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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rylie McCulloch-Casarsa (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:NSKATE, see http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00011255.htm Hergilei (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable figure skater.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet any NSKATE criteria. Has a little Canadian news coverage (eg Niagara This Week, Globe and Mail) but not enough to satisfy ANYBIO or GNG. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best for now as still questionable for the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary E. Hunter (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 does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Subject was a schoolteacher, who are not typically notable; I cannot find any sources whatsoever on Google/Gnews/Gscholar. Much of the article revolves around her relationship to other (mostly unnotable) people; the fact that she was the grandmother of a poet who is notable does not help as notability is not inherited. However, searching for sources is made difficult by the fact that the subject does legitimately appear to have a road named after her. I really want this article to be salvagable, but I just can't justify it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be a worthy person, but sources not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Article on a school teacher having no sources. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. An unsourced biography of a worthy contributor to her community, but not one that is notable by Wikipedia standards. Being a school principal and having a local street named after you are not generally enough, and what it would take to show notability in this case are reliable in-depth and non-local sources that don't seem to exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources and even more annoyingly none of those helpful things called dates. Her grandson who has an article was born in 1942.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:48, 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 speedy keep. - Nom has a habit of sending articles to AFD without bothering to search first .... Sources have been provided and I'd imagine they took Northamerica1000 less than 3 seconds to find!, If you're not gonna search for shit then don't nominate it .... it's that simple. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of notability. No external references. Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – See WP:NEXIST, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Comfortably passes WP:GNG. Source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 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 as hoax Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swae Prince (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 unsourced BLP that comes across as a little strange-apparently born in 2000 but did something in 1977 (even stranger it said he lived from 2000-2004!) it is also a autobio. Other then that it does seems non notable, possible some hoax around here even. Wgolf (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete It was made by User:Swaeprince, so it's probably some guy's page about himself if he was famous, also known as a hoax. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much-was surprised it wasn't speedied when it went up. Wgolf (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A non-notable person, and there's no evidence to indicate he ever existed. GAB^Hello! 21:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Hermano del Pacífico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I find it hard to believe that any localised version of a major international television "reality" format that covered multiple countries wouldn't have had significant news and magazine coverage and meet GNG. Despite being from 2005, there's still coverage visible on the internet, such as this in La Cuarta, this in El Mercurio, and this in Perú.21. WP:BEFORE and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup applies. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perhaps as it's imaginable the Spanish media would've mentioned it. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added three cites from perfectly respectable Spanish news sources. There are dozens more. Please consider WP:BEFORE when nominating articles for AFD. Fiachra10003 (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (non-admin closure) ツStacey (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Paul Cruz (Filipino 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)

Notability questionable, just because he is the brother of one more well known actor doesn't make him notable. Laber□^T 21:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy-delete: creation of User:Dakotaparty sockpuppet. -WayKurat (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please add Kenneth Paul Cruz to this AFD. The sockpuppet of the creator of this article (sockmaster: User:Dakotaparty) have recreated this article using this redirect. -WayKurat (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I think somebody already did delete it, for obvious reasons. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NCT (band) (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)

My searches come up with very little, this band isn't notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Tibbydibby (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: While this is a new group, the members have been active as SMRookies and under the names SR14B and SR15B for two years. So they already have a large fanbase. The two songs they've released so far charted #2 and #3 on the US Billboard International chart and they are in rotation on radio stations around Asia. They also have their own show, NCT Life. They are the first boy group in 4 years to come out of the biggest agency in Korea. Yannaynay (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've found and added 8 legitimate English language references and tried to tidy up the exuberant fanclub sentences without references. I haven't added any Korean or Chinese references yet (and there are pages for them in 5 other languages already). Per the numbers, the page views have cooled down to over 5,000 per day, with a recent average of almost 12,000. The single released by the subunit NCT U on YouTube on April 8 has over 7 million views.

I conservatively believe that releasing two singles does not make a band notable, but multiple references, along with this many fans, seems to. Looking at the band as notable people, or in this section for Entertainers per Wikipedia:BLPNOTE "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities", they probably qualify alone under #2 - "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."

I am an odd one to vote Keep on this, I have an undisclosed COI - I don't like SM Entertainment very much. However, I've learned with them, it's hard to fight the tides....even if this page is deleted, it would be re-added over and over. But, I also like the music these kids make and feel they have already established notablity. We just need to sit back and watch.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Keep -- Kanghuitari (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perhaps and improve if needed. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable product. This Wikipedia article is the only result in a google search for "biodynamic cyclone organic stimulator". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as either the most non-notable thing I've ever seen or, more probably, falling under WP:HOAX. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Blatantly and patently non-notable. GAB^Hello! 21:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not a hoax, it's just describing a piece of specialized equipment, apparently a stirring machine, used by some farms. It is absolutely positively not notable outside the experts who use this equipment. Think how many millions of pieces of specialized equipment across thousands of professions that must exist in the world—and those don't need articles either. The overview article biodynamic farming is certainly notable, but nothing more granular than that is needed here. Prhartcom (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficiently notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as nothing for at least general notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn, as the situation has changed; see further note below. (non-admin closure) Prhartcom (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It (character) (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 references at all. Page is used to describe this character in an in-universe way, entirely from original research. The book is notable, but the character does not meet GNG. All sources that I found discuss the remake of the movie and what actors will be in it. This character is very adequately described at It (novel) in a section just for this character (that section also has no references and is entirely original research). Prhartcom (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. @Tokyogirl79: You know how to rock this AfD. The article now has a References section full of reliable sources! This character actually does have notability. Nice work. One follow-up request: Can you please add a few of those same sources to this article's section: It (novel)#Pennywise/It; as I mentioned earlier, it too is completely unreferenced. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the main article. Even if there are sources mentioning the character, they would be better used to reinforce the novel and film articles. There cannot be much that would establish the character as an independently notable figure. TTN (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think that there's likely stuff out there to support the character having its own article. I'm going to refrain from making a definitive argument until I can dig up the sources, but I know I've seen him listed on various "scariest character" lists in reliable sources. The thing to remember here is that most of the sources will likely call him Pennywise, not "It", like in the article "25 Years of Pennywise the Clown" by The Atlantic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's taking some digging since most of the non-remake sources are buried under a ton of remake related work. However I'm finding a lot of sources that discuss the character as its own entity. You're not really going to find a lot of sources that completely separate it from the book or TV series since the two are related, but there are enough where the character is highlighted to where I think it passes. The article still needs a lot of cleanup, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, nice work! See the note I added above. Prhartcom (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by DGG, CSD A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette High School Baseball Team (Lexington, KY) (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)

