage of the subject, so no pass of WP:GNG and nothing on which to base an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - badly fails the scholar test, and there are zero Ghits at Google Scholar. Birders are not an endangered species, pardon the pub. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Mayfield (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's a voice actress for Funimation, but does not have any major lead roles in any shows. Her most notable character was Jimmy Kudo's mom, but that's more like once a season. No major anime convention appearances. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing actually convincing of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no in-depth coverage. Anime News Network name-drops her a few times, but that's it. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Credits consist of minor/bit part roles. Seems to be one of the many people local to Funimation who get called in as and when needed rather than being in the core group of actors.SephyTheThird (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mostly small parts, I could find nothing aside from the one brief ANN mention to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Incumbent. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reelection (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:DICDEF. I am not sure if you can write an encyclopedic article on this. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Wikipedia's not a dictionary. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DICDEF. Graham (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Incumbent, rather than deleting outright. This is a valid, likely search term, especially for newbies, and redirects in cases like this are no skin off your nose. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I change my vote to Redirect User:Graham11 would you change your vote to redirect too so we can close this discussion? CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. Graham (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I (the nominator) also Agree to this new redirection idea. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. All Deletes are now Redirects CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to incumbent per Bearian.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bajza (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)

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by articles creator without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. – Michael (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Caldwell (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Paul Christensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

James Moberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as none have yet to play in a FPL or made a senior international appearance Seasider91 (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all all fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as all of them are questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - none of them have played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning they all do not meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Gruen (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)

Minimally sourced and very nearly substance-free biography of a person whose only discernible claim of notability is having been the romantic partner of, and creative inspiration to, a painter. However, notability is not inherited, so this is not in and of itself a reason for him to have a standalone article -- and with only a single reference, which is about a legal battle over the painter's estate rather than about Gruen per se, WP:GNG has not been satisfied either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all suggests the necessary solid independent notability, barely any other context. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing to suggest it meets WP:GNG. Plenty of coverage in sources, but only in relation to Varo and her estate. That is already properly covered in Varo article, where it should be. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Tom29739 ^[talk] 18:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offroad Extreme! Special Edition (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 any notability having only a single reference from a trivial source. Its only claimed notability appears to be how bad a game it is. Although this is potentially a source of notability , it appears that it is not that bad to attract notable attention. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches found nothing and that's not surprising because apparently the game was not cordially reviewed at the time. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine brings up very little results; is only mentioned in passing like listings of games. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm surprised, I expected to find more on this after reading the full IGN review on it (which is the same assumption that seems to have let it survive its first AFD), but I couldn't find any other sources that reviewed it or covered it in a significant manner. One brief review is not enough, so I'd say delete. Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of sources. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Orangemike under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 03:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nafece (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:A7 was declined but this isn't an educational institution... it's a nonprofit organization. I can't find any reliable sources giving it enough coverage to pass WP:NONPROFIT. Drm310 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - also found no sources. (Update: Even with the proper name, it remains non-notable.) GAB^Hello! 19:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reads like WP:PROMO Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears to be "National Association Of Financial Education For Community Empowerment" - see http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/MD/The-National-Association-Of-Financial-Education-For-Community.html - but although it's in various listings I can't find anything much about it, also no website of its own. PamD 23:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this listing shows it as having "1-4" employees, in a garbled entry. PamD 23:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: appears to be non-notable, even when we get the name right. PamD 23:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made during this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Risk Takers (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)

Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator here, at a time when Wikipedia's notability and sourcing rules were a lot looser than they are today. At the time, a television series was granted a presumption of notability as long as its own production website verified that it existed, even if no independent reliable source coverage was actually cited independently of that -- but our rules have been tightened up considerably in the past decade, and now it's RS coverage or bust. But even its old production website doesn't actually exist anymore, and I just searched ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand database and found exactly zero media coverage of this at all. So this was an acceptable creation at the time, but our standards have evolved and there's just no good referencing out there to salvage this with. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As unverifiable.  Sandstein  10:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sint Maarten women's national football team (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)

Fails WP:V – no indication that this team exists, let alone has played in any tournaments (international or otherwise). PROD was removed by an IP editor with no reason given. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have looked up the team on google, I have failed to find anything on a women's national team, only men's and youth sides. Seasider91 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hmmm; I found this on the Sint Maarten FA's Facebook page (their women's U18 team), so I'd be surprised if they didn't have a full women's team, but I can't find anything to confirm. Number 57 13:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The age brackets for international women's youth football are under-17s and under-20s, so that's a bit peculiar. Football seems to be either not very popular or quite unorganised in Sint Maarten (the men's team did not play any internationals between 2004 and earlier this year). I guess it's possible that women's football is new enough to the country that most of the female players are school students, which would explain the absence of a senior team. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's nothing for the necessary solid independent notability improvements, 1 association is listed but there's nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per a developing organization. I'm not seeing much, but it looks like there is movement toward creating an article on each of these various member states in that part of the world, so if it's part of a series, clearly some nations will be more organized than others. Montanabw^(talk) 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have to agree with the other delete !votes. There's virtually nothing out there. It doesn't really matter, but the Facebook link, above is from a page that is not verified -- note there's no check mark next to the name on the main page. In any case, not notable; at best, WP:TOOSOON. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Patton Oswalt. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle McNamara (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)

