< 29 April	1 May >

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, speedied as copyvio--Ymblanter (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anika Nilles[edit]

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

WP:GARAGEBAND Benboy00 (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Written like a PR profile, contains no reliable source coverage (the "references" are all primary ones), and makes no claim of notability that would pass WP:NMUSIC. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The entire page appears to have been copied from this page, which has a copyright notice at the bottom. Bearcat, I'm not sure what should happen now; whether the article should be speedy deleted as a copyvio or if the afd should be left to run. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G12, if the page is made of copyrighted content, surely it should be speedily deleted. JumpiMaus (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all suggesting the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People analytics[edit]

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

"People analytics" seems to have been a business neologism that did not really catch on. A number of publications seem to have used this phrase but in a way that seems interchangable with other related, and more established buzzwords such as Behavioral analytics and Cohort analysis. The entire article seems to be a coatrack for the ideas of management journalist Ben Weber, who published a book called "People Analytics" in 2013. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, this is a twinkle bug, there are 2 of the same reports. I can't fix it, can someone who is more experienced help out? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My fault, first time I submitted the AFD Twinkle rejected the submission, so I did it again. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PR blurb and coatrack. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I don't see how it being a neologism is an issue. Whether or not it has caught on seems to be a matter of time scale and proximity to roles / groups that are called as such. Possibly this could be merged into the Workforce Analytics section of Workforce Planning. That being said, well-known organization actively call their team's People Analytics (e.g. Google, Walmart, Facebook, Biogen, etc. per a LinkedIn search) There have been 12 conferences in the last 12 months with the title "People Analytics". To be clear, People Analytics (by all of the before mentioned organizations and many others) is referring only to employees / workforce members of the organization. Both Cohort & Behavioral analytics focus on customers / end users. Agreed that the terminology is confusing from a distance; however, it is clearly differentiated in various publications. All this being said, the article needs A LOT of work and a lot more references... Mimercha (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as still questionable for solid notability and better improvements, article could certainly be better and we'll wait. Asking DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. an article could be written, but this is an advertisement for weber, just as claimed. Of the references, nos. 10 and 11 do not mention the phrase; some other refer to in only in passing, with attribution to Weber. Ithe intro to the book doesn't mention it either. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NEO, and WP:OR. This page needs so much work as to require a fresh start. WP:NEO means that we don't start articles on new terms just because they might some day become established. We don't publish what is essentially original research; press releases are really just a nice way of writing original research. Bearian (talk) 11:32, 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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron B. Del Mar[edit]

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

Minor politician lacking notability. Fails WP:NN and WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Aaron Del Mar was the first minority to be elected to the Cook County Republican party which is the 2nd Largest County in the United States. He was also the first minority and youngest person to be elected to the overwhelmingly white city of Palatine, IL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarondelmar (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? How on earth is that racist? Adam9007 (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It undermines the history and change that has taken place in Palatine, IL and in Cook County politics, which has been dominated by Caucasian. Maybe racist is not the best term but certainly Mr. Dle Mar is "notable".

</sigh> reddogsix (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a local politician with no current claim to notability. If his role in Palatine Township is truly historic, he can be mentioned there. One needs to keep in mind that Cook County Republicans elected an African-American, Oscar Stanton De Priest to the US house in 1928. So I am extremely credulous that any election of Del Mar to any position is significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP should keep this article. It has national links to John Kasich and built on solid content. I think it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olympic13 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC) ::— Olympic13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - how does this meet the Wikipedia notability criteria? reddogsix (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because as detailed this may be, there's nothing for WP:POLITICIAN, not currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Their are a significant amount of citations and more than enough articles to prove notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olympic13 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you're allowed to comment in an AFD as many times as you like — but you only get one "vote". The "keep" at the beginning of this followup comment has been stripped accordingly — you do not get to preface every followup comment with another "vote". Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being the local chair of his political party's local chapter in his own county is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability that gets a person into an international encyclopedia — and neither is "first minority elected to an otherwise non-notable office". If this were Cookcountypedia, or if his holding of this office also made him the first minority ever to hold any political office in the entire state of Illinois, then I'd let it go — but a politician has to demonstrate considerably wider prominence than this before he becomes suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia whose audience is also in California, Canada, England, South Africa, Australia, Belarus and Japan. In addition, the article was written by the subject himself, a violation of our conflict of interest rules, and has enough promotional/PR overtones that I would at least have been tempted to speedy it as a blatant advertisement, had I seen it before the nominator did. And the fact that a political activist of purely local notability endorsed John Kasich does not make the existence of this article contextually necessary to our coverage of Kasich, either — it's part of the political process for people involved in it to support or endorse candidates for important offices, but the fact of the endorsement doesn't confer notability on the giver of the endorsement per se. And while there are plenty of sources here which namecheck his existence, there are not a lot of sources which are substantively about him in the manner necessary to pass WP:GNG — the only sources in which he's substantively the subject are local community weeklies. All of which means that none of this is compelling enough, nor sourced well enough, to get him in the door. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As not meeting WP:GNG, namely failing to have receibed "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". An endorsement for a candidate for party nomination is not a notable act. AusLondonder (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above - especially the reasoning of Bearcat.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)*[reply]
KEEPCook County is not a "local" chapter it has 5.2 MILLION people. To be the elected leader of 5.2 million people is "significant" that is more than most states. Mr. Del Mar has earned more votes than some governors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:202:1D99:21B6:8748:4E81:94E1 (talk • contribs) — 2601:248:202:1D99:21B6:8748:4E81:94E1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

...and how does this support notability? Also what evidence do you have concerning the number of votes he has received?reddogsix (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's not the elected leader of 5.2 million people — he's the chairman of the board of one individual political party's local chapter in the county, which is not the same thing. And at any rate, notability on Wikipedia is conferred by (a) the holding of a notable political office, and (b) the degree of reliable source coverage that is available about them in that office — not by the raw number of votes a person did or didn't receive. Bearcat (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Johnpacklambert and Bearcat (no relation to me). The page is so filled with extravagant and false allegations as to require a complete re-write. For example, it is impossible for him to have gained 5.2 million votes, when considering that children and non-citizens can't vote for him; we need a very good citation to back up such an extravagant claim. Clearly this person fails our guidelines such as WP:GNG -- and yes, we still have specific guidelines for inclusion such as WP:POLITICIAN. You don't gain notability by endorsing somebody else. I'm sure Del Mar is a nice person and his family and friends love him, but he is just not important enough to have his own article here at Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article in its current state does not meet WP:POLITICIAN nor WP:GNG, and as stated by AusLondonder, an endorsement for a political candidate for a party nomination is not a notable act in itself.--Shootingstar111 (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Deer Rebels Hockey Cards[edit]

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

Article about a junior-league hockey team's own proprietary set of hockey cards, whose only discernible claim of standalone notability as a separate topic in its own right is the fact that a handful of former Rebels went on to play in the National Hockey League later in their careers and thus have old pre-fame cards in this set. The only "source" here is a fan's own self-published card collecting website, with no reliable source coverage in media shown at all. If we need any content about this in Wikipedia at all, one or two properly sourced sentences in Red Deer Rebels is more than enough to cover it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. At best, this could be merged into the article for the team; but even that would need coverage in reliable sources of some sort, which is absent here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability to speak of. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability and may be promotional. Rlendog (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, but could perhaps be mentioned in the team article. Peridon (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Reuss[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a writer and radio personality, making no strong claim of notability under WP:CREATIVE for either activity and citing no strong reliable source coverage. As a radio personality she's associated with a single radio station in a single media market, her book is a self-published e-book, and the sourcing here is entirely to blogs, the commercial sales pages of her book on online bookstores, and self-published PR platforms. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody in any field of endeavour is entitled to an article just because they exist -- it's an encyclopedia, on which a credible and encyclopedic claim of notability, and the depth and breadth of reliable source coverage needed to verify its accuracy, must be present for a person to earn an article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for coverage in reliable sources, and the best I came up with is this, which is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG in my book. I cannot see any other claim to notability, and the article is vaguely promotional, too. CSD#A7 is borderline applicable here, I would say... Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local media personality with no significant impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Google results are mostly social media and blogs, much as in the article itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hit all the databases I have access to and didn't find anything to support notability. She is mentioned in a few articles, but it's not enough. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Joshua[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: I created it as a way to test editing articles, I don't even care if it's deleted lol He probably won't turn into anything anyways. Spilia4 (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the creator is acknowledging that this is a test, and there is no evidence for notability; I think a passing admin could delete this, and save some trouble. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devilman (rapper)[edit]

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

I can't really see any claim of notability here, and only the Guardian ref seems to meet our criteria, promotional tone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The references seem adequate to me. I don't see a promotional tone to the article itself. If the sources seem somewhat promotional at times, it may be because of the genre's inherent culture of 'beefs' and 'clashes' and other self-aggrandizing esthetics. Willondon (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now actually as my searches only found a few other links but nothing outstandingly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fence sit: The relevant guidelines for notability are here. The article provides eight sources, only one of which is The Guardian. Seems the argument for notability boils down to how reliable and notable the other sources are. I’m not familiar with any of them, but it seems to me that they’re independent sources attempting to provide credible, unbiased coverage of various musicians and genres. Willondon (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Willondon (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Willondon Why? SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I voted because the relistings seemed to beg for more discussion and consensus. I voted to keep because I believe the topic has been covered by a number of reliable independent sources. Now that Chrisw80 has joined you and the original proponent in recommending deletion, I’d say a consensus has been reached. Willondon (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just know that when Devilman becomes the next Drake, I shall haunt all of your talk pages to tell of your short-sighted foolishness. Willondon (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If this is notable (which I do not believe), then it's by a thread. The vast majority of sources found are not comprehensive coverage, and almost all the sources have to do with the feuding between various musical artists and happen to include some passing mentions of Devilman. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Reading through the discussion, I have found the "keep" arguments to be generally stronger, though not really enough to call it clear consensus. Any argument for deletion that solely focuses on how this article is about a pejorative term is automatically invalid, because WP:NOTCENSORED and there is no policy that forbids the inclusion of such topics. I would also want to note that the article has been expanded from a one-sentence stub to a prose size of 3703 characters, and multiple sources have been presented, since the nomination of this article for AfD. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 14:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victim feminism[edit]

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

Basically an antifeminist (or possibly postfeminist) pejorative for radical feminism (and related ideas like the social construction of gender). The point, other than to mock, seems to be to contrast it with first-wave feminism, liberal feminism, individualist feminism, or otherwise "valid" feminism. The point is, this is not a kind of feminism but a pejorative for forms of feminism we already have articles about. Fails WP:NEO/WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to wiktionary. There are sources using it. But it doesn't appear to meet note. TimothyJosephWood 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Staszek Lem Some clarification:

Disagree with OP that the term is antifeminists, at least, in the sense that the Tea Party is anti Republican...which it isn't really.
The article is most certainly about a term. That isn't immediately disqualifying, but per WP:NAD, it does raise the notability bar a bit. The term furthermore, seems to be used exclusively in juxtaposition. In a cartoonish way, compare "We're not AmeriCANTS. We're AmeriCANS." Also compare Third-Wavers criticizing First-Wavers, where they are actually criticizing a thing and actual people, and not inventing something solely so they can immediately distance themselves from it. By comparison, and to rebut your example, feminism is not simply a term, it is a social movement with adherents who hold a general set of beliefs and goals, and who have worked socially and politically to accomplish or support those. Again, compare treatment in WP:NAD. Dog is a term, but dog is not about the term, it's about the animal.
The sources are all 20+ years old. Again, not immediately disqualifying, but it may suggest how much traction this term had.
Newer sources can be found, but they're all references back to Wolf, as are all the older sources AFAICanTell. I don't see much evidence that this term claimed any ground in its own right, apart from the star power imparted to it by Wolf, or that anybody really took the term and ran with it.
Even with the recent additions, this is still basically a Wiktionary entry. Compare One in the Hand. What the term means, where it came from, and a good day to you all.
I don't see this ever growing into a full fledged article that is more than could be immediately converted into Wiktionary, unless it turns into a list of works that reference it's usage by Wolf, and that's a whole other WP:NOTE discussion. TimothyJosephWood 22:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- re: "The sources are all 20+ years old" - No. "Newer sources can be found, but they're all references back to Wolf, " - which means the subject is sufficiently notable to remember this 20+ year old buzz. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning the sources all trace back to one thing said by one person once. TimothyJosephWood 01:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. For example, this chapter from a 2014 book on victim feminism focuses on its use by three thinkers (Christina Hoff Sommers, Naomi Wolf, Katie Roiphe) and names several other proponents of the term at the start of the chapter (Camille Paglia, Natasha Walter, and Rene Denfeld in a non-exhaustive list). This is clearly not just "one thing said by one person once" but is rather a term at the centre of an enduring academic debate in gender studies. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~speedy~~ keep. @JosephWood: Yes it is a term. "feminism" is a term too. The nom's description that is is antifeminist (and most of the rest) is incorrect. The term must be adequately described in wikipedia since is clearly notable concept, not just accidental word usage: the article says that there was "a panel on "Victim Feminism" at the Law and Society Association 1994 Annual Meeting." Google books search quickly reveals significant discussion of the term (and I expanded the article accordigly). In fact the nom's mis-description of the concept is the best explanation why the article is necessary. And the opinion that it fails WP:GNG indicates insufficiently due diligence. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- First, it's not going to be speedy kept as there are valid deletion rationales (even if a consensus emerges to keep, they are very typical reasons for deletion) and the only person to weigh in other than yourself supported the nomination. Second, that it's a term obviously isn't the deletion rationale and therefore a rather pointless straw man. But third, and more to the point, that there have been people who have used the term to talk about notable concepts we already cover doesn't change the fact that we already cover those subjects and this is just a pejorative for those subjects. Several authors have highlighted/criticized forms of feminism (or just feminism broadly) as viewing/treating women as powerless victims. This is a common criticism that is not itself a type of feminism. We cover versions of it in articles on antifeminism, postfeminism, and elsewhere. It's a criticism that sometimes comes from within feminism, sometimes from postfeminists, and sometimes from antifeminists. It's an attitude that finds sympathy among conservative/libertarian groups as compatible with the "personal responsibility" ideology (don't whine or ask for handouts, just pull yourself up by your bootstraps). For certain segments of the e.g. men's rights or gamergate crowds it's a "valid" form of feminism in contrast to the radical feminism of "social justice warriors". All of this aside, again, it's just not a form of feminism; it's a pejorative for perceived trends in feminism. When we have so many articles about feminism and critiques thereof, what service does having an article about a pejorative about those subjects provide? Even if we want to elevate it from pejorative to a specific critique, why would it not be part of the broader -isms it fits into (like postfeminism)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the detailed answer. I am not and expert in the subject, and your response provided valuable clarification of your position. Please let me disagree with your major points. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  re: "Second, that it's a term obviously isn't the deletion rationale and therefore a rather pointless straw man" - Yes it was deletion rationale by JosephWood (At least that's how I read his suggestion to move to wiktionary, and it is a common mis-argument for stubs: "it's just a term/dicdef"). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  
  re: "doesn't change the fact that we already cover those subjects" - please point me to an article which covers the cited information in the article in question, so that the information may be moved there. There are no wikipedia articles which deal with the term "victim feminism". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  
  re: "just a pejorative for those subjects" - please cite sources which say it is "just a pejorative". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  
  re: " it's just not a form of feminism" - The article does not say that it is a "form of feminism". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  
  re: "a pejorative for perceived trends in feminism." - Yes this is an article about a trend in feminism. Please suggest a neutral term and the correct vote would be "RENAME". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  
  re: "This is a common criticism We cover versions of it in articles on antifeminism, postfeminism, and elsewhere" - You say it. In this case, while the article is small, the valid option would be "MERGE/REDIRECT". However since you say it is spread over several articles, in order to prevent content forking a separate article makes sense. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Concluding: While I agree it is not "speedy", I believe your arguments do not convincingly speak for deletion. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to respond to this, but I'm going to hold off for a little while until others have a chance to weigh in. I don't want to create a prohibitive wall of text just a couple hours after nomination. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect to all your other work in wikipedia, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that your preexisting opinion played a dirty trick on you preventing you from doing solid research. As I mentioned, I have zero expertise in feminism. Now look at the article now. Are you still claiming that it fails WP:GNG? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is expand on what we already know about it. According to our article as even you have written it, it is a term more or less championed by a single author (Wolf -- to such an extent that it seems like this could just be moved to an article about Fire With Fire) that "lumps together diverse and radically different feminist schools" (i.e. things we already cover). The various dimensions of the critique you've described are covered elsewhere to the extent they need to be. I know you've contest that above, and I haven't responded with a great level of detail yet, but if you've looked for yourself I suspect my pointing to them will not convince you. FWIW I don't think I'd oppose using some of this material to start an article about Wolf's book, which may well be notable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- re: "various dimensions of the critique you've described are covered elsewhere" - critique of what? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- re: "All you've done is expand on what we already know about it." - I am utterly baffled: You know about it, I know about it, the term is abuzz, Fire with Fire (Naomi Wolf book) is a perfect redirect/rename target (or at least a section in "Naomi Wolf"), yet you want to delete it. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no people or groups that identify as victim feminists. Anyone who is referred to as a "victim feminist" actually identifies with some other label of feminism that we already have an article for (radical feminism, gender feminism, etc.). I don't think this term by itself is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, as only one source (Raven 1994) actually discusses it as a term (rather than simply being an example of someone using the term), and it only has 3 sentences about it. That doesn't meet WP:GNG. Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually added one more ref, a 2014 book which dwells on the term for several pages. That's why I concluded it is reasonably notable. <sigh> It looks like I have to waste more of my time to salvage the article. I completely fail to see why the term is derogatory. It is no more derogatory than "individualist feminism", but may be it is because English is not my mother tongue. In any case the proper solution would be to merge/redirect to Naomi Wolf as it is recognized to be part of her notable philosophy [1]. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could get behind a merge redirect. TimothyJosephWood 23:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Staszek Lem: With all due respect, I must insist that you are just wrong about this. "Victim feminism" is 100% pejorative. It is not in any way similar to "individualist feminism". There are feminists who identify as individualist feminists, but no feminists that identify as victim feminists. It is only used in the context of criticism. I really don't understand why you are insisting that it is not pejorative. You seem to be misleading everyone involved in this discussion. Kaldari (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please avoid personal attacks. You are entitled to your opinion and you failed to provide convincing arguments. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see sufficient notability to keep a purely pejorative synonym. Not a dictionary etc. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article clearly shows it is not a pejorative and it is widely discussed. And what the heck with dictionary. Did you read the article at all? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Staszek Lem: "Victim feminism" is always used as a pejorative, even if it's a subtle pejorative (like "anti-choice movement"). There are no feminists that identify as "victim feminists", just as there are no activists that identify as "anti-choice". Kaldari (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are entitled to your opinion. There are no feminists which identify themselves as "power feminists" either. It appears you are conflating the concepts of "pejorative" and "negative trait". Negative trait is not necessarily pejorative. For example, "slow runner" is not inherently pejorative, it is no insult to be unable to run fast. However in some circumstances it may be an insult. Just the same, there were times where women were indeed 100% victims of male domination. And in some countries they still are. However in modern democratic societies women (at least formally) have full rights. And the focus of modern feminism, in opinion of some, should be shifted to the enablement of these rights. That's the idea of "victim vs. power" theory. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an academic term at the heart of a long standing debate over what feminism should stand for, it definitely passes the WP:GNG. Would oppose merge, because the idea is not limited to Wolf, but is tied to many other thinkers in the field. Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Natasha Walter, Katie Roiphe, and Rene Denfeld are listed alongisde Wolf in a non-exhaustive list in this chapter from an entire academic book studying victim feminism. Just because a term is sometimes used as a pejorative in certain forums does not mean that there cannot be an an article on the subject. A Google Scholar search gives 900 results, many from the last decade, which could be a start point for someone better versed in feminism to contribute to the article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. It's definitely not an academic term. PermStrump(talk) 08:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It cannot fail GNG simply because whole books and chapters in books discuss/criticize the concept in depth. And "not an academic term" - what is this supposed to mean? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Redirect may be more appropriate. Looks to have too much attribution currently. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/merge. Even when nominated, the article showed sufficient mention in what we would generally accept as reliable sources to be a plausible search term - and as the article currently stands, there is some clear notability. However, what we are clearly looking at is a (probably deliberately) provocative critique by some third-wave feminists of what they saw as failings of second-wave feminism, and this would probably be better dealt with as part of a more general article on differences between the two waves. PWilkinson (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @PWilkinson: Keep and merge are very different outcomes. Which do you think would be better? Also, which article(s) do you think it should be merged with? Kaldari (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term may have been invented as a pejorative term for some branches of feminism, but even that fact might well be worth having an article about. Sources such as this, this, this, and this would suggest that the term is notable. One might make an argument that the content should be merged into some better target, but I'm not seeing an obvious target, since it is clearly used for multiple branches of feminism. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not invented as a pejorative. It was invented as a descriptive term to categorize "obsolete" vs "modern", as shift from the focus of woman being nothing but a victim (which indeed was, for a long time) to a strong woman. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Staszek Lem, Maybe it was invented as a pejorative term and maybe it wasn't; the point I am making is that its pejorativeness is irrelevant. It has substantial coverage, and therefore requires an article, unless a good merge target can be found. You and I are in agreement on this, I think. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Vanamonde93: I think you are confusing "use" with "coverage". For example, there are thousands of websites and books that use the term "anti-choice movement", but Wikipedia doesn't have an article for that term. In order for Wikipedia to have articles about terms rather than concepts, the term must have coverage as a term, not simply use. The actual concepts represented by "victim feminism" are already covered on Wikipedia under more neutrally titled articles such as gender feminism and radical feminism. Kaldari (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Kaldari, I am aware of the distinction. The sources I provide do not merely use it; they are also discussing the history of its use, and the implications of its use. A lot of this takes the form of coverage of Wolf's use of the term; but as long as that is sufficiently detailed (which I believe it is), then we need to give that the space it is due. This might take the form of an article, or a section of an article; I am !voting "keep" because I am still convinced that it appears to be a term applied to multiple facets of feminism. If, as User:Rhododendrites suggested, the article were transformed into an article about the book/scholarly work that started this entire debate, I would be okay with that, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those who insist the term to be a pejorative, please keep in mind this is a judgement, not a fact of nature. Therefore if there are opinions of this term as pejorative, you must provide an attribution of this opinion from a reliable source. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google scholar gives 909 hits to articles which use this term and first two page search results show that the concept is discussed in its essence, not just name calling. Therefore those who maintain that this is just a pejorative dicdef just didn't do their homework: the concept fully satisfies WP:GNG. Even if it is perceived as a pejorative, it is not a valid argument against the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself concerned that your addition of 'sources' to the article falsely attributes material to them that does not exist in the source material. For example, here you write about Schneider criticising the 'victimhood vs. agency' narrative. What you fail to include from the source is that this was not in the context of the label "victim feminism". Indeed, when Schneider discusses "victim feminism" it is to criticise the label, and is unrelated to what you included in the article. I don't believe the sources you give would, on thorough reading (as with the Schneider one) reflect any notable coverage of "victim feminism" as anything but a pejorative label. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I find myself concerned with falsely accusing me of doing something wrong. I cited exactly from the article I cited, bordering on plagiarism. And yes she criticized the concept (but not the "label", as you put it), and this exactly what I wrote in the article. And countering your accusation in WP:SYNTH, Schneider directly discusses Wolf and Roiphe, so her article is directly relevant. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, all sources cited criticize the concept being wrong, and not the term being pejorative. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which...is pretty much the definition of pejorative. The term is introduced precisely to express disapproval. This is a bit of a "it's not dirty; it's unwashed" argument. TimothyJosephWood 01:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I prefer to split really thick hairs for "disapproval" vs. "disparagement", between "criticism" and "badmouthing", between "strong presidential power" and "dictatorship", etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pe·jo·ra·tive /pəˈjôrədiv/ adjective 1. expressing contempt or disapproval.