Doesn"t not meet ORG. We simply do not do articles on individual high school athletic teams. A merge was proposed, but there is nothing to merge, and as we do not do articles on high school athletic teams, I do not even see the point in a redirect. It is an unlikely search term. John from Idegon (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I had suggested a merge, but upon reading John's argument I find myself in agreement with it. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article has very little prose, just tables. Worthless and definitely not notable. Prhartcom (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. No reason to leave a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. Jschnur (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above rationales. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just noticed this article was just created and the creator is the only editor. I'm going to stick a csd-A7 on it. John from Idegon (talk) 03:52, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wishful Thinking (2004 film) (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 film. Koala15 (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yup, another Robin Bain-related film article, from the same editor, which has absolutely no reliable source coverage, from what I can see, searching with the common term "wishful thinking" and the filmmaker's name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Shawn in Montreal. Nothing I found indicates notability. Linguist 111^talk 20:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:NF and THEN redirect title to Robin Bain#Filmography as the one place where it can be mentioned as one of her works even if lacking notability for a separate article. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:50, 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. procedural close, deleted G5 by Mike V —SpacemanSpiff 10:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Kanojia (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 per WP:BIO or WP:JOURNALIST. A Journalism student and Dalit activist who was in the news because he filed a complaint against fellow student along with his friends. The references are no doubt reliable but most of them are talking about IIMC caste war and the rest mentioned his name because he filed a complaint and expelled from the Institute for a week for making indecent and vulgar comments on a teacher. I also fail to find much in depth. Thank You – GSS (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not currently convincing for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waukeen (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)

This character currently lacks any independent sources to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities, as not notable enough for a page. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect as above; viable search term.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect specifically to List of Forgotten Realms deities#Intermediate deities. I would say merge, but that list has the same essential details already, although it could be rewritten to match what's in the lead of this article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and speedy close. As usual, no legitimate argument advanced for deletion by a nominator who does not comply with WP:BEFORE and uses AFD nominations to advance his viewpoint in a long-running dispute over the form subjects should be covered, which is not a legitimate, good faith use of the deletion process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong merge, no reliable sources from what I can tell. WP:NOTINHERITED, Waukeen needs to demonstrate notability independent of the D&D franchise. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 06:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect obviously, not convincing for its own article but also not convincing to delete altogether. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar 1st Concert (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 concert as it was one-night only and details can be added to their career section. Rockysmile11^(talk) 17:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing suggesting solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The concert does not meet the notability requirements of WP:NTOUR, and there is no need for a standalone article. As a side note, the article creator has a history of creating unreferenced (and sometimes non-notable) pages. Random86 (talk)
• Delete Unless it was a VERY notable concert, include it in the tour. Not notable. I have sent a suggestion to the user making these articles to try writing about something more notable.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think that this article has no notability. it is just one of concert, "Stellar". and it has no remarks. it can be consider in article "Stellar". so the this article have to delete.--Berlinuno (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:47, 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. Following deletion I will create a redirect to Robin Bain#Filmography. MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Doll (film) (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)

Another Robin Bain related film article. Film is said to have won an award at a "SMMASH Film Festival" in Minneapolis. There are quite simply no reliable sources about this film, that I can find, as with the rest of Ms Bain's estimable canon of work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:NF and THEN redirect title to Robin Bain#Filmography as the one place where it can be mentioned as one of her works even if lacking notability for a separate article. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect as nothing for at least general notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect per nominator.Pincrete (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Following deletion I will redirect to Robin Bain#Filmography. MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self Righteous Suicide (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)

Another Robin Bain-related film article created by a WP:SPA account, for which I cannot find a single reliable source. Fails WP:NFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:NF and THEN redirect title to Robin Bain#Filmography as the one place where it can be mentioned as one of her works even if lacking notability for a separate article. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect as not independently notable for better improvements, nothing else convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails [{WP:GNG]] and WP:NF. — Music1201 ^talk 22:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bandy at the Winter Universiade (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)

Per WP:Snowball and that this is not a confirmed sport in the universiade. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SNOWBALL I don't think applies Seasider91 (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too soon obviously, nothing confirmed thus not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about a corporation which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. All possible references found seem to be press releases or routine coverage of events they host. The article itself is more just a list of their non notable events and an advertisement for their organization. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. No apparent significant coverage in reliable sources. Non-notable by the standards of WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:GNG or WP:42.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing convincing for at least minimal notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG. — Music1201 ^talk 22:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn due to no nomination. (non-admin closure) ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Godsend (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)

Okay, so I'm just going to close this due to lack of reason for nomination. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 3family6 is the lone dissenter, and has made a fair argument that Popmatters did publish an article that describes RABM. However, it is not a term that seems to enjoy widespread usage, and a single source is thin to justify an article that is supposed to be about an entire genre. The consensus is clearly in favor of deletion, and I am cl and I am closing this accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red and Anarchist black metal (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)