Biography of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR, and very little reliable source coverage to support it. Her main career accomplishment as a writer was the launching of a website (which is not an automatic notability pass in and of itself), and the references here are covering her only for her death (and even then only in the context of "wife of famous comedian dies", rather than "person who's notable in her own right dies".) Which means that nothing here is substantive enough or sourced enough to warrant a separate biographical article as a standalone topic. Delete, or redirect back to Patton Oswalt (which is what this was originally, until being spun off as a standalone article.) Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or redirect back to Patton Oswalt as per rationale by @Bearcat. In the interest of transparency, I was the one who created the McNamara redirect to Oswalt. Quis separabit? 19:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if Camille Cosby can have a page then so can Michelle McNamara.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Patton Oswalt as there's nothing particularly solid for her own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Patton Oswalt. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to warrant their own article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Ford (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 individual. Notability is not inherited from his famous brother. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, with no sources found for improvement Scr★pIron^IV 17:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability not established.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having a famous actor brother does not make Ford notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Wilson (American football) (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 meeting any of the applicable notability guidelines John from Idegon (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to the CFL's official stats, he played in six regular season games for Calgary last year. Therefore he meets WP:NGRIDIRON -- which only requires a single regular season game. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw Sorry, thought the link in the infobox was the official link for CFL. John from Idegon (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I did at first, too. It's confusing. BTW I've taken the liberty of removing the Afd notice, post-withdrawal, from the article creator's user talk page, to avoid confusion. Hope that's okay. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think IAR would apply if you wanted to close this. John from Idegon (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, in all my years here, I've still not figured out how to do a non-admin close? No matter. I've added Greg's key stats and the working CFL ref. Calgary's the league's best team and it seems like he's just had limited playing time, but made the most of what's he's gotten... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass, per Shawn in Montreal's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supercomputing Challenge (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)

High school competition with no significant sources. I expect there will also be a local newspaper article each year for the high school that wins the contest, but they're mere notices and won't show notability DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as simply nothing convincing for better notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is some coverage, but all of it seems local and trivial - along the lines of "our school won the Supercomputing Challenge". No longer a penguin (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali ramkissoon (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)

Subject of the article falls under WP:BLP1E. The doctor was caught on video berating an Uber driver, and while being covered, the event is a single event that does not show notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom - I'm seeing plenty of coverage, but the event itself will probably have no real notable aftermath (driver apparently didn't even want to press charges), and the subject "is likely to remain... a low-profile individual." GAB^Hello! 19:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. If there's a page about this incident at all, i'd suggest a page about the incident itself, not someone involved, but I don't think its notable enough for that Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another case of Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing suggesting better longtime independent notability for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 23:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article appears to meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to. See CSD G10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escd5 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as this is a notable nationally and internationally known company with enough sources existing, certainly not AfD material (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vonage (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 company. Most references are primary sources pointing to the domain of the same corporation. The rest of the sources are passing mentions in news, usual announcements by a corporation, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business. It fails WP:NCORP. Xaxing (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I work for Vonage, so I will not place a vote. But, a few notes: (1) I recognize the article falls short of Wikipedia's content standards, and have been working on some suggestions for improving it. (2) I do not know who in the company is running the LVonage account, but I do not believe they have official authorization, and I do not believe they are complying with Wikipedia's Terms of Use. (3) The various external links they recently added should probably be removed per WP:ELINK. -JHolzapfel (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep: Honestly, this AfD is pretty absurd. This is a multi-national corporation with extensive coverage in the media. There are at least fifteen to twenty references with comprehensive coverage of Vonage on a variety of topics (more than thirty sources from reliable sources). How does this equate to non-notable?? This clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Yes, the article has a lot of problems, but it can be salvaged without a rewrite - I've already made a small variety of changes to help things along a bit. Chrisw80 (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. Please note that there is some kind of mystery glitch affecting how this AfD is displaying at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 25. Anyway, as Chrisw80 says, it's obviously a notable company. As for the assorted issues with the article, WP:AfD is not cleanup. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it wasn't posted properly. I'm not good enough at handling such things to fix it easily, though. Chrisw80 (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this is sufficient to close and the collections are also convincing enough (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael behrens (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)