I'm not trying to argue semantics. That's...what the word means. I'm also not making a euphemistic argument (re: badmouthing and strong presidential power). It's...what the word means. TimothyJosephWood 20:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Victim feminism" is not a novel concept, but a catchy reductionist slogan used only by certain critics to simplify and/or dismiss otherwise complex issues that run through many strains of feminist thought (concepts that we already cover in articles linked above). It typically appears in quotes because academics/writers often go for easy quotes in current literature -- touchstones, flashpoints, or otherwise ways in to talk about the bigger subjects. That they're talking about the concept of victimization in feminism and refer to Wolf's "victim feminism" does not mean "victim feminism" is a unique concept -- it means it's one of many ways people have talked about this central concept, and in a tantalizing pejorative (or reductive) gloss. It's not a new idea, it's a package for existing ideas. That's why we have WP:NOPAGE and WP:NEO -- because at best it merits a paragraph in an existing article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is not a novel concept, and yes, it is a "catchy slogan", but the topic is real that's why I suggested to rename the article to a descriptive title, see Talk:Victim feminism. The fact that "we already cover" something is not a valid reason to write a separate page, if there is enough text: WIkipedia is not paper. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia not being paper is not justification for having separate articles for subjects that we acknowledge are not novel concepts and which are already covered elsewhere. Why is this not a clear-cut closure as not-keep (merge/redirect/delete)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rhododendrites, I would agree with you that if a non-novel concept has been covered elsewhere, then this content should be merged (if necessary) and redirected there. However, no meaningful target for such a merge/redirect has been suggested; and the term has received sufficient coverage that we cannot simply delete this and leave it a redlink. So, do you have a good target in mind for a redirect? I am not seeing such. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Postfeminism seems the most likely target. It's one of the -isms to which this concept, as well as Wolf herself, is closely tied. There's also an argument for using this content to start Fire With Fire: The new Female Power and How to Use It. The term is, for all practical purposes, Wolf's, and I believe it was that book that she coined it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You have to provide reliable sources which state taht this controversy belongs to postfeminism . Also, it turns out that this controversy is not started with Fire with Fire; the book only coined the term. Therefor in article talk page I made a suggestion about article renaming. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, you keep repeating it is covered somewhere else. Sorry, I don't find adequate coverage of the current article content anywhere in pages mentioned here. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Keep (sortof) This discussion has gone on long enough that the article has substantially changed, and sources have come out of the woodwork. There probably needs some additional prose and formatting to make it read more like an article rather than a collection of sources.

I wonder it it might not be appropriate to move the article to something like Victim vs. power feminism and make the article about the dichotomy. Power feminism already redirects. Based on the article as it stands, it does seem to be an inherent dichotomy, and it seems odd to redirect yin to yang and just have an article on yang. TimothyJosephWood 13:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has been relisted 3 times, and no real consensus has been resulted. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 14:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Network to Promote the Rule of Law[edit]

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

Promotional. Unreferenced, and copyright violation. Rathfelder (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I am definitely not currently arguing to keep this article (on a cursory glance, the best source I have found is this, though I would guess there are others), the article itself is between eight and nine years old, from a time when our standards on referencing and promotionalism were far less developed than they are now. While the article should probably not be kept if it can not be brought up to current standards, it would be worth knowing if the nominator looked at the possibility of doing this before nominating. However, I am rather more concerned about the accusation of copyright violation, which does not state what the article is supposed to be a copyright violation of. This is particularly problematic as, in apparent copyright violations of Wikipedia articles this old, the copying is often from rather than to Wikipedia; the article is substantially different (and longer) than how it was when the article creator last edited it; and copyright violation is only a reason to delete an article (rather than particular revisions) if every previous version of the article contains a copyright violation. PWilkinson (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the content seems to be the same as the organisation's website I don't know which came first. I'm not anxious to see the article deleted, but it falls a long way below our current standards.Rathfelder (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggesting any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast No indication given by Nom that he searched. But sources do turn up in my preliminary searches, in books and here: Murtaugh, C. (2013). The international network to promote the rule of law: A platform to promote justice and security in conflict-affected states. UN Chronicle, 49(4), 32-34. I think Nom should follow WP:BEFORE, and that someone should have a go at sourcing this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I improved the lede slightly, relying a couple of sources. More sources exist in both books [2] and in journal articles dealing with peacekeeping and rebuilding post-conflict societies. Certainly this neglected article cries out for improvement and the attention of someone familiar with the topic. I can, however, see no reason argument for deleting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an advertisement. This article just screams advertising. Parsley Man (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poor quality is not a reason to delete. The organization itself is notable. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Many additional sources were suggested, but they do not seem to have been persuasive to the discussion. The subject is mentioned at the Chikara page and a few words about him could be added there. MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Barber[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete for notability. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons I listed elsewhere on this page. - Safetine (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. KDS4444^Talk 09:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Comment The Wrestling Observer, Pwinsider, Fox News, a book, 411mania, Fight Network, PASTE Magazine, etc. are in fact "reliable" and "independent"? The Wrestling Observer has strict inclusion standards. PASTE Magazine specifically spells out its rules for inclusion, which meet wikipedia's notability standards:

http://www.pastemagazine.com/paste/2012/03/writer-guidelines.html

Search for pwinsider and 411mania on wikipedia and you'll get over 6,000 examples of them being used as sources because they are reliable and independent of the entities which they are reporting on. Why should those same sources be treated any differently in this article than they are in thousands of other wikipedia articles? They definitely should not.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS687US687&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=411mania+barber+chikara&start=40 brings up many sources.

Referee Brian Gorie has an article and he was only in a movie in a minor role. Other pro wrestling referees (See the Professional Wrestling Referees category.) have articles. This person had an effect on wikipedia, wrestling, and blooper culture and there are sources to evidence it. The reason your searches found nothing is you have to search for "Jon Barber chikara" and "Jonathan Barber chikara."

IMDB pages - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6352129/ and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7990689/

I've added new sources.

This is not a vote process. It is about merits of arguments and your two arguments have not yet expressed reasoning as to why you feel the way that you do. - Safetine (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The key word is significant coverage. Passing mentions really don't contribute nor does (as in the Fox video) apparently showing up in the background (how you can call that featured is beyond me). The fact that there is an article about Brian Gorie does not argue for this one (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) and probably means that article should maybe go too. It has been tagged for notability issues already.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC) ___________[reply]
Comment He has a current profile page devoted entirely to him on the web site of the fourth largest (out of thousands) professional wrestling organization in the United States - http://chikarapro.com/chikara-roster/jonathan-barber. That qualifies as significant coverage. He also had his own show. It was associated with the fourth largest professional wrestling organization in the United States. - Safetine (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added another source. - Safetine (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And yet another source. - Safetine (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should the information in this article be merged into the Chikara (professional wrestling) article's section about this person? - Safetine (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like there's a number of sources, but it turns out they aren't significant independent coverage of him.Mdtemp (talk) 15:29, 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 Userfy to Megalibrarygirl/Authentic Films. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate O'Neil[edit]

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

Multiple issues since 2009, no references –Be..anyone 💩 01:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, even after a search. Any "Kate O'Neil"s I can find are unrelated to the content in the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to ~~Affinity Films~~Authentic Films. I've found sources, but all of them so far talk about her and Kerwin in relation to ~~Affinity Films~~Authentic Films. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Megalibrarygirl: Do you mean Authentic Films as in this 2006 NYT article? My take on that is that the article is about real estate in Cleveland rather than O'Neil. Can you link to the other sources you mentioned? SmartSE (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I did mean Authentic Films, Smartse. Thanks for correcting me! I've struck out the wrong term above. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk)
Delete If there was an article for Authentic Films I maybe would have suggested a move.. but as it stands there is nothing to say that the company is notable either. Megalibrarygirl you can request this to be moved to your user space if you think you would be able to create the company article? ツStacey (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be happy to write the article, Staceydolxx. It wouldn't take long since I have the sources. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Megalibrarygirl user space for development of Authentic Films article. Thanks for offering to do this, I look forward to seeing the new article ツStacey (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie and Amy's Big Adventures[edit]