Rejected PROD. Essentially fails WP:MUSIC. Google searches reveal a near total dearth of coverage for a supposed genre that is sufficiently obscure that it fails even our pretty generous notability criteria for genre. To deal with sources that can be found - two were provided in the article from Blogspot and Livejournal; these blogs clearly fail WP:RS by a country mile. Google Books reveals [this https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5zI5CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA250&dq=%22red+and+anarchist+black+metal%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22red%20and%20anarchist%20black%20metal%22&f=false], which initially looked promising, but a swift check shows that the book is published through lulu.com, a self-publishing site (which hence fails WP:SPS). There is a brief mention of the microgenre on Examiner.com (site is blacklisted, so you'll have to Google News yourself; full quote: "Many of these bands openly identify with Communism; a good place to read up on them is Red and Anarchist Black Metal." - link to the blogspot); this is clearly passing mention and not enough to pass WP:N. And that's it. There's an article on Metal Underground, but that's a webzine that fails RS, there's the usual Last.fm and Facebook stuff, but no significant coverage in anything we can actually use as a source. NB. Absolutely no prejudice to re-creation should sources be found, but as far as I can tell they don't currently exist. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete my searches came up with very little, agree with User:Blackmetalbaz's findings. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I found a substantial write-up on PopMatters. I also managed to find a passing mention to short discussion of "anarchist black metal" on Noisey. The PopMatters write-up suggests to me that there may be additional coverage that my G-hits search did not find. I also found this French language source, but looking at the cover I'm guessing that it's a fascist manifesto of some kind, so that would be entirely unacceptable. The Subgenres of the Beast source that Blackmetalbaz mentioned above is not just self-published, but self-published content taken from Wikipedia! I'm going with weak keep though because of the substantial PopMatters write-up.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, if no other sources can be found, this article can be merged into a subsection on the black metal article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the Noisey article, the mention there of anarchist black metal is more significant than I thought. Though the article deals primarily with the bands, it does provide examples of the lyrical and sonic aspects of the genre. I also found a brief mention of the red/anarchist scene in this academic article from the French Wikipedia version of the Red and Anarchist black metal article, and another brief mention in this Lords of Metal review. I'm leaning more decidedly toward keep now, though the support is still tenuous.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you so much to User:3family6 for sources provided. If I could just comment on what you have found. I've never used PopMatters as a source before, but if it passes WP:RS that looks like a good source that specifically talks about the genre of RABM. Of the others, Noisey doesn't explicitly mention it as a genre term, nor does the academic article, and to use those as sources would be WP:OR. Lords of Metals fails WP:RS (it's an ezine, and either way the review states the reviewer has never heard of the genre!). regarding the "academic article", I also have some questions over its reliability - any "academic" that cites their gmail address as their point of contact is likely not associated with an academic institution for this work! If the solitary PopMatters source is considered enough by admins, perfectly prepared to withdraw nom and try and incorporate some of that material. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the other references are brief. I'm not sure what your point is about Noisey: What is the difference between a "scene" and a "genre?" And does calling the music part of a scene somehow make it not notable? If nothing else, the article could call RABM a "genre or scene of black metal." So that particular mention I would consider significant. As to the academic article, it is a conference paper from the seventh session of Inter-Disciplinary's 2008 "Heavy Metal Fundamentalisms" conference. The paper was submitted for presentation, and thus had to be reviewed and approved by the conference. Now, it still is a passing mention, I agree, and not that significant. All I'm showing above is that the source is reliable.

Lastly, what makes an e-zine unreliable by default? Lords of Metal has an editorial staff, and, as webzines go, is of particular high quality, with a scheduled issue format and all. Within the Netherlands, it's more popular than Metal Storm (which is considered reliable) is within the US (I found this info through Alexa). It's hard to find English-language sources mentioning LOM (in order to help determine it's reputation as reliable), but I did find this mention of an interview in an Exclaim! article. There's also a re-printing of an interview in Metal Hammer Germany. Now, both of those mentions are of an interview the site conducted, and an interview might be mentioned even if it was on someone's private blog. However, this Portuguese news site mentions LOM alongside publications like Rock Hard and Terrorizer. And this site for a Dutch newspaper mentions a journalist who received his training while at LOM. And there's probably more that I couldn't find. So I think it's safe to say that LOM is reliable. However, you do make a point to which I agree - the reviewer hasn't heard of RABM before. I think all that this source would do is establish the reviewed band as part of that scene, and not much else.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:RS. Inclusion of webzines (or other websites) relies on their content being published independently by a third-party source - not their internal "editorial team". So, I'm unconvinced Metal Storm or Lords of Metal pass that criterion - although if WP reliability criteria have changed in recent times, please point me toward the relevant change in policy. References to other magazines mentioning these webzines certainly doesn't establish WP:RS (I'm sure I could find refs in Terrorizer' or whatever to the user-edited Metal Archives). Alexa ratings have never had any credibility on WP. Regarding academic conferences - papers, or abstracts at conferences, are not peer-reviewed, and an absence of a link to an academic institution is pretty indicative that it is not being written as a legitimate academic source. I remain on board with the idea that something could possibly be made from the PopMatters source if one source is adequate, but the rest is either passing mention or WP:OR. Re: difference between a genre and a scene... I agree that's problematic, and if that source were talking explicitly about the Red and Anarchist black metal scene, I'd take that on board - but it doesn't, suggesting that we *still* only have one (possibly) legitimate source that this is real/notable microgenre. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. PopMatters and Metal Storm are listed there as reliable sources. Thank you for the clarification about academic conferences. However, in this particular case, the proceedings were later published by the hosting organization, with the oversight of an editorial board. I found the link for the entire publication as released through Inter-Disciplinary Press in 2010 (why I didn't fetch that sooner I have no idea). My argument with the Alexa rankings was going along with the mentions in other sources and editorial oversight to demonstrate that a) the source is well-known and b) has a reputation within other sources, which, combined with the editorial oversight and high-quality of the publication is indicative of c) fact-checking and accuracy. This is typically how sources are demonstrated as reliable at the Albums Project and the reliable sources noticeboard. The assumption is that unless a source is notable (which is different from reliable), it can be hard to find concrete examples of other sources explicitly stating "x-source is reliable", so a combination of markers such as editorial oversight, independent publishers (from the individual authors or from the entire work), usage by other sources, popularity, and basic quality are used to see if a publication meets WP:RS. If you feel that this entire process used at WP:ALBUMS and WP:RSN is flawed, please bring that up.