Fails WP:ARTIST. Some work in public collections, but not important ones. TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The glass collection of the Museum Kunstpalast is one of the largest and most important in the world, and the de:Glasmuseum Immenhausen (which the article fails to mention Behrens' inclusion in) is also a notable collection. There appears to be a significant exhibition record, and coverage in at least two or three important art publications including The Burlington Magazine. The article and references need work, but I think notability is sufficient. IamNotU (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Passes WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG easily. Museum's collections as well as publications support strong notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subjects meets WP:ARTIST 4(d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Mduvekot (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets notability guidelines and references check out. I notice that the photo of the artist was nearly deleted this week but it was ultimately decided to be kept. Prhartcom (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this constructed language has insufficient coverage in reliable sources to be notable. In closing this discussion I have ignored the walls of text posted by the article creator because (a) as a person involved with creating the language he has a conflict of interest with respect to the topic, and (b) they are walls of text. Seriously, people, be concise. Anyway, there are only two other "keep" opinions, and they are insubstantial in terms of policy, with one merely asserting rather than arguing notability, and the other arguing the merits of the language, which is irrelevant for inclusion.  Sandstein  20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Gaulish (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 constructed language posing as a modern continuation of reconstructed ancient Gaulish. Massively WP:OR and unsourced. Was first posted as a large textdump addition at Gaulish language by a new account [12], then split into a standalone article by another editor. I have not been able to find even a single instance of independent published coverage of this "language"; everything that exists about it is self-published by its inventor (who is very likely also the person who posted it here.) Note that the seemingly impressive list of academic references is quite irrelevant – all of them are merely treatments of actual, historical Gaulish; none of them mentions Modern Gaulish; the entire article content explaining M.G. in relation to historical Gaulish is pure WP:OR. The only reference to a publication ostensibly dealing with modern constructed languages, currently footnote 1 in the infobox, is also misleading, as it doesn't mention M.G. either; linking the classification discussed in that paper with M.G. is yet another OR move. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find anything to suggest that there are any independent secondary sources about this, so I think we have to conclude it is an effort to use wp as a website, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Delete. JMWt (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ugh, Delete. Pure OR. Not even good OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Just a note that User:Evertype, the creator of the article under discussion, self-identifies as Michael Everson (which article is well worth reading). He evidently is not the inventor of the language. This doesn't make the topic notable, of course, but I'd expect Evertype to be able to make a convincing case for the retention of the article – he has been here long enough to know our rules! It would be helpful if he could explain who is Steve Gwiriu (talk · contribs), too.  —SMALLJIM  17:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, when I mentioned the "inventor of the language", I was referring to the Steve Gwiriu account, the person who first added the material to the parent article, not of course to Evertype. The inventor is identified in the article as one "Steve Hansen"; on their Facebook account (linked to from the article) he writes under the moniker of "Steve Gwiríu Mórghnath Hansen"; so it's easy to conclude that "Steve Hansen" and "Steve Gwiriu" are the same person. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Please keep and let the newbies make a case for it. I came across this conlang on Facebook; the FB group has 173 members, and a number of the participants are quite skilled in the language, and in fact they have embarked on a translation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, which is a lot of work and a good test of a conlang's utility. I myself have supported other conlangs with publications of Alice translations in Esperanto, Lingwa de Planeta, Neo, Lingua Franca Nova, Sambahsa, and Volapük (forthcoming). As conlangs go, this Modern Gaulish is well-developed and robust. The group have some websites of their own. Last night Steve wrote this article and appended it to the Gaulish language page. I warned that it might make a better stand-alone article than an addition to the Gaulish language article. One of the users of Modern Gaulish thought to write an encyclopaedia article, which I think is reasonable. The article needs revision, yes, It was (quite properly) deleted from the Gaulish language page (though a bit summarily). I rescued it and put it here. I didn't write it. I didn't edit it thoroughly. I knew that in the ordinary way of things the article would be improved. What I'd really NOT like the Wikipedia community to do is demoralize these creative people for not being veteran Wikipedians. There are a zillion conlangs; most are hardly complete and practically useless. This one is different. It's got an active community and is being actively developed, just as some of the other conlangs that I've published in are. No, my interest in a Wikipedia article on Modern Gaulish is NOT about potential book sales to me, though I am part of the Alice industry. If the forthcoming Alice sells anywhere near 173 copies I would be very surprised indeed. Harshness like an immediate deletion, however, of an article which has essentially had ONE DRAFT and no opportunity for the authors to get feedback and respond to it, including finding references to demonstrate notability, is the kind of mean-spirited harshness that turns a lot of people off of this encyclopaedia. I recommend strongly that this article be provisionally kept for a period of time. Let's allow the newbies to make an attempt to improve it, please? (By the way, the infobox came from the Brithenig article; I put it there and did not check the link. It was a busy morning; I have edited it to remove the link.) Now, as far as the OR content of the article, yes. To prepare the conlang, processes were applied to turn Gaulish into Modern Gaulish—just as Latin was turned into Brithenig. Yes, it needs to be rewritten less as a sales pitch and more descriptively. Let the article develop a bit, please. Lots of the articles on conlangs are a little bit iffy, but people come to this encyclopaedia to learn about them and that's to the good. Let's not give the finger to this group of conlangers, all right? It can always be deleted later if it cannot be improved with external sources and reasonable editing. Thank you for your attention. -- Evertype·✆ 22:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Link to the Modern Gaulish Facebook Group. Note that other conlang groups also use Facebook for discussion. -- Evertype·✆ 22:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but I can't see much in this beyond a WP:ILIKEIT argument. Surely you are aware that the criterion for an article is not how well developed the language is or how worthy of support its community is. The criterion is how much outside, independent published coverage of it there is, nothing else. And I don't see how in this respect there's much potential for improvement worth waiting for – it's not as if those published sources are somewhere around the corner and the author just didn't get round to adding them; I checked and it's pretty clear already there aren't any. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Evertype: those are not policy arguments we can consider in deletion reviews. It doesn't matter, for the purposes of assessing notability, whether there are a whole load of people discussing this language on facebook. As the WP:GNG states, the way we assess pages is to consider whether they've been noted in independent, secondary WP:RS. It sounds to me like a worthwhile project, just not one (yet) that has been covered in reliable unconnected media, so not one (yet) that we can have a page for it on wikipedia. JMWt (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on the above, it has to be delete. A move to draft space would be an option if there was a commitment to actively work on it there both to improve it and (most importantly) to demonstrate its notability – though the latter doesn't look as if it's going to be possible at present.  —SMALLJIM  09:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm having a bit of a conflict here. The conlanger in me can easily recognise the value of this language as being one of the best and most interesting specimens of our craft created during recent years, and I absolutely believe it will gain a well-deserved place in conlang history. From that point of view, I definitely want the article to be preserved. As a wikipedian, however, I can see that without any significant independent coverage this article has little chance for survival. The language is impressive, the website is gorgeous and the Facebook group is remarkable, but what we miss are independent sources that establish the notability of the project. I would hate it to see this article disappear, but at the moment Wikipedia is perhaps not the best place for it, also because the current format of the article isn't exactly according to Wikipedia's standards (external links in the text, a bibliography that doesn't cover the subject itself, etc.). I would therefore suggest moving it to a safer place (for example wiki.frath.net) for the time being and moving it back here once notability and verifiability are no longer an issue. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -EggSalt (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Author reply: I am the author of the original article on modern Gaulish. I posted it in good faith, to indicate the existence of something I consider worthwhile. I had not previously had anything to do with Wikipedia, other than consulting it as a well appreciated and much esteemed source of information on a multitude of things. I was not aware of the guidelines applied to determine whether something merits inclusion in Wikipedia, nor of the standards or conventions considered desirable for the format of an article. As it is it’s been a learning experience, and I now understand the guidelines pertaining to notability, original research and secondary independent resources. When I wrote the article I included the references to websites in the body of the article not as a sales pitch or a promotion gimmick, but to illustrate the extent to which the language is established, developed and used by people. They are, moreover, the main references to the language in the world at large. I understand that it is considered that these references are “self-published”, and that they are therefore inadmissible according to the Wikipedia guidelines. I also understand that the Wikipedia guidelines indicate that information on a topic needs to be available from what are considered to be reputable sources, understood to be articles in newspapers, magazines, academic journals, features in radio or television, or academic databases on-line or off-line. Furthermore, I understand that said articles or features are not allowed to be produced by agents that are considered to have been involved in the production or generation of the subject at hand, and that it is considered impermissible to publish material that is considered original research. So should the Wikipedia community decide to axe this article I will understand the reasons offered for doing so. However, I would like to point out that in this day and age, when the internet is a vast medium for communication, publication and exchange of information between millions of people, it does not seems fair or reasonable to discount websites and other on-line presences (such as social media) as valid sources of information, in favour of established “old school” avenues of publication such as journals, papers, radio or television. All the more so since it is the medium that allows the very existence of Wikipedia. Furthermore, it also doesn’t seem to be entirely reasonable to insist on gauging the existence or validity of a subject by whether or not it has been reported on by a third, independent and neutral party. While I understand the desire for transparency and neutrality that informs this guideline, it also seems to me that insisting this be the case would deny public acknowledgement to small, minor topics that may nevertheless be of interest to a lot of people if they knew about it. The notion of secondary sources, while again understandable from the point of view of transparency, objectivity and neutrality, is also counter productive in the case of the modern Gaulish language, because it could be extended to include anyone involved in the development of the language: any number of the speakers and users of the language could report on the language they use, and be described as being “involved in the development” of the project, which makes it a circular argument. Is a speaker of a minority language entitled to write an article about their language, about the state it is in, and about the issues they face for the preservation of their language, or do they have to wait until an official third party with recognisable academic credentials do so? If the latter is the case, there may well be languages out there dying a quiet death while they are being denied the opportunity to be recognised. Because, and bringing us around to the important subject of notability, the modern Gaulish language, subject of the article and debate at hand, represents a genuine drive to revive an extinct ancient language. It aims at the revival of a language and aspects of a culture, which, for whatever reason, is considered important to a lot of people around the world. There is a growing number of people who are affiliated with this language and its development, and use it as a vehicle of communication. It is therefore a living thing, a means of human interaction, and it has grown from the remains of a language and a culture that, in spite of having been extinct for a very long time, continues to be imbued with meaning to people. Personally I would say that this makes it notable enough to merit mention by Wikipedia, even if it has not been remarked upon by sources outside of the community of users of the language. However, there are several sources available that attest to the existence of the language, and its use: there is a website detailing its grammar, a dictionary detailing its vocabulary, and a Facebook group detailing its ongoing use by people; there is also a page on Academia.edu which not only lists the language’s grammar but also several research articles dealing with it and related topics, and which has been in the top 4% of most consulted material on Academia.edu for a long time; and there is a published collection of works composed in the language, available from Amazon, and purchased by a number of people around the world. I freely admit that all of these sources are published by the people who are active in the language: but does that make it any less notable? Trawling the internet will reveal instances where the language is discussed, used, remarked upon and propagated; but none of these are in the form of academic articles or newspaper features. But does that mean it does not exist, or is not notable? In terms of the format in which the article is presented, that can be adapted to meet Wikipedia criteria. The list of academic references included serves to illustrate the way in which the modern language is derived from the old language; the sources in it do not discuss the existence of the modern language itself, but the list nevertheless provides an important and vital link to the old language, and that’s why it’s there. The article can be rewritten to reflect Wikipedia standards if required. As I am new to Wikipedia I am not familiar with the process of deciding whether or not an article is to be deleted: is it a matter of public vote, and, if so, who votes? Finally, I have always held Wikipedia in great esteem and would appreciate it if the article was retained. For those of you who would like to access the sources dealing with modern Gaulish, to determine whether or not they are valuable sources, here’s the list:

  1. www.moderngaulish.com (grammar)

  2. www.glosbe.com/mis_gal/en/ (dictionary)

  3. www.facebook.com/groups/moderngaulishlanguage/ (forum)

  4. https://independent.academia.edu/ModernGaulish (academia.edu page)

  5. http://www.memrise.com/course/802166/modern-gaulish-1/ (a Memrise course, a language learning tool)

  6. For the Amazon publication, google “Anthologia Gallica”.

  Steve Gwiriu (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for this lucid reply. Let me start with pointing out that nobody is questioning your good faith. It's an interesting and well-written article, and if it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, that's not a matter of quality but rather of approach. Like I said, I would regret it if it were lost, so let me repeat my suggestion to move it in its current form to http://wiki.frath.net.

  Typically, encyclopedic articles about constructed languages should answer some basic questions. Who created it? When? Why? How many people use it? Where is it used? Are there institutions linked to it? Some history of the movement. &c. &c. &c. On the other hand, there's no need to present the entire "Grand Master Plan", because that's something that belongs rather on the website. Same goes for the sources used in the creation process (the bibliography). The grammar description shouldn't be overly detailed either.

  Now, I agree with you that sources like a private website, Academia.edu and even Facebook shouldn't necessarily discarded as sources. And they aren't, it's just that these are primary sources, which basically means that they are not considered reliable as long as there aren't any secondary sources telling they are. To put it bluntly: anyone can put up a website and call it "Modern Gaulish", which proves nothing but the fact that there is a such a website. It doesn't prove that the information presented there is accurate. Furthermore, anyone can establish a Facebook group and add members to it, but it wouldn't prove anything but that fact that such a group exists at all. Of course, one might start reading/counting messages to establish how many members are active, and to establish if this is even the same language project as the one presented on the website – but that would be original research, something Wikipedia doesn't allow. How reliable Facebook is as a source, is also exemplified by the fact that no less than 8300 people claim to speak Volapük and 16000 people claim to speak Brithenig.

  Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable and reliable, because otherwise it qualifies as original research. This means that we are not allowed to write about our own experiences, ideas and theories. That is also the case if you write them down on a website or a blog first, because the only thing that would prove is that person X writes Y on website Z, yet it would not be proof that the information is accurate. That's why we take information for granted only if reliable, independent third-party sources say so. The same goes mutatis mutandis also for notability; we simply cannot take for granted that an organisation, sports club, rock band or internet community is notable just because its members say it is. Notability therefore can and should only be established by others.