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

These two girls are not notable in my opinion. They have a YouTube account and have subscribers, yes, but I don't believe it meets WP:PEOPLE. They did one interview for the BBC - does that automatically make someone notable? No, I don't believe so. The content of this article speaks for itself - 'their Facebook page currently has 18,110 likes...' ... 'they have followers on Instagram such as...'. The sources on this page do not back up their notability and the page is written like an autobiography. In the future they may be notable, but I don't see their notability at the moment. The majority of the statements made on this article have no citations. st170e^talk 20:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional page about a non-notable YouTube channel. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Having lots of followers on social media doesn't satisfy our inclusion criteria. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chameleon (American band). (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dugan McNeill[edit]

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

Part of band article AfD. Flagged for sourcing since 2011. Makes claims of notability, but does not provide sources for this. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request - Please hold off on any delete decision here until Chameleon discussion has concluded. Nom has suggested that this article could be merged into Chameleon (American band) if Chameleon (American band) survives AfD but that merge can't happen if we delete this article first. ~Kvng (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best with there being no actual signs of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chameleon (American band). Unable to establish independent notability. ~Kvng (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The farthest I'm willing to go is with a Redirect only, no delete, as there's basically nothing outstandingly mergeable here. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No sourced content to into any article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:17, 8 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 Chameleon (American band). (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 13:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Donaldson[edit]

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

Part of band article AfD. Flagged for sourcing since 2011. Makes claims of notability, but does not provide sources for this. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect only, no actual merge as there's nothing outstandingly obvious to merge. Delete as nothing suggests better notability and my searches have been finding nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request - Please hold off on any delete decision here until Chameleon discussion has concluded. Nom has suggested that this article could be merged into Chameleon (American band) if it survives AfD but that merge can't happen if we delete this article first. ~Kvng (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the band is notable, Donaldson is not indepedently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chameleon (American band). Unable to establish independent notability. ~Kvng (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chameleon (American band). Don't think there's really any content to be merged, but it's still a plausible search term. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Materialscientist, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria CSD G1, CSD G11. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Jeter[edit]

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

I don't think this article meets CSD A7 criteria, but I doubt this guy is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. In veritas (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unsourced page on a person who may have played some college basketball, but looks more likely to not start until next season.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 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 per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bread's Crumbs[edit]

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

Non-notable short film. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. I can't find any decent sources on it to indicate it's worthy of an article. clpo13_(talk) 19:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BEFORE:

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

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

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

Delete While wished to be deleted within hours of being contributed by an inexperienced editor, seems a bit rushed. THAT STATED, it appears to be a WP:COI by purported production company of author LordStarscream100and part of a walled garden in progress. 3000 hits on youtube is zilch. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wisher for deletion, and still believer that youtube videos qualify for speedy under A7. (addendum) That youtube videos unrecognized by other secondary sources qualify for A7 as web content. TimothyJosephWood 23:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like the person only publishes via YT, so the other articles could likely be deleted under A7 criteria. I'm going to go ahead and close this early since there's really no chance of this passing notability guidelines even if this goes out for a full week. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 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. Michig (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MMS (statistical method)[edit]

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

Advertisement for a recent journal article; see Talk page. fgnievinski (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based only on a single primary source in a journal of dubious quality that has been cited only once, by its own authors. WP:TOOSOON to have gained any academic impact. Fails WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR at its best. Note that the creator also modified the article Outlier with a series of (not really) minor edits to add this method in there. I advocate deleting the resulting mention there as well. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not quite OR since it has been published elsewhere. However, also not notable (yet). If it does become notable in the future, we don't want the article tainted with COI and advocacy. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, or userfy. Too soon sums it up. Bearian (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing for a better solid Wikipedia article, not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning Britain Presenters By Date[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE - this is purely a directory guide (which Wikipedia is not) and is simply fan cruft. Also, some - but not all - will/do fail notability guidelines. ☔️ Corkythehornetfan ☔️ 18:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure listcruft Gbawden (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the creator is legit sitting there noting down everyday what presenters are on .... then that's extremely unhealthy and they really should get out more!. –Davey2010^Talk 18:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete-Not notable--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Absolute nonsense! LBM ^{talk to me} 01:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all suggesting its own article. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft which violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I also can't believe that someone's actually taking the time to update this... some people just have too much time on their hands. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:29, 8 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 06:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Dukagjini[edit]

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

No multiple reliable sources that proves this principality ever existed. The article is WP:CFORK of Dukagjin highlands populated by many different tribes and people with no supreme rule in period in question. The only somewhat reliable source used in the article is authored by non-historian Mortimer Sellers. A couple of works of Albanian historiography were also mentioned in the article, without provided quotes. Unless multiple reliable sources are provided to prove this territory was actually a state in period in question (14th and 15th century) the article should be deleted. Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Members of the family served the Republic of Venice, and their possessions were part of Venetian Albania. 0 hits at Gbooks.--Zoupan 18:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probable Delete. There is nothing at Dukagjini family to suggest their possessions amounted to a principality. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this could be acceptable but there's nothing else to suggest better solid improvements, article is still questionable for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Popera Men®[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE turns up virtually nothing for sources. Fails WP:BAND. Article title, while it is the real name of the group, is somewhat problematic. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - No independent sources that talk about the group are to be found. Their own Facebook page only has 391 likes. No released albums or singles. Nothing about them meets any notability requirement. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for at least minimally better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a short stub with little actual content. Only one source. As per others, I don't think there's anything that can be done to save this article. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Heads The Movie[edit]

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

Contested prod (by someone who seems to be removing prods from tons of pages though), anyway non notable short film Wgolf (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches found absolutely zilch, so I see no notability for this whatsoever. GAB^Hello! 20:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to suggest that the movie meets notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

studio:(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)

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

Delete for failure of WP:NF. I watched the thing and gave it a face-lift. Hopefully author Ianerlaz2 will pay attention to how it was done and go visit MOS:FILM and WP:PRIMER before further contributions. And I feel the need to congratulate these young filmmakers for their acting and cinematography, but in its lacking coverage and sourcability, this film fails inclusion criteria while at the same timeunderscoring how independent short films have it difficult making it through the doors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:53, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Asian American Theater[edit]

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

De-PRODed by a user on a spree of unexplained PROD removals. No evidence found of notability per general notability guidelines or WP:ORG: group lacks significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:ORG as there is not substantial, independent coverage. GAB^Hello! 20:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Duke University students produce a play on Asian identity and show it on campus. The play is listed in a local shows directory and it is covered by their school newspaper.[3][4], That's about it, notability-wise. Prhartcom (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not convincing of the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flatsound[edit]

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

This article just looking at it does seem nice and everything. Until you look further and you notice no sources at all other then the official website on the infobox (which prevented me from doing a BLP prod), anyway singer with questionable notability. The albums seem questionable also-maybe those should be redirects to the artist if this article survives. Wgolf (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I was a bit mystified about what this was doing on my watchlist but then I realised that it must date back to one of the last two times this was deleted. This is a small walled garden of almost orphaned articles. I see no evidence that this guy has a record deal. In fact, I see no evidence that anybody ever pressed a CD with him as the sole artist. Yes, there are MP3s on sale on Amazon, and he did once have a split CD with somebody else, but that is not good enough. Allmusic never heard of him. No charts. No press. In short: No good. He ain't no Flat Eric. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal:-so think the albums should be edited into redirects right now or done into prods instead? Wgolf (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Either PROD them or maybe leave them while the AfD runs and then, if this gets deleted, they become speedyable due to the artist not having an article. Either way, I think it will all be the same in a week's time. I wouldn't turn them into redirects yet, in case anybody thinks they are relevant to deciding the question here. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed-also they probably will be deleted next Saturday anyway. Wgolf (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting solid independent notability, clearly no sources either. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaming Center[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a Google Books search or a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 16:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a vanity article that has managed to avoid scrutiny for a decade. Agree with everything in nom. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article about a non-notable BBS written through oral history. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. Google results are just Wikipedia mirrors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notable sources. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing currently suggesting solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What? Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The Major BBS#Games. Sandstein 06:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MajorMUD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVATAR (MUD)

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, and no leads in any historical/archival/print sources. A redirect to the to list entry in The_Major_BBS#Games would suffice. czar 16:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Major BBS#Games or delete. There are a few trivial mentions scattered throughout Google Books, but there's no significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, articles such as this are exceedingly difficult to find sources for given the era it existed in (I expect you could find plenty of reliable content in Boardwatch and similar magazines from that time, but there doesn't exist an internet accessible archive of that magazine). Article topic clearly meets notability requirements. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If your rationale is (1) we have no [edit: reliable] sources, and (2) keep it anyway, that's not how this works. WP is a tertiary source—it summarizes secondary sources, and this article is currently doomed to be primary source hearsay until a secondary source writes about it (or Jason Scott scans Boardwatch). You're welcome to take this original research to another wiki (indeed), but we don't have nearly enough reliable material here to write an encyclopedia article. czar 18:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of sources, but they're all of the dubious/borderline reliable/primary source variety. Given the sheer number, however, I think this would be a reasonable exception (WP:IAR). As an aside, it's a real dick move to unilaterally decide to redirect an article that already survived an AFD nomination without even trying to use WP:PROD. Don't do that. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2016. Wikipedia has grown up. czar 23:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How nice for you, to be able to decide when (and that) Wikipedia has grown up. I must have missed the notice from the Foundation that they had selected you as the permanent leader and speaker for Wikipedia. Let's try this another way: what's changed since the last AFD in policy or guideline that makes you believe that this article is suitable for deletion AND/OR that gave you the right to redirect the article without discussion? I see WP:CON is still there, so consensus must still mean something, yes? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to the first part is in the nomination. Answer to the second part is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. As for "consensus", you might want to see what the closer made of the last discussion. Notability guidelines have tightened since 2011—we don't keep articles without reliable sources. czar 03:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think debates like this show one of the flaws/problems with Wikipedia: reliable sources for some topics will be nearly (not completely) impossible to find. If an encyclopedia is supposed to be a "comprehensive reference work" and a "comprehensive summary of human knowledge", how then do we justify excluding something that is clearly notable simply because we can't find sources saying it existed/exists? Follow that logic far enough, and you'll be excluding patently obvious things. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's uncontested and why I said things have changed. WP is more interested in presenting the sources, not finding the truth. We're better at being a tertiary source than in being a webhost for the Internet's original research. It would not be so hard for any mainstream gaming publication to publish something on the influence of MajorMUD if it is indeed so influential. That's your catch-22. czar 20:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This still an active game being played. There is still plenty of 3rd parties making addons and additions to the game. This is still a very active game compared to some video games released in the last 5 yrs. (First time posting so sorry if I didn't follow edict.) BearFather (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)BearFather — BearFather (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just because WP:ITEXISTS doesn't mean it's notable. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 09:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, nobody is saying it's notable just because it exists. It's notable because at the period it was at its peak, it was a very popular online game. Games like this inspired and developed into MMORPG's such as World of Warcraft. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this MUD's notability is not inherited from its influence on WoW czar 20:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CZAR, lack of reliable sources. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply shouting WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't a valid rationale for keeping. Even guidelines like WP:NEXIST require participants to at least prove the existence of reliable sources. It's worth noting that the previous AfD was also littered with such bogus "IAR" claims; the article can be moved to Draftspace if people are so convinced sources exist. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 09:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't like this result; I personally believe this topic is more than historically significant enough to merit an article, but the state of available sources has never agreed with me, so I'd have nothing to lean on but special pleading. There's been enough of that in this article's long history with deletion process. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overall still questionable for the applicable software notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gavan Naden[edit]