All that said, I don't think we really are in disagreement about the mention in sources regarding this particular article. I'm just more hesitant to delete, considering that there is a reliable source supporting the content. As I suggested above, though, I'm also okay with the content being merged into the black metal article, with a designated sub-section (as there is for "war metal")/--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will absolutely go and look at the relevant noticeboards (I've been away for a while, and things may have changed). Definitely one thing I immediately take exception to though is the proceedings of Inter-disciplinary.net publishing their own abstracts. That is absolutely not the way academia is published. I quite like the fact they've mentioned it was based in Oxford UK, but there is a curious lack of connection with the Uni. There are also a number of Doctors cited, although none actually cite their credentials (which is unusual for an academic source, particularly if the event is at Oxford Uni, which seems doubtful). There is sufficient doubtful scholarship (based on the way the sources are presented) for me to be sceptical, but if I'm am wrong I am as always perfectly prepared to back down and endorse the source (even if it doesn't really support this specific article). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for the record, whilst PopMatters is currently listed on the reliable list, Metal Storm (webzine) is currently listed as "don't use", per you link. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Storm is both on the use and do not use lists. User reviews are of course not considered reliable, and staff reviews prior to 2009 are not accepted either.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Inter-Disciplinary is through Oxford Uni, though they probably have contributors from there. I did a bit of research myself, now that you brought this up, and it appears to be a respectable scholarly organization. Niall Scott, a significant academic from UCLan, seems to be one of the main coordinators. I do see your concern about publishing their own proceedings.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: Regardless of the questionable academic publishing process involved later on, the 2008 conference seems to have been one of the key points in the development of metal studies into a concrete discipline.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I dismissed this source as possibly fascist, but now not I'm sure at all, as I've now seen other publications by "Camion Noir". However, this could still be vanity press or something. It would be good if an editor with a knowledge of French could comment on this source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I never mentioned it, and Blackmetalbaz didn't get into why the site is blacklisted, but Examiner.com is certainly not reliable - it has a reputation for plagiarism and low standards as it doesn't edit the content of it's contributors.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - our precedents show that most new genres of music are deleted, and I don't see why this would not be as well. Ping me if you need the pile of precedents. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOME is just an essay though. Just because other new genre articles are deleted doesn't necessarily mean that this one should be. Now, just on the merits of this topic alone, the sources supporting it are scant, and it might not deserve a full article. But why should it be deleted as opposed to being merged into a sub-section?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best as I was going to suggest simply Drafting but the listed sourcing is simply not enough thus Delete instead. Simply not enough to suggest at least better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I found another source that briefly talks about the genre.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (non-admin closure)

Stefan tube (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)

Former WP:PROD removed, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Same author who removed PROD and still had article deleted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mathematic_modeling_of_evaporators SanAnMan (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have absolutely no idea what this is. It needs editing very badly, most people can't understand this. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. You know, there might actually be a notable topic in there somewhere, but the current version is so unreadable that [WP:TNT]] comes to mind. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[per my keep vote below][reply]

• Keep. Thanks to @Uncle G:, it looks like the article has been saved. It is now both readable and has sufficient evidence of notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that dynamite has been applied to what existed as the time of nomination. DMacks (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thanks to Uncle G's complete rewrite, this is a solidly referenced stub. GScholar shows about 174 hits and as the new refs shows, it is in the textbooks. A notable topic and a nice rewrite per WP:HEY suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @SanAnMan: The article has been rewritten with sources that establish notability under WP:GNG. If you withdraw the nomination, we can close this discussion as speedy keep under WP:SKCRIT 1. KSFT^C 19:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @KSFT: Agree that WP:TNT has made this article now relevant and passes WP:GNG. The difference now is excellent, kudos to @Uncle G: for a great rewrite. Request to withdraw nom and Speedy Keep. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:44, 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. Following deletion I will create a redirect to Robin Bain#Filmography. MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere to Run (2010 film) (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 film. Koala15 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator appears to be chipping away at a little WP:Walled garden of Robin Bain-related article, and good for Koala15. Can't find a single RS for this film, either. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:NF and THEN redirect title to Robin Bain#Filmography as the one place where it can be mentioned as one of her works even if lacking notability for a separate article. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then Redirect as this is not independently notable and nothing else to convince. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NF. — Music1201 ^talk 22:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eat Cake (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 film. Koala15 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed, while one finds some blog hits there appears to be zero reliable source coverage of "Eat Cake," the film, as opposed to a mere expression. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I got the same results as Shawn in Montreal, nothing of note. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete for failing WP:NF and THEN redirect title to Robin Bain#Filmography as the one place where it can be mentioned as one of her works even if lacking notability for a separate article. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:20, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navi Bhangu (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)