  In other words, I'm afraid this is simply a matter of Wikipedia:Too soon. However, given the size and quality of the project, I'm sure it won't go unnoticed and it's only a matter of time before all the necessary sources will be available. Best, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 10:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your reply, IJzeren Jan. I understand. Steve Gwiriu (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Secondary sources referring to modern Gaulish Here's a list of secondary sources that refer to the modern Gaulish language in some way or other. Please have a look and let me know whether they are any use for the purpose of this discussion.

1. https://adruidway.wordpress.com/category/modern-gaulish/

2. http://omniglot.com/writing/gaulish.htm

3. https://www.reddit.com/r/Gaulish/comments/3gwqso/modern_gaulish_1_orthography_and_phonology/

4. http://gallaic.com/revivals.php

5. https://www.androidpit.com/app/ru.vddevelopment.ref.enmis_galen

6. https://bellodunon.com/2013/06/16/galathach-hatheviu-modern-gaulish/

7. http://justgaulishthings.tumblr.com/

8. http://tolkien-inspiration.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/ring-verse-in-50-languages.html

9. http://www.amazon.com/Anthologia-Gallica-Senobrixta-Gal%C3%A1thach-hAthev%C3%ADu-Poetry/dp/1511644265

10. http://esbuzz.net/trends/video/the-gaulish-language-is-alive-again

11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV-mTvteuR4&list=PLhTUHvgCLoUAEmRsQ9imUkR0JdoxWkq6K - primary source]

12. https://www.scribd.com/doc/264069103/Conlangs-Monthly-May-Edition

Steve Gwiriu (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable and robust enough for a stub compared to many other conlangs. The article as it stands is not particularly good. It sounds as I have said a few times a bit like a sales pitch and lacks a little neutrality. As far as Constructed languages go, it is as robust as some on the Wikipedia, and there are historical conlangs which have articles about them which will never be more than stubs. A lot is said about "policy" above but as everyone knows every Wikipedia "rule" is really a "guideline" so that's why I objected to the AfD appearing only hours after the article was posted. Here's what I think. I think that there WILL be a translation of Alice into Modern Gaulish, and that will place it immediately into notability. It will go onto Translations of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. I think the best thing here is to move the bulk of the article to a sandbox but to leave a stub here. NOT to delete the article entirely. The Wikipedia certainly has worse stubs than this one would be. Jan's comments echo mine about giving basic data about who devised the conlang and when and where. -- Evertype·✆ 13:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Aside The overwhelming majority of the 8300 users of Volapük on Facebook are actually Danes, in whose language "volapyk" means "nonsense". -- Evertype·✆ 13:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes me kind of curious in which language "Brithenig" means something! Seriously though, I'm not sure if an Alice translation would immediately tipple the balance, but it would certainly contribute a lot. As for Steve's 12 references, I'm afraid these won't fly: most of them are blogs, which (like social media, wikis, postings on mailing lists &c.) are generally unacceptable as sources, unless the author is a person of special authority (see WP:BLOGS). Which, for that matter, doesn't mean a blog cannot be quoted by any means, it's just that things written on a blog can't be taken for facts. What it all boils down to, is that at least the basic framework of the article should be based on reliable sources, and can subsequently be jazzed up with additional material found in primary sources. That way you'll get an article with a fair chance for survival.

Michael is right that notability is a guideline, which means that occasional exceptions can be made, although that would require a good motivation. Practically, however, it is increasingly treated as a hard rule anyway, causing deletions like Modern Indo-European, Talossan and the Language Creation Society. In addition, I should mention that verifiability and no original research (unlike notability) are not guidelines, but hard requirements. I honestly don't think we should be too demanding on conlangs, and we can't expect whole libraries to be written about a conlang, unless we'd want to end up with articles on Esperanto and Volapük only. So let's say that three examples of non-trivial coverage in reliable (preferably scientific) sources could already do the trick. In the meantime, it would probably be best to temporarily park the article in someone's user space, as Michael suggested (I'm willing to volunteer: User:IJzeren Jan/Modern Gaulish language). I wouldn't object against leaving a stub either, but I'm afraid the current article doesn't answer the most basic questions of who and when. A good example of a decent stub would be the leading section of Lingwa de planeta.