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

While this journalist clearly publishes for the Guardian, the only in-depth coverage of this guy I can find is in articles he wrote. Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources that show that people have thought he is notable enough to cover.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing currently suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Almost a week now and the sources overall are enough to accept thus it's unlikely needed to continue (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thieves Quartet[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable debut film by a notable director with a notable John Zorn score. Nomination shows no evidence of doing anything but looking at the current state of the article. Even a brief attempt at finding coverage could have found [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. --Michig (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It got reviewed in Variety and The New York Times. That's good enough to establish notability right there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:35, 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 no consensus. While !votes for merge, keep, and delete have strong, valid points on all sides, and the nomination has been relisted twice. Because of those reasons there is no clear consensus and thus defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of baroque pop artists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of baroque pop artists

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

(Almost?) every source fails verification (many rely on the "styles" section of an artist's AllMusic bio, which is not an acceptable source).
Even if they didn't fail, not enough baroque pop artists exist to merit a page split from Baroque pop. Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are the grounds for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON? The reasons stated do not seem to fit those criteria.--SabreBD (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I meant to merge rather than delete. But there's so few artists and verified/reliable sources that it's not even worth keeping them (So reasons 6 and 7).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems enough for its own article given the subject thus a list is acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baroque pop is a very niche style, not unlike Sunshine pop. The list is never going to expand. I've cleaned out almost every artist in that list who failed verification, and very little remains.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term isn't used consistently and it doesn't really exist as a coherent genre, and all we're going to get is a list of artists where one source has used the term in one article, or worse a list of bands that genre warriors believe are 'baroque pop'. --Michig (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Merge to Baroque pop (1st choice) or Weak Keep (2nd choice)~~ - Weak Keep (updated in light of recent revisions/sources). It's true that the sourcing for the list looks to have been based primarily on Allmusic genre listings (unreliable per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES). I don't think we need to get into the popularity/nichey nature of the genre to evaluate the list and the genre's article. The genre's article is also poorly sourced and not very long. It can sustain -- and indeed would benefit from -- an embedded list. Think of it this way: If the current list of baroque pop artists were part of baroque pop, would it make sense to spin it out to a separate article? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will add, by the way, that this probably should've been a proposed merge than AfD. As long as the genre article exists it makes sense to at least include there (and that page hasn't been nominated). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is still long enough to clog up the main article, better to keep it here.--SabreBD (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clog the article with 7 artists? And all of them highly questionable?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it won't stay at 7.--SabreBD (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a rationale that would spin off nearly all embedded lists because they could grow. Why not include an impoverished list in the lackluster article until which time as it becomes prudent to spin it off? This AfD certainly doesn't prevent that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critical shorthand labels an ungodly amount of arty, indie pop and/or Top 40 artists as "baroque pop", along with the usual "avant-pop" or "experimental art pop", just because they use cellos and audio samplers. It's almost always self-described, probably originating from self-published website bios and press kits. The list can expand, sure, but not into anything anyone wants to see, which is 5,000 insignificant alt rock bands who happened to tell a newspaper that they play the same genre that the Left Banke did 50 years ago.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable list with notable examples listed. Note that the article had 60+ sources before the AfD nom was made. Then Ilovetopaint went through and "purged" the list to help his Afd nomination. They cite that "AllMusic bio, which is not an acceptable source", which, of course, is bollocks. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Resources and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Online_and_print. A very bad faith nomination from the evidence here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lugnuts: I was suspect, too, so I went in an checked some of them. All of those that I checked only mentioned the term in the genre list on the sidebar, which that page you linked to explicitly says not to use. The removals -- at least all of those I saw -- are correct. It may "help this AfD", but it may also be that he/she went in to try to improve the list by removing unreliable sources and only then realized it should be deleted. Not saying I know that's the case, but it's an easy AGF. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's exactly right. To add, a lot of the sources simply stated that one artist's album had "baroque" elements. Where is the line drawn? If the Beatles' "When I'm Sixty-Four" is a music hall song, do they get added to a "list of music hall artists"? Absurd. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent topic. Merge arguments above are the strongest. Term used inconsistently, no rationale for having a separate list of handful of artists. Not concerned about this list getting long as long as new additions use actual reliable sources. czar 07:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was closed on 12 April and rescinded the next day, but the log page transclusion was never transferred from the 2 April log. Relisting now on the current day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 14:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Left Banke, the Beach Boys, Phil Spector and more artists may be added to the list. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Synthwave.94: That page lists artists tagged with a particular genre in the allmusic sidebar, which is explicitly not a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not talking about the "highlights", I'm talking about the description ("Baroque Pop emerged during the mid-'60s, a time when artists including the Left Banke, the Beach Boys, producer Phil Spector, and composer/arranger Burt Bacharach began infusing rock & roll with elements of classical music, achieving a majestic orchestral sound far removed from rock's wild, primitive origins.") Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Aha. Fair enough. It still strikes me as an awfully small list to need to be spun off from the main article, but that's more subjective, I suppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Spector and Bacharach never made baroque pop. I removed that AllMusic source because it doesn't really call them baroque pop either. Also, there really needs to be some discretion here. Are those obscure indie bands really comparable to Colin Blunstone's One Year and Van Dyke Parks' Song Cycle, or are they just singer-songwriter alt-rock with a French horn? If this list is going to be bloated with a confusing selection of artists who sound nothing like each other, what is the point in keeping it around? Talk:Baroque pop shows that this has been an enduring issue since the article was created. It's not a "list of baroque pop artists" anymore, it's a "list of artists that some fluff journalist has arbitrarily deemed baroque pop".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ilovetopaint, maybe should you learn what WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:CONTEXT mean ? All the references I used to expand the list explicitly associate these artists with the genre (and all of them are reliable). Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Where in the AllMusic source does it state that the Left Banke, Spector, Bacharach, and Beach Boys are baroque pop artists? I quote: "Baroque Pop emerged during the mid-'60s, a time when..." The proceeding artists are thus associated to "a time when", in other words, a certain era that coincided with baroque pop. Besides that, nobody can explain how on earth a record like "Be My Baby" recalls Bach or Handel. (Yes, I'm aware that there are sources for the Left Banke.)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        AllMusic makes it clear that baroque pop emerged in the mid-'60s thanks to the work of the Left Banke, the Beach Boys, Phil Spector and Burt Bacharach. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        In other words, it doesn't. There are countless texts which state that progressive rock emerged thanks to the work of the Beach Boys and the Beatles. But that doesn't mean they're prog rock themselves.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No matter if it supports the genre or not, I added enough new entries in the list to prevent its deletion. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Michig. Caden ^cool 01:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons#Targetmasters. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Triggerhappy (Transformers)[edit]

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

This character lacks sources to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons#Targetmasters. I don't see significant coverage in reliable source. Google results are novels, price guides, and fan sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect simply perhaps as this could've also been deleted then redirected, certainly not notable for its own article though. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBackPacker[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG/WP:WEBCRIT. Article creator deprodded to expand, but the article still contains zero reliable sources (except for the Alexa rank). I searched myself and turned up very little. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines The WikiBackPacker is a part of startup that founder Ganesh Krishnan started as part of Growth Story The founder is also covered by Silicon Beach TV I have contacted the admins of the site to supply more information about the site which can be released under creative commons ganeshkrishnan (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC) ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsspider (talk • contribs) 13:32, 30 April 2016‎[reply]

References

^ http://forbesindia.com/printcontent/39113

Thanks for working to add sources. It doesn't look like either of those two links even mention the site. In contrast we would need sources that talk about it in depth. If there are more sources about the founder, it might make more sense to have an article about him. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Source Examiner.com editor & Forbes have confirmed the story for publishing about this new startup (Disclaimer: I am the founder for this Startup) Gvenez (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's too soon for an article yet. Once this website has significant coverage in reliable sources, we can recreate the article. As a note, Examiner.com is blacklisted and can not be used as a source on Wikipedia, and Forbes.com bloggers probably wouldn't show notability unless they were professional journalists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I will have a backup of the article on my system and put that back up once it's covered by major media. And thanks for letting me know about Examiner.com blacklisting. Gvenez (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly too soon, only newly founded. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally interesting to me, but there's nothing significant out there. I got excited at a 5 day old hit, until I saw it was a copy of a press release; oh well. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:33, 8 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 06:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Christopher[edit]

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

Subject is an aspiring artist who recently signed a record contract and released a song on line. Third party coverage is otherwise absent and accordingly the notability requirements of WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO are not (yet) met. JohnInDC (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only thing keeping this article from being speedy deleted is the claim of being signed to a somewhat notable label, a claim that I haven't been able to verify. It's possible that it's false, or it's possible that it's true but nobody has taken notice. Either way, merely being signed to a label doesn't sufficiently establish notability - this is a one-sentence article with zero reliable sources about a singer who appears to have produced only self-released content so far. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I know I am writer of this article but I now think it fails to meet significant parts of notability criteria. Does he have a single that's been on a country's national music chart? Judging by the sources, no. Has the subject been part of multiple, non-trivial, published works, appearing in sources that are reliable? He had only one source I could find for him. Has he released two or more albums on a major record label? No, it appears not. I found him on the OVO sound page and I wanted to remove all the red links, that's why I made the article. He also does not have a picture or a lot songs, so I do not think it is import to keep the article. Eurocus47 (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for better article notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somali Faces[edit]