Doesn't pass notability guidelines WP:GNG. Extensive sources amount to three articles, all from the Times of India. Article barely has any content, notability of the actor isn't proven in my eyes. st170e^talk 15:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be a notable Indian actor, evidenced by significant coverage in India media AusLondonder (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The actor's claim to notability appears to derive from a single lead role in a soap opera, so I'm not seeing WP:NACTOR being met here. I also note that I couldn't find the subject's name in the articles on two of the shows that appear on the subject's list of television credits. As for the media coverage, I didn't find anything approaching the "significant" coverage that is contemplated by WP:GNG. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best instead because although he has a few works, it's still questionable for the necessary better improvements, my searches found nothing outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG. — Music1201 ^talk 22:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —SpacemanSpiff 15:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Khan (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 notability is seems to be inherited and other notable work that this personality has done does not seems to have reliable sources. Some notable works as such screenwriter is cited with either the article which are talking about facts or related with his son, who is an actor. While looking on the Google the person seems to be notable because of inherited notability. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Billions of sources exist for one of the most prominent personalities in Indian cinema. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nomination seems to be a misapplication of the concept of inherited notability. Salim has extensive coverage for his own career and has received multiple awards; examples: [1][2][3]. That assorted members of his family are also involved in these projects does not make him non-notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Searches come up with enough sources, has decent coverage. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Misunderstanding of the concept of inherited notability. AusLondonder (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:45, 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. Nakon 20:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiak (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 meet WP:MUSICBIO. Tagged with ((BLP sources)) since March 2016. DBrown SPS (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It does not show any good reference nor any proof of a real record producer for high-profile artists. 71.15.141.166 (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable promotion. Also made by User:Cardiak100, so this is a WP:AUTOBIO. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:49, 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. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Joe Keller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. Another sad but frequent disappearance. (Almost 2,500 American go missing each day). There is no lasting outcome from the disappearance, such as a change in law or procedure which is usually used as a yardstick for notability in these cases. Refs are typical news reports, not indicative of this case being any more notable. Dmol (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing notable in this disappearance. A guy was running in the woods, and something went wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as I'm not seeing how this can be improved aside from the current details. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - death was not at all mysterious and all too common: middle-aged, middle-class white suburban man runs alone into wilderness and dies. The Sierra Club's magazine has a whole feature every single month on exactly this possibility. It's sad that he died, but sadly not really odd. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social thermodynamics theory (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)

Looks like a WP:COATRACK article. Of the refs, the term "social dynamics" only appears in #1, a self-published paper (I would charitably say it will probably not get published in a serious publication anytime soon). Searching (either the whole web or G Scholar) does not turn up much better (e.g. this or other pseudo-scientific stuff).

The three other sources are all from the same research group and look more legitimate (e.g. published in PLA), the topic being to apply tools from statistical physics to other domains, notably election results. I think this is not a fringe topic (other researchers work on this), but it is never mentioned as "social thermodynamics". So, while an article on that latter subject could be made as a split-off of Statistical mechanics, neither the current title nor content are useful for it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is considered a fringe topic by many/most physicists, but it has been researched by quite a few folk over many decades. This wiki page on sociological thermodynamics isn't an RS but does have a good historical discussion of the topic, which goes back nearly a century. Among those studying it was Ilya Prigogine, a Nobel prize winner in chemistry; here is a review of his work on social thermodynamics. The topic seems notable to me, if not solidly scientific. But the nom is correct, this article seems a coatrack for a very small slice of the field, with a lot of synthesis tossed in. I'm still undecided, so a comment rather than a !vote. --Mark viking (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so the field name is rather "human thermodynamics". (I did find humanthermodynamics.com during my search but dismissed it as an isolated pseudoscience website.) This does seem to turn up more results, fringe but maybe notable nonetheless. I need to check a bit more. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting yet entirely cobbled from original research, so delete. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still questionable for solid notability improvements, interesting but still questionable for now. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2006–07 Troon F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article fails NSEASONS, which is clear that such articles are only suitable for teams playing in "top professional leagues". This club play well below such a level and there is no indication that any events that took place during this season garnered sufficient, significant coverage in independent sources that would enable sourced prose to be added enabling the article to pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not meeting WP:NSEASONS. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:NSEASONS and does not meet WP:GNG. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. GiantSnowman 17:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 Troon F.C. season. AllyD (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The Junior league in which this club play is some levels below fully-professional football in Scotland, which means the article fails the primary WP:NSEASONS criterion. Nor is there evidence of any other event in this particular season which could meet WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 20:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 1993 South Asian Games (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 real content Rathfelder (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no worthwhile content. Looks like the author started creating it along with the other South Asian Games articles example in 2014 but got distracted. Some of the infobox content is wrong as well.
• Delete as nothing suggesting its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 20:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tangle Teezer (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)

To my recollection this is indistinguishable from the version previously deleted as G11 spam. Author appears to be is a sock-puppet trying to avoid association with the previous efforts. Bazj (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, sockpuppetry confirmed. Bazj (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable sourcing to meet GNG. Company has been recognised with several awards. Clearly notable topic. AusLondonder (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are multiple independent sources that provide coverage of the company (1 2 and 3 after just a quick search). Meets WP:GNG. If these is a problem with promotional tone in the article, it should be fixed, not deleted. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep is notable, covered by decent sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best and Draft if willing as the current sourcing overall is still questionable, not solid enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable. There isn't enough reliable sources that can support the article/prove its notability AdrianGamer (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only listed in GameRankings and in "this week's releases" stuff at the custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:16, 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. Also worth noting that our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines ask that any personal affiliation with the subject matter be declared on the article's talk page in advance of major editing. czar 01:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digiment (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)

While its games may be notable, the company does not seem to be. I could not find any reliable sources that discuss the studio in an in-depth way. The article fails WP:CORP AdrianGamer (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[comment added by eirmo Eirmo (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)] @AdrianGamer:[reply]

First my apologies if I am adding comment incorrectly, I am not sure how the talk page works, I was trying to read the talk page guidelines but it is still a bit unclear how to add comment.

I find this deletion comment rather inadequate. Digiment was particularly one of the pioneers during the Java Mobile games era but also later. In addition, Mr Eirik Moseng (co-founder and General Manager) is a frequent (keynote) speaker on many of the major video- and mobile game conferences world wide, including Mobile Games Forum (the world's premium mobile games event) where he has be a repeated speaker and panellist since 2008 on all of their events in London, Seattle and Hong Kong, in addition to participating in their MGF Icons event which is a special invite only for the C-level executives of the major players in the industry. Last MGF event Mr Moseng attended as speaker was MGF Asia in Hong Kong (https://www.globalmgf.com/asia/speakers/)... Other events include Mobile World Congress (2012), JoinGame, Nordic Game Conference and PocketGamer Connect (http://www.pgconnects.com/sanfrancisco/speakers/eirik-moseng/). Mr Moseng would not participate as speaker or panellist in the most prominent conferences and events in the gaming industry if Digiment was not a notable company. Also stating that their games seem notable but not the company does not make much sense. A company is notable if its products are notable.