More than ten years ago, we've been trying to establish a set of criteria to determine notability of conlangs. See WP:Conlangs. It didn't work out then. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to give it another try? Best, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 14:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • blogs as source: if blogs can't be accepted as sources that would immediately cut out a huge source of information. It's what I said before about sources on the internet: there is a wealth of information available in informal format, that should not be discarded out of hand. If the aim is to have secondary sources, surely a blog should be acceptable? Why should a blog be considered of less value than, say, an article in a tabloid newspaper? I agree that it would be nice and certainly preferable to have a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal, but for one that may well be hard to achieve, and for another if only topics with peer reviewed articles were to be published I think a vast amount of topics would become impermissible. One reason why I included blogs is because I found that Brithenig uses a blog as one of its supporting sources: "[Brithenig]... was among the languages recognized in an Economist blog post on constructed languages.[4]". While it is listed under "notes" and not under "references" it is specifically referred to in the introduction of the article, as if considered important. Reading the blog you will find that there is literally one referral to Brithenig with one word, no more. That is not really a robust source, as such. If that is worth including as supporting material then surely the various mentions of modern Gaulish in other blogs are as well. Number 12 of the sources listed above is an issue of a magazine that published an article on modern Gaulish last year. The magazine is an online thing only, and it is not peer reviewed: is it acceptable as a source? I agree that peer-reviewing is some guarantee for reliability, but in the world of publishing there are many other forms of publication out there that may or may not be reliable, while certainly not being peer reviewed: would any and all of them be discounted as being non-academic? If a small town newspaper publishes an high quality article on a topic, would it be dismissed because it is "only" a small town newspaper, or would it be acceptable as a published secondary source? Steve Gwiriu (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The thing with blogs is that anyone can write anything there, making it another self-published and therefore unreliable source. But like I said, there are blogs and blogs. A blog entry written by a recognised authority in the field can most certainly be used. Mind you, I'm playing advocate of the devil here. Personally, I'm not among those who oppose any reference to any blog/forum/mailing list entry, although I do believe that such a reference proves only that somebody wrote something. But for the record, I agree with you about the Brithenig reference in the Economist blog. Merely mentioning a language in an article about constructed languages is hardly what I would call "non-trivial coverage". I'm afraid this kind of references end up in this kind of articles only to protect them against over-eager deletionism. I will remove this one, as it adds nothing to the article anyway. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 13:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best as this is still questionable for the necessary improvements and the simply tossed collection of links is certainly not helping. This is best restarted so it's better comprehensible. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Author: I regret to say that my posts to this forum are being blocked by an automated Wiki mechanism. I have filed an error report and am waiting for a resolution. Steve Gwiriu (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Links: The collection of links are provided as external links, which appears to be quite an acceptable practice in Wikipedia; certainly a lot of articles appear to have them. They are not referred to in the article. They merely provide background information to the issue covered in the article, and illustrate the fact that the language is being used by people. Steve Gwiriu (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blogs continued: IJzeren Jan, I agree that a blog merely proves that "someone" has said "something", and that there is no guarantee that they have any authority on the subject or know what they're talking about. However, at the top of this AfD forum there's a list of sources that are acceptable to Wiki: they include news, newspapers and JSTOR. I'm sure no one would find it very hard to think of newspapers whose articles are not worth the paper they're printed on; yet, according to the Wiki guideline, they would be acceptable _because_ they are newspaper articles. That does not make sense. Such things would not be more (or less) reliable or useful than blogs; a blog is merely a different version of a newspaper article, or column. JSTOR is also mentioned, and is certainly a great source of academic material. Is Academia.edu considered acceptable? It is very similar to JSTOR, apart from being free. If it is, there is a link to Academia.edu where there are several articles pertaining to modern Gaulish. They are written by me, certainly, but they are listed on Academia.edu, and they are in the top 4% of most consulted content on Academia.edu. Does that have any value? Steve Gwiriu (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Anyone can join Academia.edu. Anyone. And, having joined, anyone can post anything. Academics post copies of their published articles on Academia.edu as an end run around journal paywalls. But original material posted there it is no better than a blog post. That said, a blog post by a distinguished linguist, ancient historian or similar discussing Modern Gaulish in a serious manner can be cited on Wikipedia (sometimes done, for example, with recent archaeological finds), but would have very little weight in establishing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Authority in the field: It has been stated that a blog entry written by an authority in the field can most certainly be used. Last year a book was published in three languages: modern Gaulish, ancient Gaulish and English (Anthologia Gallica, on Amazon). I am one of the two authors, so therefore this would be considered self-publishing. However, the book featured two forewords/introductions, both written by leading experts in the field of the Gaulish language; people who are published, respected, and recognised as experts in their field, and who hold academic positions in that capacity. These forewords are not published independently, they are part of the book, but as such they are publicly available to anyone who cares to access it. Would these forewords be acceptable as references to the existence of the modern Gaulish language, and establish enough notability? This is a serious question: these two people are, respectively, the second and fourth leading expert in the field in the world, and are widely recognised as such.Steve Gwiriu (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Anthologia Gallica: While there is no online version (at this stage) of the two forewords mentioned above, if anyone wants to verify their existence they can visit the Amazon page where the book is listed (the link is in the section "external links"; otherwise google "Anthologia Gallica"). On the Amazon page there is a review written by someone who bought the book; while the opinions expressed in this review are irrelevant to this discussion, the author mentions the two forewords, and mentions their authors by name. I strongly urge anyone who favours deletion of this article to visit that page, and to reconsider their verdict. Steve Gwiriu (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Secondary sources: This is the post that has been consistently blocked from this forum. I have modified it to remove what I think was the offending item: There is another example in the pages of Wiki, which I won’t mention. The article, on a language, lists just two notes as references. One of these is a website that has not existed since 2009, and the other one is a source also provided for modern Gaulish (Omniglot), yet which is claimed to be not good enough. Furthermore, the only other sources (all internet based) given in support for this page are primary sources, including the project's website, social media (a Yahoo group) and a blog, all of which are sources which are declared unacceptable in the case of modern Gaulish. Nevertheless this page has been on Wikipedia for almost two years, and there is no mention of deletion. More importantly and to the point, however, the issue of modern Gaulish is one of language revival: it is aimed at reviving the Gaulish language. It is not an exercise in constructing an artificial language for the hell of it, for entertainment, out of curiosity, or linguistic virtuosity, or creativity, or to produce a work of art. Rather, it is the vehicle for the revival of an entire culture, embraced and considered important by a large group of people around the world. It is a matter of language revival, a drive to revive the Gaulish language in the same way that the Cornish and Hebrew languages have been revived. When Henry Jenner published his pivotal "Handbook Of The Cornish Language" on and for the revival of the Cornish language in 1904, if Wikipedia had existed would it have refused to recognise this event because the book was a primary source, the equivalent of a 21st century website? Steve Gwiriu (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Authority in the field 2:I have added two references by leading authorities in the field of the Gaulish language, David Stifter and Bernard Mees. They can be found in the publication "Anthologia Gallica", published by Amazon. While I am one of the co-authors of the book, the references in question refer to two pieces written by the above authors in forewords. This constitutes two independent secondary references by two leading authorities in the field of Gaulish linguistics, with verifiable credentials, in an independent publication. The credentials of David Stifter and Bernard Mees as respected authorities in the field can be verified by a google search. I can make the full texts available upon request, if desired. Steve Gwiriu (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although Asterix, Obelix and I are charmed, delete for lack of sources supporting notability. I would reconsider if someone can WP:HEY bring reliable, secondary sources establishing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable secondary sources: See comment under "Authority in the field 2". Steve Gwiriu (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  10:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of India, Houston (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)