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

Article about a three month old website. The entire article depends on a single reliable source. I am unable to find any additional independent sources. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. - Mr X 10:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that it only references one single source. See two independent sources that reference this. Such as https://www.welt-sichten.org/artikel/32198/gesichter-somalias and https://globalnyt.dk/content/somaliske-hverdagsfortaellinger Thatguy alive123 (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TOOSOON. It's a young website that may be famous someday, but WP:NOTCRYSTAL doesn't allow inclusion for that reason. Deleting is the best option. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon clearly, only started five months ago. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that negate it's validity if it was started 5 months ago? considering it's a thriving platform — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguy alive123 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as World Cultural Heritage[edit]

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

This article is a proposal, not an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:GNG and violates WP:OR. - Mr X 10:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. Also, it's an essay. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. GAB^Hello! 20:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once reliable sources has written about this idea, it might qualify for an article here. If someone wants to discuss this on Wikipedia, there are better places, such as the Village Pump. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply as there's nothing at all to suggest actually keeping or moving elsewhere, nothing confirmed for information. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Teletubbies. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 13:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Smith (actress)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. Only known for playing a minor character in one (admittedly popular) television show. RSes all seem to be from late December 2014, when her identity was reported in the media. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While some young children may actually become notable for television appearances, Smith is not one of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've initially considered delete and perhaps redirect, but this is a case so bare, it's best deleting as there's nothing for actual independent notability improvements and also nothing else at least basically notably better. Nothing convincing to keep at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Teletubbies. That giggling sun was a true "star" of the show! (Pun intended!) Montanabw ^(talk) 21:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After relisting twice and having strong points on both sides, no clear consensus has been established to delete the article and therefore defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gambacher Kreuz[edit]

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

Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. No evidence of notability, indeed, no notability asserted in the article. Nothing but routine coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ordinary interchange. Dough4872 15:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the same nominator who ran off some of our content contributors with multi-language skills, starting last Summer, by attacking our coverage of Kreuzes and Dreiecks. I don't maintain a log, but last time I checked, the count was three valuable content contributors lost. Looking at his/her contributions list, you will see that his/her decisions are done in mere seconds, at a pace that doesn't suggest depth of analysis and due consideration. I have consistently treated this contributor with respect, and in return I have been told that my input is not needed. This cookie-cutter nomination is nothing new, IMO shows poor learning skills given the existing refutations for these arguments, and IMO shows disrespect for the community in not preparing the community for the specific AfD discussion at hand. Unscintillating (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major interchange, plenty of sources, needs cleanup not deletion. More well-known in Germany than many individual Autobahnen. If three-digit roads are notable, so should this interchange. —Kusma (t·c) 13:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A note: In everyday conversation, many Germans will explain directions using the names of the Autobahnkreuze they pass. Traffic news assume everybody knows the names and uses them to describe where on a particular Autobahn some incident has happened. This makes German Autobahnkreuze different from many other countries' intersections, which usually do not have names that people would look up. Given that intersections usually can't be redirected to either of the crossing roads, anything other than simply having an article about them is doing the reader a disservice. —Kusma (t·c) 16:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This interchange is very well-known. It's the intersection of two major Autobahns and one end of the Sauerlandlinie connecting Dortmund and the north with Rhine-Main. The intersection is a key navigational point, frequently mentioned in traffic flow and accident reports. Plenty of sources available. Guffydrawers (talk)

WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GEOROAD appear to be the relevant guidelines, but may need some interpretation in this case. The article subject is covered frequently by the German press, especially as the site of accidents, when expansion projects are raised and when undergoing maintenance. Finding mentions of the intersection is easy - working them into the article less so, especially due to the language factor, but I have tidied the article and will add refs that appear to add value. German WP has an article on the intersection and it's one of a handful of intersections that has wide recognition; it is a significant navigational point within the German transport system and is referred to by name. The frequency with which it is mentioned in German sources may well prompt an English speaker to wish to know what and where this 'Kreuz' is. This article is in Category:Road interchanges in Germany which is comparable to Category:Motorway junctions in England and Category:Road interchanges in the United States. The article content could be merged into the articles covering each of the two Autobahns it connects, but that may be less efficient than its own article. Guffydrawers (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as per the others previously, this appears to be an ordinary interchange, and any coverage warranted would be in the intersecting highways' articles. Comparisons to three-digit roads are misplaced, as those are at least full roadways, not individual interchanges, and we typically do not ascribe any notability to individual interchanges that cannot demonstrate compliance with WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 09:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps some cultural differences here? Two contributors very familiar with the article's subject and location voting to keep and two editors an ocean away voting to delete. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- or it could simply be 2 editors, familiar with WP policies and guidelines are !voting to delete based on those policies and guidelines. Neither of the !keep votes have presented any rationale based on policies and guidelines to keep. It's always nice to keep the discussion about the article, and not about the editors.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I have now mentioned relevant WP guidelines above, but they don't appear to nail down this particular case. If German language refs will help I'd be glad to list them. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for the string "Gambacher Kreuz" yields over 18,000 hits. Apart from several relating to accidents and maintenance in national and regional press (example) there are articles on extending the intersection (example here) and descriptions of locations in relation to Gambacher Kreuz (here) and (here), as well as acknowledgement that the intersection is known beyond its immediate area (here). Guffydrawers (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guffydrawers - First, thanks for putting the reasoning for your keep !vote above. Second, however, all these references are WP:ROUTINE, and not the type of in-depth coverage which is necessary to show that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. For example, in Arizona (where I live) I think there are two interchanges which rise to the level of WP:GNG. They do so because they are written about, in-depth, in national and international magazines. In addition we probably have another 25-30 interchanges which approximate the level of coverage that the subject of this AfD is at. In addition, many have probably double the daily traffic of this Kreuz, so the fact that this is a well-used interchange also does not make it notable. Others, like the interchange between Interstate 17 and Interstate 40, which is the terminus of the most used freeway in Arizona where it intersects with one of the 2 most major intercontinental interstates in the US, also doesn't merit its own page. I hope this makes sense. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, but it doesn't match my understanding of notable. The US interchanges you describe sound well worth articles, especially compared with the thousands of much more obscure article subjects in WP e.g. tiny villages, single municipal rail stations, sportspeople from minor leagues in small countries, individual songs from niche artists etc. That a feature/landmark that 100,000+ people pass each day and many more hear named in the press, radio and in conversation is not notable enough is somewhat opaque to me, but so it goes. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing with your assessment of what does or does not qualify for notability, but simply applying existing guidelines. Under which, any populated place is inherently notable, while the same is not true for interchanges, which must show notability as per WP:GNG. But as you say, and so it goes. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This does appear to be a major autobahn interchange. News about its reconstruction, like this source indicates its notability. Non-notable interchanges don't get written about in this way. Driving away multi-language writers as Unscintillating mentioned above isn't helpful to this project. --Oakshade (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is notable and useful article.--Musa Talk 11:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead and Draft if needed as this is still questionable, there are several and I'm questionable about simply including them after closely examining them. FWIW, I've marked this as patrolled before and not pursued any deletion attempts but I also question that this could be improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I ask this be kept opened as someone has notified me they will vote soon. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closing admin - while impassioned, none of the keep !votes are based on policy or guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment "plenty of sources" is clearly based on our guidelines, for example WP:GNG. Also, notability criteria are criteria for inclusion if they are met, and do not mean an article that some guideline is not talking about needs to be deleted. A vote can be based on guidelines without citing any WP:ALPHABETSOUP. —Kusma (t·c) 12:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making my point - that's not what the guideline says, "plenty of sources" is meaningless. It's the quality and in-depth coverage in those sources, which this routine interchange clearly doesn't meet. This discussion has been open for weeks. Currently there are still only 3 sources - one self published, one non-independent, and the BAST source (which currently doesn't even point to something about this particular interchange - rather is a link to a list of pdf files, which appear to be simple lists of statistics. To actually quote the guideline you refer to, to meet GNG a topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Again, nothing here meets that criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While small, consensus was keep (non-admin closure) Chrisw80 (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Douchebag[edit]

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

WP:TWODABS because the only articles about topics named "Douchebag" are Douche and Douchebag (film). Of these two articles, Douche is clearly the long-term significant primary topic for "douchebag", so this disambiguation page should be redirected to the Douche article, with a hatnote pointing to Douchebag (film). Note: would an admin please help place an AFD template on this disambiguation page? It's fully protected. SSTflyer 09:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow WP:OTHERPARENT much? There is an open move request at Talk:Douchebag that you started to move this page from the base title to Douchebag (disambiguation), so far only opposition has appeared (three editors-including myself). So you decide to nominate it for deletion instead? Really? Edit: I see that you have decided to withdraw the move request, however, that doesn't make this any less of a WP:forumshopping issue.
Keep; ~~On topic, Speedy Keep at the very least until the move request is over with.~~ the primary topic for "douchebag" is the pejorative term, not the orifice cleaner. Just because we don't have an article on something doesn't mean it isn't the primary topic. There may be only two articles about "douchebag" topics, but the pejorative term makes it three, meaning that WP:TWODABS doesn't support your argument. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems convincing enough, not seriously needed for deletion I imagine. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Close this - Go to the talkpage and get this moved per PT. –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 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 Delete. Although participation has been small, there is clear consensus, and after nearly two weeks nobody has raised any defence against deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inteha (2013 film)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The single reference only confirms that the film exists. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 15:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-A-Lot[edit]

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

Non notable rapper. Artilce is flooded with ref spam but lacks good soures. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. He may be one to watch but he is not there yet. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing currently convincing for a better Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any coverage that isn't already cited in the article. The Vibe piece is the only worthwhile source. --Michig (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as same findings as SwisterTwister and Michtig, no good sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of working titles[edit]

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

This page will be far too long once it's completed. — Music1201 ^talk 01:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete seriously indiscriminate. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nomination argument is without merit: we have plenty of articles, including lists, that are extremely long: for instance, Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress—a featured list—is 99 KiB (markup). If length were truly a problem here, it would be a reason to split the list into sublists, not for deletion. Our coverage of Ms. Katy Perry is so extensive that we have Katy Perry, Katy Perry videography, Katy Perry discography, List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry, as well as articles about each of her albums and some of her songs—much of it featured content.