Digiment was also one of the main sponsors of GameCamp (https://web.archive.org/web/20080212022853/http://gamecamp.no/) (look at the bottom of the page) in Norway together with Microsoft MSDN and Treyarch http://www.treyarch.com/ (notable for Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 among others). Digiment has never kept a very high profile but is a well-know and well-established company in the gaming industry.

In addition, Digiment has worked on many notable products for leading publishers which are under NDA and cannot be mentioned in the public.

In-famous Markus 'Notch' Persson (creator of Minercraft) worked for Digiment's Gamefederation studio in Stockholm Sweden working on Digiment's connected platform. Notch did not often mention this in interviews but he did it in a interview with BAFTA (http://guru.bafta.org/markus-persson-interview)

Eirmo (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirmo:: I'm afraid that in wikipedia terms, a company is not necessarily notable if its products are notable. Some explanation of this position can be found here (though it's explained fairly badly there, I think). If you want to read the policies on what counts towards notability, you could look at WP:GNG and WP:ORG, though the tl;dr is essentially that a subject must have significant coverage (not just a mention) in multiple independent reliable sources. (There is a policy on how to determine whether a source is reliable at WP:RS).

The fact that the company has sponsored GameCamp might be a reason for its notability, but you will have to show that this sponsorship has been covered in sources independent of Digiment/GameCamp. The fact that much of its significant work is under NDAs is unfortunate from a point of view of having a wikipedia page, because almost by definition if it's work is covered by NDAs it will be difficult to verify: another core policy for wikipedia articles. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. User:Eirmo is the creator of this article. Also, Eirmo seems to be Eirik Moseng, founder of this company. It just isn't covered well enough, and having one famous person formerly work there doesn't make it notable. In short, It's a promotion piece about a company who's most famous game doesn't even have an article. Frankly, I'm amazed that this passed AFC. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to a lack of reliable sources to show notability. The only current article sources outside of the company website and social media discuss games the company made, and not the company itself, and I couldn't find anything better. While the company may have created a lot of games and holds some influence in the industry, if there are no outside sources to show this then the article will have a hard time staying on Wikipedia. It might be worth trying to create articles for the games the company made instead of a company page. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this is ludicrous. Digiment is a well-know, notable and highly respected company in the gaming industry and this is not hard to see from external sources. Forwarding claims such as "It's a promotion piece about a company who's most famous game doesn't even have an article" is even more absurd.

There is tons of articles on Wikipedia written by internal people for companies far less notable than Digiment per wikipedias definition. A not-so-notable company does not appear with speakers at the most prominent and high-level conferences in the industry.

Vserv (https://www.techinasia.com/fund-maverick-ventures-enters-india-investment-adtech-firm-vserv) selected Digiment as the developer of the week (http://www.vserv.com/digiment-norway-developer-of-the-week/). There are several such articles out there.

Nevertheless, we can see where this is heading.

Eirmo (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Digiment's sponsorship of GameCamp Norway is a relationship between the two organisations, not something an external auditor or partner is part of. Why would an organisation such as GameCamp list Treyarch, Microsoft and Digiment as sponsors if that was not the case? GameCamp and its organisers are clearly a trustworthy source for this. Here it is also mentioned by one of the former chairmans for GameCamp: http://www.ingebrigtsen.info/2008/09/28/game-camp-another-great-event-has-been-completed/ (Einar Ingebrigtsen is an Microsoft Valuable Professional and was earlier an game developer at Norwegian game developer Funcom among others).

Of course a company gets notable if it has notable products, this goes hand in hand. Apple is notable for its products such as iPod, iPhone and iPad. A game creator is notable for the games they produce. When a company or creator produces a notable product, the company or creator automatically becomes notable. How can a company not be noticed for it products if the product itself is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eirmo (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eirmo (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirmo: I am not suggesting that Digiment did not sponsor GameCamp. I have no reason to doubt that they did. The point I was trying to make was that the article has been suggested for deletion because the company does not appear to be notable. As a key part of the notability guideline is that the company has been covered in independent sources, GameCamp's discussion of the sponsorship deal does not demonstrate notability. However, if the deal has been covered by other independent reliable sources (newspapers? industry newsletters?), then that might help demonstrate that Digiment is notable.

As for your assertion that "Digiment is a well-known, notable and highly respected company in the gaming industry": if this is truly the case, then it should be possible to provide sources to demonstrate this. Currently they don't, because they are either not independent of the company, or they do not provide significant coverage of the company.

Finally, I shall address the articles you have linked in this discussion. The major problem is that none of them (with the possible exception of this) come close to providing significant coverage of Digiment. Many of them would be suitable as sources in the article, but they are not sufficient to establish notability. As for the vserv article, I'm not convinced that it counts as an independent reliable source. The "developer of the week" series is apparently about "showcasing our partners", and people can submit their own names for consideration. Therefore, the profile of Eirik Moseng is not independent, and again not suitable for demonstrating notability. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to search up the articles on Digiment as the search result tend to return Digiment's website and links to their games on all different websites. But here is another article by DroidGamers, one of the most respectable online Android gaming publications: http://www.droidgamers.com/~xxtremet/games/index.php/game-news/android-game-news/2180-digiment-gearing-up-to-release-marv-the-miner-2-onto-android-soon

Eirmo (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eirmo (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ZettaComposer: The intention is to create articles for notable Digiment games, however, a company page was first created to be referenced from the articles about the games.

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I am more amazed about the fact that the editorial controllers like yourself can put forward a lot of assumptions without researching any facts. The intention *is* to create articles for notable games from Digiment, however, a company page was first created as it would be referenced from the games articles. It is very contradictory to have articles about games from a creator but those games cannot reference an article about its creator because only the games are notable but not the company. A company becomes notable because of its innovation, technology or products. So obviously, when a product is notable or successful, the company and/or creator must be as well. This goes hand in hand. A company becomes notable because of its products.