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable and consulates even less so. The claim of being a top 10 mission by a newspaper is pure POV. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Consulate is getting coverage both in the U.S. and in India and it is still relatively new. I found enough references to assure it's notable, and I think it should be kept with a "Please help" banner. VanEman (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is run of the mill like confirmed it opened. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources are reliable and consistent and are enough to show notability. The so-called POV statement is reliably sourced. I found the short article interesting, adequately sourced, and well constructed. There was no good reason to nominate this. Prhartcom (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. The good reason to keep it is the lack of in depth coverage. 2 sources merely confirm opening, another source is a primary source. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. and rename to Resonance (journal) Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resonance-Journal of Science Education (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; fails WP:NJOURNAL IagoQnsi (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (or Redirect and let me merge after) Since it's published by Indian Academy of Sciences and that article needs content, I suggest merging there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Indexed by Scopus, which is enough to meet WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mr. Magoo. Being indexed by Scopus, which this journal is, is not an automatic pass of WP:NJOURNALS. Considering that the metrics are rather poor (0.2 SNIP), and the absence of sources, I lean delete/merge. (Of course, searching for better sources is hard with such a title...) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Actually, NJournals lists indexing in Scopus explicitly as meeting criterion 1. --Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases in its field(s). Examples of such services are (...), and Scopus." I do not think this is the same as "being included in Scopus is always a pass". Compare with the wording of #2: "For the purpose of Criterion 1, having an impact factor (...) always qualifies under Criterion 1" (emphasis in the original).

Yes, the Scopus list is restrictive, so it does count. But it is not extremely restrictive either: they claim to reference more than 21k journal titles (almost 35k in the Excel file from their site, but some of those are marked as "inactive"). Do you really suggest all of them pass WP:JOURNALCRIT #1? That is not a rhetorical question, actually. And yes, I am aware that it does not mean they should all have an article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan, I am actually sympathetic to your argument and have in the past proposed that we should not take listing in Scopus as sufficient, because it is the least selective of the databases that we call selective. My personal opinion is that our bar for inclusion of academic journals is too low. However, I'm clearly in the minority on this and the consensus at the Academic Journals WikiProject is that Scopus inclusion is enough, so I adhere to that consensus. (PS: please note that your link to Scopus only works if you are using an IP from an institution that subscribes to it :-) --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, even if I am a bit afraid that this is the kind of consensus that gets "written in stone" and resists possible changes in the situation (here, the strong tendency of Scopus to expand as customers ask for comprehensive coverage rather than strict selection). (Sorry for the paygated link.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• !Vote change: Rename Resonance (journal) as the official title (as indexed) is Resonance. (See above for the "indexed by Scopus" discussion) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I already noted that, too, but didn't move the article yet because that tends to mess up the AfD links. --Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename Apparently it passes WP:NJOURNAL because of the Scopus rule, so it's to be kept. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perhaps as this seems convincing enough including what I've seen commented above. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Noting that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and that sources provided by the keep !votes outweigh the arguments presented by the two remaining delete !vote. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted's Restaurant (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 prodded this a while back with "Sadly, the single reference for this local business is of dubious reliability; this article seems to fail WP:COMPANY requirement.". It has been deprodded by User:Colonel Warden who added a book reference (sadly, the book does not seem to be online, either in Google Book preview, or, ekhm, LG. Outside of that reference, I cannot find anything except marketing website, and short paragraph-to-sentence mention in local media, which may call it world-famous, but barring any better, in-depth and reliable coverage, I am calling it for what it appears to be to me right now - Yellow Page-like spam. If anyone can access the book, it would be nice to confirm that it has more then one-two sentences on the restaurant. And, considering the book is from 2012, and given the quality of such publications, I'd also caution against the possibility that whatever is in this book is based on our own entry... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This fails WP:CORP, and the main food that it is known for "is a regional food", as it is said in the text. Not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It has appeared on a couple of Travel Channel shows (Man Vs.Food and Burger Land) as mentioned on the page. Whether that constitutes sufficient notability, I don't know, but it does indicate some non-local coverage. Pinball22 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The steamed cheeseburger itself appears to be a notable variation that should have not only an entry at List of hamburgers but also an article, in which this restaurant would be mentioned along with other well-known purveyors, supported by sources that describe the burger and often mention Ted's as an important exponent of the style, like The New York Times [13], Chicago Tribune [14][15][16], and Boston Globe [17]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The company actually comfortably passes WP:CORPDEPTH. It has even received coverage in major newspapers in other states. Source examples include those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per references cited by Northamerica1000. Agree that the restaurant passes WP:CORPDEPTH and also meets WP:GNG. I also edited the book cite as I found there is a Google Books Preview. That link to the preview does reveal that the reference in the book is indeed three sentences, however, the newspaper mentions are enough to resolve notability concerns. (Note also that online sources are not required, even though we are creating an online encyclopedia, per Wikipedia:Offline sources.) Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found a second book source with a more extensive write up and added the cite to the article, along with some copyediting. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing nomination; sources from Northamerica and Geoff seem to show that notability is satisfied. Thank you for helping out. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judd Omen (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 unsourced and it fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all for solid independent notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - really wanted to !vote keep on this one, loved his performance back in the original Red Dawn film, which was definitely a featured role in a notable film. But outside of that, while he has appeared in several other notable films, his roles haven't really been large or important enough to warrant keeping the article. The closest would be his role in Dune, but that wasn't large enough. Therefore, he doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Searches did not turn up enough to show that he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms organizations. Consensus not to have an article. The list is perhaps no less problematic, but one thing at a time.  Sandstein  10:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Iron Throne (Forgotten Realms) (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)