That said, even if this list is notable, it appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information, which is proscribed by WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so I must recommend delete. Rebb ing 15:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I created this page is because all working titles were removed from the Working title Wikipedia page. Should this page be deleted, at the very least, all or part of this list should be transferred to the Working title page. --Jenniepierce567 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Something to take into consideration here is that this list currently only has working titles from major English language film productions. Even if each country only has 100 working titles for any given film and we have 6-8 countries, that's easily 600 - 800 titles that would be placed on this list. However the problem here is that we're unlikely to deal with only 100 titles from any given country - the numbers for this are far, far higher and even if we split this off to various categories (American films, British, Spanish, etc) this is easily going to contain about 600-800 titles on average, once people know that it exists. It's incredibly likely that the list was kept to a minimum when it was on the main working title page because it wasn't defined as a list page per se. I've created dozens upon dozens of film articles and at least half of those have had working titles. I'm leaning towards endorsing a delete and only mentioning maybe a handful of titles in the main article as an example. List pages of this type really aren't a great idea because of the sheer amount of films with working titles in any given country, language, or genre. It'll be forever incomplete, even if we limit it solely to those films that are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This directly violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The scope is way too large (a list of every working title in existence throughout all cultures and across all time is an impossible task) Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 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. no prejudice to recreation if someone finds adequate secondary sources DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zafarnomai-Khusraviy[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced and totally unverifiable text. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article title seems to be transcribing an originally Tajik title into English via Russian. A more usual transcription would be (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - for which I can not find much, but at least enough to verify its existence. PWilkinson (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and a quick search found nothing reliable that could possibly save this article. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:34, 8 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 15:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaley Marie[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. It's an autobiography, there's no independent sources listed, and I'm not seeing anything jumping out at me on DuckDuckGo. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 07:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I took a quick peek and found a reference at westseattleherald.com She seems to be rather new in the business. Make no mistake, the article as it stands does need a pile of work. There are MANY claims that need citations. I would suggest not being too hasty with a delete however as, in time, the article would perhaps have to be created again. Regards, Aloha27 talk 07:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I propose letting the AfD take its course, but sometimes AfDs do save articles. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 08:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I saw this scroll by in WP:RTRC. As a follower of upcoming singer-songwriters, I've done an initial sift of most of the current content. The article is still messy, but it can't all be fixed in one go. I'll continue looking for independent sources and future developments, but I think the article may be WP:TOOSOON for Wikipedia mainspace. Scottyoak2 (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Just a case of WP:TOOSOON, not notable yet. Some okay sources, but, as Aloha27 said, she seems to be new to the business. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from Mainspace and move to Userspace for future consideration as her career unfolds. At this time, I think it is WP:TOOSOON and fails notability. Unfortunately, the autobiographical approach got her bitten rather than welcomed, and it appears that she may have reacted as a new teenage editor might and was indefintely blocked. (Sigh.)

Admins might want to look at Wikipedia:Notability (music) Criteria #9 (Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition). She did win this at Music Meets Video, but I don't think it qualifies as a major music competition. Scottyoak2 (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't get bit because she made an autobiography. She got bit because she repeatedly ignored warnings that she was breaking rules and being disruptive. Although I kind of regret not pointing out the sockpuppetry policy to her before going to SPI, the fact that she turned around and made another sock after the SPI was started tells me it would have been a wasted effort. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 22:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a 17-year-old who does not clearly pass any of the notability criteria for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you mention her age in your response? It literally has nothing to do with notability. 2600:100C:B016:C55:C8A9:FDF4:8D90:3083 (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably trying to compare her to teenaged mutant pom-pom editors. I agree the mention of her age is inappropriate for determining notability though; Taylor Swift was no older when she reached notability for example. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 00:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would he try to compare a singer to a Wikipedia vandal? This singer could vandalize Wikipedia all day and that would have no bearing on her notability. I couldn't care less whether this article is kept or deleted. I just like to chime in when people bring up age in situations where it doesn't matter. 2600:100C:B00D:E492:A51E:2343:7AF6:6567 (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do thousands of school IPs get blocked over a handful of test edits spread out over time? Believe me, I'm on your side on the age thing. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 04:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the criteria for notable person. Maybe she will be famous in the future but as it stands she doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. ツStacey (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – can be re-added if she ever becomes notable. ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 00:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the overall article is still questionable for better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 13:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AtScript[edit]

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

Notability: article about a proposed programming language for a specific JavaScript framework that (proposal) lasted for a few month and (language) never happened Dchestnykh (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN. –Be..anyone 💩 08:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTAVOTE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I searched for coverage and found: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. None of the other !votes here seem to show any evidence of looking for coverage, and no attempt at an evidence/policy-based argument to back up their opinions. --Michig (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG, per some of the sources I was able to access posted by Michig above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very lazy Google search picks up no shortage of coverage spanning some time. Michig posted some. I found an extra one in French. I've done some improvements to the article to include material from these sources. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the number of reliable sources identified above as well as the improvement to the article so that WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ao Vivo no Mosh[edit]

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

Recreation of an article deleted via PROD. Subject appears to fail GNG and NALBUM. Perhaps there are sources in Portuguese somewhere? If anyone finds enough to establish notability I will happily withdraw the nom. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing Nomination based on significantly improved sourcing which satisfies WP:V and W:GNG. Suggest this AfD be closed as uncontested Keep.Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references and a reception section. It appears to be considered an undergound classic and there is enough coverage to keep. Cheers. Neodop (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as this seems enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The new sources provide enough coverage for this to warrant its own article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as its very good to see a reception section with details of reviews appropriately sourced so WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 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. Can be restored for merging etc. Sandstein 08:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OpenAMP[edit]

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

Article not only lacks any references, but is so full of lingo and jargon that I don't even know where to begin figuring out its realworld notability. KDS4444^Talk 08:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a proposal for a multi-OS on a single system standard, led by Xilinx and is discussed briefly on the Multicore Association page. There have been PR announcements[21][22], and there is code. But it seems WP:TOOSOON for significant third party reliables sources to develop. It might be best to merge this to Multicore Association, the sponsoring organization. --Mark viking (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page was just created and is still a work in progress, references/Links/citations were added, wording to clarify some of the 'lingo'/'jargon' added. The FOSS OpenAMP project is live and well and do not depends on the Multicore Association to exist on GitHUB. The Multicore Association work regarding OpenAMP is too recent and not open (expensive membership required to know what is going on behind the door). The two pages shall not be combined as they are separate, but reference can be added to the MCA page --User:uglybear 06:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Described in detail in Baum, Felix, and Arvind Raghuraman. "Making Full use of Emerging ARM-based Heterogeneous Multicore SoCs." 8th European Congress on Embedded Real Time Software and Systems (ERTS 2016). 2016. SJK (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete frankly as this is still questionable for any better improvements, Draft at best if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carolin von Petzholdt[edit]

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

Autobiography created and editied by aritcle subject. Notability is just on the line... bringing it here for discussion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany -related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Person seems relevant enough and perhaps the article could be elaborated upon. Conspirasee1 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSubject matter seems worthy of an article Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After being relisted twice with no clear consensus determinable, the article is defaulted to keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coachwood Park wyandotte, MI[edit]

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

Appears to be a completely non notable public park. PROD declined by article creator. Safiel (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this was part of a long and chaotic incident on the New pages feed. A student group kept making articles for non-notable parks. But anyway, this should be deleted as not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights of Columbus Tot Lot, Wyandotte Mi. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to Wyandotte,_Michigan#Sports_and_recreation where the other ones are now located. The list there could do with some shortening to remove duplication like the alcohol and rollerblades ban. But while none of these small parks articles are worthy of standalone pages, per WP:GEOLAND they can be a credible addition to the broader article on the town. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect, certainly not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If more information were available in the article, this park would meet the WP:GEOLAND criteria as a named geographical location. However, given that only basic statistics are provided in the article, I suggest deletion. There's not much information to merge into Wyandotte,_Michigan, except that it exists, so I'd also recommend against merging --- from looking at the park on Google Maps, it appears to be only one of many parks in Wyandotte. OtterAM (talk) 18:18, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 13:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Archibald (Gossip Girl)[edit]

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

This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. Most sources appear to stay within the realm of WP:TRIVIALMENTION, as they discuss the show or the actor portraying this character. Specifically, no sources show how this character has any independent notability from the books or TV series in which it appears. AadaamS (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gossip Girl (novel series). I agree that there is no basis for a stand-alone article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per comments on another stand alone character article in the same series that was nominated for deletion here with keep as a result. Brocicle (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there's actually usually enough to keep a series character as their own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAs per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 13:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Humphrey[edit]

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

This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. Most sources appear to stay within the realm of WP:TRIVIALMENTION, as they discuss the show or the actor portraying this character. Specifically, no sources show how this character has any independent notability from the books or TV series in which it appears. AadaamS (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gossip Girl (novel series). I agree that there is no basis for a stand-alone article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per comments on another stand alone character article in the same series that was nominated for deletion here with keep as a result. Brocicle (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simply because the lead characters of lead series are usually kept as their own article, although they may not be actual people, there's usually enough for a separate article at least. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid arguments along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT and each article is judged on its own merit, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Notability is not inherited across characters. The GNG only cares about verifiable notability, so which sources do you think verify the notability of this character? AadaamS (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAs per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above and because the nom has failed to comply with WP:BEFORE and dismisses without examination the significant body of academic criticism that even a cursory GScholar search turns up. "'Teens Win': Purveying Fantasies of Effortless Economic Mobility and Social Attainment on Rich Teen Soaps" is hardly my idea of entertaining reading, for example, but lack of interest in the content of available sources doesn't justify ignoring their existence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Čestmír Vejdělek[edit]

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

Non-notable Czech writer tagged since May 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure, or don't remember, what the notability standards are for foreign language authors. I created this as he seemed notable Czech science fiction and fantasy and was mentioned in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability standards for foreign authors are the same as our notability standards for non-foreign authors. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Vejdělek has an entry in the Dictionary of Czech Literature, published by the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, see [23]. The source also contains list of reviews, studies and interviews with the author and could be a good starting point for more thorough research in Czech. There's also an obituary published by Mladá fronta DNES, already mentioned in our article and the mention in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 04:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A valid claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR is definitely possible here — I can't read Czech, so I'm not equipped to determine what the Czech sources say or don't say about him, and without access to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction I can't evaluate whether his "mention" in it is substantive, or merely a glancing namecheck. But in its existing form, the article isn't stating anything except that he's a writer who existed — and while we do allow some leeway for an inadequate article if better sources demonstrably exist to improve it with, an article that's barely seen so much as a comma of improvement in eight years isn't entitled to a permanent exemption from ever having to get better than this. Keep if somebody with Czech language skills can beef it up by close — but if that doesn't happen, then it should be draftified rather than being left in mainspace for another eight years. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage showing up from a Google search is convincing regarding notability. --Michig (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As relisted twice without further discussion and currently no determinable consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IWI X95[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The X-95 is simply the current version of Tavor, as designated Micro-Tavor in the IDF. It is the newest version Tavor that has been selected by the IDF since 2009. In Hebrew sources they are called Tavors, or Micro-Tavor versions of the Tavor. They are the main Tavor version produced in Israel, and the main Tavor article should cover them. Tavor X-95 is just an export designation to refer to distinguish it from the Tavor TAR-21. There is also the Tavor CTAR-21. Currently we have a Tavor article for the Tar-21, which makes no sense as the X-95 is the main Tavor in production. So why would the Tavor article only cover the TAR-21 and not the X-95? The Tavor article should primarily cover the X-95 as the main Tavor that is in production, while also covering the TAR-21 and CTAR-21 versions. X-95 should be a redirect to the Tavor article, there is absolutely no reason to create a separate article for the export designation of the new (Micro) Tavor versions.