This only shows that the company exists but it does not prove its notability. Appearing in different industry talks doesn't mean the person is notable as well. Notability is not inherited, and must instead rely on verifiable, objective evidence. Here is where we list all our reliable sources. When a company is notable, they will get a lot of attention, and these reliable sources will write articles about them. There are only one reliable source that mention Digiment, which is far from sufficient. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Well, Vserv is an entirely independent company of Digiment. They have thousands of partners of course, including Digiment. Among the most prominent ones that generates the most revenue, they select them as 'developer of the week'.

@Eirno: I think you're going to have a hard time convincing wikipedia that a company which is partnered with Digiment, and specifically profiled it because it "generates the most revenue" is independent in the sense that wikipedia means it. "Independent" doesn't simply mean "not owned by", it means (at least, as this essay argues, I think convincingly) that it has "no vested interest" in a topic, where a vested interest can be but is not limited to "a financial[...] relationship". Being a partner of Digiment certainly sounds like a potentially financial relationship; if it is not, I think you need to clarify this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianGamer: Steve Jobs was also a notable person, but so is his company because of the work he put down. Although a known person in the industry from before, Jonathan Blow got infamous for his Braid game and that was a solo-project more or less. Digiment has a revenue of ~£6m and close to 60 employees, that is a major difference.

But ok, using judgement and discretion is clearly not a thing for Wikipedia, point taken.

I do not know if it is possible for me to delete the article directly since I created it?

• Delete. Non-notable company, is mentioned twice in all of WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirmo: However famous you think this company is, it's just not well-known. There are very little sources that confirm notability. On Wikipedia, we have standards for this, so please read over WP:CORP, WP:GNG, WP:COI and WP:OWN. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any problems. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I do not think I have ever mentioned that that company is famous. There is a different between being notable as in describing a company (adjective) and being famous. A company that has survived in an industry for 20 years where most companies drop like files and less than 2% are going break-even or being profitable is notable by itself. A company which has sold more than 8.5 million copies of a game (http://www.polygon.com/2012/11/24/3685012/marv-the-miner-trilogy-conclusion-available-now) is notable. Two of the largest and most respected gaming (Droidgamer) sites and/or tech sites (Poloygon) among others do not write about the company or its products if it is not "well-known". Digiment is not Blizzard, King, Supercell or Mojang but Digiment is just as well-known in this industry as Handy-Games and other similar companies. There are tons of articles written on the companies products and it is the products which define what the company are.

In addition, I would expect subjective opinions about what is "well-known" should be avoided in a place like Wikipedia. That you and others here may not have heard of the company, the company has tens of millions of players of their games. Further, Digiment is far more known than a lot of the companies already mentioned on Wikipedia, so per your definition of "well-known", it seems like Wikipedia has a lot of clean up to do. There are hundres to thousands of example on this, Magmic being one of them. There are 5 references listed; 3 being local online publications; 2 being sponsored articles. And 4 being made because of relationship between the journalist and Nicholas Reichenback (whom used to work for Gamefederation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Digiment). These articles have no public interest, which I would expect is the most single important requirement for sources mentioned in this thread. The articles are created based on personal relationships between a person in the company and the journalist and is nothing more than a PR jippo. Magic has never achieved anything notable per your definition except for creating and publishing a few games.

Further, I have read the links you provided as these were provided by AdrianGamer as well.

Eirmo (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@Eirmo: That is not what I meant. Wikipedia HAS a standard of what defines "well known", It's called WP:GNG and, in this case, WP:CORP. That is what this company fails to meet. Also the "Other companies are included" argument is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:SEWAGE, and WP:INN. I'm sorry, but COI article creation is just not allowed, and I don't think this company is notable, searches came up with little. Even if this article is kept, you would not be allowed to edit it. Read WP:COI. Finally, just because the product is notable, doesn't mean the company is. What you make may be notable, but the company alone is not. The link you provided shows the PRODUCT, not the company itself. See WP:PRODUCT. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:53, 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 Deleted as I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Šesnaest (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)

Unable to find Reliable Sources, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:MADEUP. (Native speaker here). No such user (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "Šesnaest" translates as "sixteen", so simple searches will find numerous pages.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagore MRT Station (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)

This article is unsourced and is not confirmed by LTA or any source 33ryantan (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as article is an example of WP:CRYSTALBALL. The map by the Singapore Land Transport Authority is here. There is no mention of the station name (or even the station) at this time and any such name is unverified speculation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too soon. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Already speedily deleted at 17:11 on 28 April 2016 by AA (talk · contribs) as A11 (Article about a subject obviously invented by article creator or associate, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions before hair transplant surgery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. see WP:NOTHOWTO Jschnur (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - this is Wikihow content, not Wikipedia's. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Also seems to provide unsourced medical advice. If some information is considered useful and source can be provided, it could be merged into Hair transplantation. No longer a penguin (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTMANUAL. Not the type of content that belongs on Wikipedia. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEEEEEEEEEEEEDY DELETE. WikiHow WIKI NOW! 161.113.11.16 (talk) 14:00, 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. Nakon 20:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CovySoft Networks (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. " It was deprodded by User:Kvng with an edit summary of "indication of notability in cited sources", and with no ECHO back to me (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Well, I do not consider the listed sources to be reliable; they look like niche portals and their coverage of the company, from what I gather from Google Translate, is sparse - one article talks about company's CEO taking part in a conference, another one discusses the company being bought out (so, routine coverage). 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} 06:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sources fail WP:ROUTINE. clpo13_(talk) 03:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as none of this is actually conceivably better for the applicable notability, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G12. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 18:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.P. Dash (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)

This article is predominantly copyright violation taken from here:[4] Notability is another issue. Graham Beards (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:COPYVIO is speedy deletion worthy, so I have added a speedy delete tag. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:17, 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 merge to Talker#History of talkers. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Chat (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)