Prodded by me, redirected by User:Mark viking (which I support), and restored with no meaningful rationale I saw by User:Bkonrad. Since I still don't see how this passes Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), here we are. I really wish we could just have interwiki redirects for stuff like http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Iron_Throne , sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't actually care much whether the article stays or if it is a redirect, though I think Piotrus may have mischaracterized my edit (or I'm not understanding what he said). I changed the target of the redirect to be an article that actually mentions the term. It makes no sense whatsoever to have a redirect go to an article that has no content on the redirected term. older ≠ wiser 11:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, User:Bkonrad, I indeed made a mistake. Your edit was fine, the article was restored by an anon ([18]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Baldur's Gate. BOZ (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete or merge while I am a D&D fan, this is not notable enough for it's own article. A mention in a larger article may be the right thing here. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect to an article where it's mentioned); fails WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "The Iron Throne" is invoked once at Baldur's Gate with no context—the redirect would have no use. czar 08:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Baldur's Gate. All the coverage in reliable secondary sources gives this brief mentions in the context of that video game, and that article has the most detail on the topic. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of Forgotten Realms organizations, which should be created to hold it (and others of the same category). Baldur's Gate is too narrow for this. The Iron Throne from Forgotten Realms is not independently notable and has a conflict with the more recent Game of Thrones construct.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that there should be a list page like that. I will try to find the time to start one. BOZ (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'd support such a page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as best connected to that and still questionable for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vitfoss (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement." The prod was endorsed by User:Dlohcierekim. It was deprodded by WP:SPA and its creator, User:Ite10 with the following rationale "Please, Don't delete this page, since it has been updates and some new independent citation were added.". Coming back to this after over a year, I do not consider the improvements sufficient. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable now, as then. Just stopped by to hang a "retired" tag on my user page, so if the rationale is still valid, I would say Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, nor is it a collection of random trivial information. Really disappointed at the lack of improvement, after the impassioned plea to not honor the PROD. Dlohcierekim 22:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• PS been 2 years +. Dlohcierekim
• Delete as my searches found nothing better and none of this is better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 05:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WebRangers Entertainment (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 company. Also included in this AFD is its CEO Chintan Pavlankar Sports Devotee (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because he is the CEO of the non-notable company:

Chintan Pavlankar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete both, notability failure for both stubs as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Please check the reference link. Company coverage is in reliable, independent secondary sources & even notable actors have commented in media about the same...as this complies with wiki norms the result of the last deletion was keep. Cpavlankar (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the previous discussion was closed for procedural reasons. There was no discussion of whether the article meets Wikipedia guidelines. --bonadea contributions talk 14:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Two of the three refs (the same refs for both articles) are very clearly based on the same press release since the text is almost identical (and the Wikipedia articles is also very closely paraphrased to the point of WP:COPYVIO). The third ref, from Tellychakkar, is a trivial mention in a gossipy news column - definitely not significant coverage in a reliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 14:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • I understand that Chintan Pavlankar Wikipedia does not mets the standard of wikipedia and can be deleted but WebRangers Entertainment mets the standards of wikipedia and apart from tellychakkar none of the other website is considered to be a gossipy website due to which first nomination was results was keep. As per the guidelines as far as whatever written on the artist is supported by a reference third party link it can stay on there for WebRangers Entertainment Cpavlankar (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as nothing suggests the necessary notability improvements, nothing else convincing including for a somewhat newly founded company. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Allan (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's only source is a dead link thus the article fails WP:UNSOURCED. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Was a child actor who did not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I'm familiar with his Y&R work but there's simply nothing solid enough for a solidly independently notable article, and I would not have mentioned redirecting since it's perhaps unlikely. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Huston (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)

Contains copyvio (http://www.nbc.com/the-voice/artists/season-10/hannah-huston) must rank as Too Soon? Author removed Speedy. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 10:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - To note, I have removed the copied contents and frankly there's simply nothing actually suggesting the needed independent notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WAY too soon, nothing noteworthy about the person in the article so far. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 22:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete has not reached the level of competition that would make her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Voice (U.S. season 10) - Way too early tell if she's in the finals. 71.172.60.137 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A contestant on a singing competition, such as an Idol or The Voice series, does not automatically get a standalone article the moment the show starts airing — if she wins the competition at the end of the series then that's taken as sufficient basis for an article, and if she doesn't then she still has to accrue WP:NMUSIC notability the same way as any other working musician: by signing to a major label, releasing albums, touring, having hit singles, and being the subject of reliable source coverage in the process. So yes, as of right now this is WP:TOOSOON. *Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when her notability and sourceability improve enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per notability. — Music1201 ^talk 23:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Kico (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 feel the reason given in the removed PROD was valid: "100% unreliable sources (i.e. Youtube, Instagram, Twitter, Linkup, DatPiff, Spinrilla). Likely non-noatble, article would require fundamental rewrite." 331dot (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wow. Couldn't find a single reference from a reliable source about this. Completely fails all notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of phobias.  Sandstein  10:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Epistaxiophobia (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 dicdef; does not pass WP:GNG Sports Devotee (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to List of phobias. Google results don't seem to indicate this is a word medical professionals really use, but it's popular on phobia lists, so that's probably a good place to put just an "epistaxiophobia: fear of nosebleeds" line so people find it with all the other ones and don't keep making a page for it. Pinball22 (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I personally think that any phobia, even if having relatively few fources, should be kept. Thats because some of our phobia articles seem to me to be among the most encyclopedic and informative content wikipedia has to offer. Phobias are also economically, socially and politically relevant for too many reasons I do not have the space to elaborate on such a limited venue as AfD. Ninefive6 (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect instead as mentioned as I'm not confident this can become a large article, anything else larger than the list's current contents. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Story of O - Chapter 2 (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)

Does not deserve its own article, I say redirect to Story of O Sports Devotee (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear, can you explain your opposition to the article please? The film article has proper references to be published and respect Wikipedia guidelines. --Mateouso (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The missing Due diligence:

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

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

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

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

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

English 1:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

English 2:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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)

• Keep per meeting WP:NF per WP:GNG. In light of the article's numerous sources, to simply state unequivocally "Does not deserve its own article" kind of make this AFD a little confusing. WP:NF is WP:NF. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close nomination. Clearly a troll nomination if he's not going to explain the sourcing problems editorEهեইдအ😎 03:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I have added even more references to reliable sources and the notability guideline for films is met. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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