Avaya1 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The manufacturer, IWI, decided to separate the X95 and its variants from the original Tavor and its variants. Both are currently offered to customers. X95 has its own variants and features, such as longer barrel version, that do not make sense if X95 is placed as MTAR-21 in the original article (X95 with longer barrel isn't smaller that CTAR-21). BTW, the designation MTAR-21 no longer appears in IWI website, as well as Micro-Tavor. Claiming that 'Tavor X-95 is just an export designation' is original research. Hebrew wikipedia has a dedicated article for X95, and I don't see a reason why Tavor and X95 must appear in the same article here. Besides, the original article for Tavor is way too long and messy to deal with so many versions with different designations. Flayer (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The manufacturer is using the designation Tavor X-95 to refer to the Micro-Tavor or MTAR-21 version of the rifle. It's described as the Micro-Tavor or MTAR-21 in most of the literature, but we can use both designations pretty easily on here, including X-95. Content forking a new article for the main variant of the Tavor makes little sense (especially since this content fork just copies from the main article on the Tavor). The Micro-Tavor is the most common variant of the Tavor now in production (and the only variant of the Tavor that has been selected for mainstream production for the IDF) so it should be covered by the Tavor article.

If you want to look at precedent on this site, we have one article for the Merkava tank, even though there is vastly more variance between its different versions. If you go to M16A2 it re-directs to the M16 article (which is vastly longer). Etc.

"Besides, the original article for Tavor is way too long and messy to deal with so many versions with different designations." The article could be organised better. But this is exactly the reason it should be dealt with on the main article (so that we can explain the different variants in an organised way, instead of content-forking in a confusing way that gives the impression that these are not all 'Tavors'). Avaya1 (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that "manufacturer is using the designation Tavor X-95 to refer to the Micro-Tavor or MTAR-21" is an original research, because the manufacturer uses only one designation - "X95" (not "Tavor X-95", or "Micro-Tavor X95", оr "MTAR-21"). Some people keep calling it Tavor or Micro-Tavor or MTAR-21, but we shouldn't. Content forking provides a stage where information can be added to the new article, according to the most official and up-to-date sources. These reliable sources do not even mention "MTAR-21". TAR-21, CTAR-21, STAR-21 are one thing, while X95 and its versions are another thing. "MTAR-21" and even "Micro-Tavor" do not exist.

Although surely X95 has been selected for mainstream production for the IDF, claiming that "Micro-Tavor is the most common variant of the Tavor now in production" is purely an original research. X95 should have its own article that should cover its source (Tavor), its variants, and its further evolution in IDF and outside Israel. Tavor has its own history, variants, list of users, and probably future users as well.

Arrow 3, for example, has its own article, that was initially split out from Arrow 2.

We have reliable, official, up-to-date written sources for both Tavor and X95. We should mention each other in separate articles, and we should also mention that many people still use to call them both "Tavor", but these should be different articles. Flayer (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Check carefully the inscriptions on the Israeli X95's in use by IDF. Does it say Tavor or X95? Is it "export designation" inside IDF? 1, ,2, 3. Flayer (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tagged "sometimes dubbed micro-Tavor" in the article since it seems to be a point of contention here. Due to the profusion of various names, I could not assess the claims made above and will refrain from commenting on content. (Note that if that weapon was (verifiably) called MTAR in the past, then it does not matter that the name has been deprecated by the manufacturer, and it is certainly not OR to give it in the article.)

Right now, IWI Tavor#Micro-Tavor (MTAR-21) and IWI X95 look like a WP:POVFORK. I smell some edit war going under the scenes. I would say that if there are reliable sources that say IWI X95 is the successor of the MTAR-21 (or another denomination of a new version, whatever), even if the manufacturer does not explicitly say so, then merge the whole thing to the Tavor page; if on the contrary there is evidence that the X95 is a really different weapon (e.g. the design was substantially modified), then have a standalone page and trim down severely the Tavor page's subsection. If we do not know, then the unverifiable affirmations flying left and right in both articles should be taken out.

The sources on the Indian version (refs 16 to 18) seem to me to refer to TAR-21, in which case it is misleading to list India as a user of the X95. But again, I do not really understand the whole thing with the names (and yes, I know). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 13:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomcar[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP coverage is mostly PR ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit to address press-release like tone. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are certainly not limited to: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The in-depth sources found by Northamerica indicate notability under WP:CORP. A HighBeam search also found [29][30][31]. Mz7 (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft instead perhaps as this could still be enhancingly improved but it's still also a starting company (still only about 3 years old) and thus is still simply a localized company, still questionable for better solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage identified above, which satisfies WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 11:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tesla superchargers[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Superchargers, like gas stations, are likely not important enough to have their own list (and Tesla's own list, already linked in Tesla station, is probably going to be much more reliable and up-to-date). It's probably better for this list to be condensed into one or two paragraphs in Tesla station.

(This information would, additionally, be better placed in the OpenStreetMap wiki's page on Tesla chargers.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 04:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be proposing merger. That may be sensible but is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. In any case, I reckon the topic passes WP:LISTN due to coverage such as this. Andrew D. (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: Withdrawing; will be opening discussion for merger. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 11:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al-Bayati[edit]

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

Known only for involvement with Eliza Jane Scovill and therefore WP:BLP1E would apply. Little in-depth outside coverage to establish notability. Yobol (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, most of the coverage is from Anti-AIDS groups or other fringe science, but there are good sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fringe scientist without the level of coverage needed for those who are fringe theorists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears to be a run-of-the-mill AIDS denialist whose minor fame in connection to the Scoville case does not rise to the level of notability. We do at least have secondary sources criticizing his work from the mainstream point of view, which is better than many other non-notable fringe topics, but that balanced sourcing appears to exist only for the Scoville case and not for the content of the rest of the article. So there's nothing to write about neutrally but that case, and then the article fails WP:BLP1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL applies here. The Scoville case is the only thing that might make him notable, but not much else, and WP:BLP1E may apply. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 01:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability and the needed improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Aerial advertising#Helicopter Banners. Michig (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter banner[edit]

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

Unsourced since the stone age. Total dicdef, laden with [citation needed]s, no hope of fixing or expansion. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aerial advertising#Helicopter Banners, where they are mentioned. A web search shows this type of aerial advertising exists in many cities. There are a few reliable sources online: FAA regulations for helicopter towing, a news article on banning the practice, and accident reports involving helicopter banners. On the whole, I don't think there's enough to support a standalone article, but certainly enough to support a few sentences in the section Aerial advertising#Helicopter Banners. Combined with this topic being a plausible search term, a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aerial advertising#Helicopter Banners. I don't think that helicopter advertising deserves a page of it's own, not very different from Aerial advertising in general. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - TenPoundHammer claims, "Deprodded without comment." My deprod comment was "Consider merge to Aerial advertising". ~Kvng (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aerial advertising. ~Kvng (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is nothing like a dictionary definition. Andrew D. (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as best connected to this. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. Michig (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Fitzgibbons[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Five WP:BLPs of people notable only as city councillors in a city of just 51K. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL; city councillors get a presumption of notability only in major, internationally famous global cities on the order of New York City, Los Angeles, Toronto or London, and for any city below that level a city councillor gets a Wikipedia article only if they can be well-sourced as significantly more notable than the norm. But in all five of these articles, the only sources provided are the city council's own website (a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE that cannot assist notability) and their ratings from Americans for Prosperity (a non-neutral source.) Wikipedia is not a platform for the Tea Party movement to publicize its ideological opinions about political figures — we exist as a neutral encyclopedia based on reliable sources, of which there haven't been any shown here. One other councillor has also already been prodded, but these other five aren't in a keepable state either. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat's excellent reasoning. City Councillors are not notable, unless they are in a large city. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all even a mayor of this city would not be default notable, a city councilor even less so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the record, the same editor did also create an article about the current mayor at the same time — it's at Bob Jackson (American politician). Because the notability standards for mayors allow for much smaller cities than the notability standards for city councillors do, I left it out of this nomination to give it a chance at improvement — but it wasn't actually sourced any better than these ones are, and thus is still technically deletable too. I still wouldn't bundle it with the councillors, due to the differential standards involved — but I'm going to nominate it separately. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these individuals have any claim to notability for a global encyclopaedia. All fail WP:NPOL and WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. None pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as still questionable for the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Grand Paris Express. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Métro Line 18[edit]

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

It's only 2016. I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to promote stories of the distant future. Georgia guy (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep French Wikipedia article isn't terribly well referenced, but a Google news search for Ligne 18 + métro + Paris yields plenty of news coverage, enough to easily meet WP:GNG. Given the size and importance of Paris and its transit system, I don't find it surprising that even proposed metro lines are notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Grand Paris Express, at least until such time as there is sufficient material unique to this line that it needs to be split for article length purposes. It is notable, but readers will be better served by reading it in the context of the overall scheme until we have lots more we can say about it. Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the following articles to this discussion as well:

Paris Métro Line 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Paris Métro Line 16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Paris Métro Line 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My recommendation is that they should also be merged into Grand Paris Express, although only weakly for Line 15 as that has significantly more content than the others. Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all except Line 15 to Grand Paris Express. Most consist of just a similar sentence so the merger would be just the addition of that to proposed lines. As for Line 15, I would say it should be Kept as a merge to the parent article will be undue (the sentence similar to the others should be merged though). AIRcorn (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette High School Band (Lexington Kentucky)[edit]

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

Article about an individual high school's band program, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which any group or organization that exists is automatically entitled to have an article -- real media coverage, supporting a proper claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC or WP:ORG, has to be present for the article to become includable. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence that this run-of-the-mill high school band is notable, and instead, a well-referenced paragraph describing it at Lafayette High School (Lexington, Kentucky) would benefit the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this high school band is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Godsell[edit]

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

Would seem to fail WP:NOTABILITY, also lacks reliable sources as most of the references are written by the subejct herself. No credible evidence of why this individual is notable. At best this article is perhaps a little premature. ForgotMyLoginAgain (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her role as a professor is not enough to pass the notability requirements for an academic and her role as a poet is not notable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as still questionable for notability such as WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's very hard to find notability for poets, and young poets especially. I find nothing for this person. There is another article for a young poet related to Godsell, Vangi Gantsho, by the same editor. It also looks tenuous to me. LaMona (talk) 00:15, 8 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.