Back in 2010 User:Robofish proposed this for deletion with the following rationale: "Non-notable internet service. Despite the claim of notability ('first ever talker'), I can't find coverage in reliable sources which substantiates it." Then User:Chaos5023 added some refs and deprodded it. While I commend his referencing job, the article still seems to fail WP:NSOFT: the references are mentions in passing, and they don't amount to more then 2-3 sentences on this obscure piece of software, which may belong on the list of MUDs, but doesn't seem to have much stand-alone notability. Or perhaps this could be just merged to Talker, where it can remain in its current form - as the first ever talker (which is cool, but the sources don't seem to discuss it in any detail beyond this qualifier). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Talker#History of talkers. The references in the article are enough to support the claim that this was the first of its kind, but 6 years on it still doesn't seem to me notable enough to merit its own article. Merging it into the main article, as proposed by the nominator, seems like the best solution here. Robofish (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, as above. Dearth of reliable sourcing, notable only in context of the genre's history. I'd merge the other talkers into that article as well. czar 07:44, 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. Per WP:SNOW. Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Lindquist (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)

Back for what I bellieve is the third AfD. Nominating again as I discovered that at least two of the refs that were used in previous versions were from sources connected to the article subject-- see talk page for details. With those removed, we have someone who is essentially:

• a radio announced in Las Vegas who also does commercial voice over work
• this person received a Nevada radio hall of fame award once
• this person plays in a non-notable band.

Given the presence on the web of sources published by colleagues of the article subject, I would encourage deep skepticism. Does not meet WP:GNG. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Someone doing his job, but not receiving coverage required by WP:BIO to be encyclopedic. There are no reasons for considering his inclusion in "Nevada Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame" to be sufficient; the award doesn't seem to be very selective - each year over 20 or so people get it, and all it amounts to is seemingly an entry on a webpage that is there to honor employees who had worked in the broadcast industry for a minimum of twenty years. So in other words, if you work for 20 years in this industry, you get on the list. Nice, but nothing to to with being encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was most articulate! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:NOTABILITY and under promotional pressure to boot. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Notable per coverage. Aliciadewi (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the nominator that the sources are poor, although more importantly, so far as I can ascertain there are not enough sources out there for him to meet WP:GNG, and the state broadcasting award is insufficient to establish him as notable. I asked on the talk page for an admin to check whether this new version of the article is substantially the same as the one deleted after the second AfD; if the award was also present in that version, I suspect this could be speediable as a re-creation. If it is new, it does not appear to meet the appropriate specialized notability guideline. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; nothing to indicate that the Nevada HoF is a notable honor. See also the related new article The Honorifics, Mr. Lindquist's band, created also by Aliciadewi. More of same promotional issues, with press releases as sources. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Following an unsuccessful suggestion to speedy delete, I've prodded The Honorifics. HappyValleyEditor or Yngvadottir, this may be ripe for an AfD, as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've posted both pages at COIN........HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is there any reason why I should not close this speedily as G4? --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: Unfortunately, the rest of us can't see the version that was deleted after the previous AfD to assess whether it's substantially the same. (I raised that issue on the talk page.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The only "source" that is in the current version that was not in the previous version is the archived link to the KLAV homepage, which is useless for establishing notability. Apart from that, I don't see anything that's really different (actually, the current version has less content than the deleted one) and I did check the version before other editors started slashing it. I am going to close this per WP:SNOW, no use wasting our time here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I remember the previous version of the page and the references were essentially the same. It wouldn't pass WP:GNG --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not discussed in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: hypernarrow, possibly WP:NFT Toddst1 (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Possibly some original research. The included sources (one of which clearly fails WP:USERGENERATED) discuss metal bands that sometimes used synths but there's no indication that it's an actual genre distinct from heavy metal, electronic rock, or industrial metal. clpo13_(talk) 04:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is still questionable for better improvements aside from the currently listed, delete at best and restart when better informative. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz: Desert Jewelz (soundtrack) (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 album: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable soundtrack from a non notable movie Seasider91 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is definitely a non-notable album since it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still questionable for its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. I'm very concerned at some of the allegations in the articles the creator has made, as there's a large focus on various accusations and some of the content gives off the impression that they're using Wikipedia as a vehicle to respond to said allegations. Even if the book and author were notable, which they aren't, this would still violate a lot of Wikipedia's guidelines because of how they were written and because they're completely unsourced. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have now blocked the user for the pages, as it seems clear that this was intentional mischief and likely a way to harass another person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Maryanne: Chronicles of the Mundane (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 book with no claim of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not even close to notable. Dschslava (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nowhere near notable, also written by the author of the book, who has been making many promotion pieces. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm going to shut this down early. There's little chance of this passing NBOOK even if we wait a full week, but what concerns me is that the article also makes allusions about someone accusing the author of harassment. That makes this particularly troublesome because while this isn't a biography of a living person, making statements of that nature aren't really kosher on Wikipedia - even if the person is only claiming that the accusations have occurred. This, paired with some of the content that the author wrote in another article (which was turnd into a redirect) give off the impression that the author might be using Wikipedia as an outlet to get to his accuser. This might not be the case, but it's strong enough to where I'm going to close all of this down early and delete the various articles the author has made. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Diver Dan. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 22:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Freda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
NOTE: Delete Frank D Freda as redirect or under any circumstances as it was created from whole cloth

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

Delete: as non-notable individual. Fails WP:GNG; few articles in Google Search, mostly wikia and obits. Appeared in 35 episodes in the title role of the television series Diver Dan but that is his only IMDb credit (see [5]). Marriage to Ruth Warrick for one year also fails to confer notability. Quis separabit? 19:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: Should this article survive this AfD, it will be moved to Frank Freda where it properly belongs. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Diver Dan. While I have not investigated this one in detail yet (i.e. to search for additional sourcing – I'll try to get that soon...), I suspect it does fail WP:GNG. Therefore, it would appear that the best course of action is to redirect to Diver Dan, after moving any relevant sourcing and info to the Diver Dan article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as this seems to the best known work, not seriously needed for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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