< 9 February	11 February >

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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Griggs House[edit]

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

This is a house with lacking notability, with the only reliable sources being in passing mention related to The Blair Witch Project. At best a redirect to the article about the 1999 film. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 23:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Griggs House has primary documentation that indicates it as a historic structure in the Maryland Historical Trust of Historic Properties - Record BA-1579, (Updated Feb 11 2016) representing early architecture and settlement of the town of Granite Maryland. It is secondly notable as a significant storyline feature in a movie of worldwide distribution and to a lesser degree notable in nationwide coverage for the conflict between state resources performing an unusual accelerated demolition as preservationists were in process of gathering resources. FlugKerl (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, notability is not inherited. Second, the nationwide sources that were about this house were in relation to only the film and were published upon the film's 1999 distribution. Third, saying that a home has "primary documentation that indicates it as a historic structure in the Maryland Historical Trust of Historic Properties" doesn't automatically make the house notable. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the Maryland Historical Trust considers it notable, so should we and their report is extensive.[1] We are not the decider of notability but other organizations such as this that specialize in history, research and the historic significance of properties certainly is. It would still be notable if it had nothing to do with any film. --Oakshade (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the history seems to make it convincing for notability, unlikely any serious needs for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Maryland Historical Trust and the report provided by Oakshade. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep considering the consensus seems clear and there are unlikely any immediate "delete" comments coming soon (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna[edit]

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

Not enough notability to justify having his wins as a dedicated stand alone list. This is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a F1 or Senna fan site. All his wins are already listed in his own article as well.T v x1 23:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list provides easy navigability of Senna's wins, which are not there listed separately in the main article. He is very notable globally, and readers like me would want to be able to read up on his wins separately without having to individually pick it out from a dense article. This particular list features professional standard prose, has an engaging lead, is comprehensive, is easy to navigate, complies with the manual of style and seems stable. That, for me, is the Featured list criteria and not the criteria to nominate for deletion. Perhaps you may wish to reconsider this nomination. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Senna's Grand Prix wins are extremely notable; whenever another driver approaches and passes his total it is reported as a significant achievement in the press Formula1.com, Fox Sports, Sky Sports for example. While Senna's win are listed in his article, that is only as part of his complete Formula 1 racing results, and does not give the level of detail of this article. As Xender Lourdes mentions, this list allows an interested reader to compare and contrast his victories. The list meets the criteria for a Stand-alone list, given the length of the parent article. The article follows a similar style and structure to standalone lists such as List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney, List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar and List of international rugby union tries by Jonah Lomu. I'm well aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to be avoided, but the presence of these articles demonstrates that the nominators point that "This is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a F1 or Senna fan site" is not valid, as the list follows a style already common on Wikipedia. Harrias ^talk 07:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clearly defined list on a notable topic. This looks like it should be up for a Featured List nom and not an AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list displays a clear merit for notability on a globally known individual. It would make sense for the list to be kept as it would allow users to easily navigate which of his victories they want to read about. Z105space (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No different to any other sports where very notable individuals have stats-based lists about their achievements. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List don't need to simply pass WP:GNG. They need to pass the more specific WP:LISTN as well. T v x1 20:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced list of wins of a highly regarded driver in the sport's history. Addressing the nominator's argument that his wins are already on his article, it is listed in a complete results block format. A reader only interested in his victories would not easily be able to make comparisons. A link to this list could easily be added to that section using the ((see also)) template. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the above keep votes does actually attempt to address the actual issue whether the his list of wins as a group have enough notability in reliable mainstream sources, as outlined by WP:LISTN. Yes Senna is very notable and yes the fact that he won 41 races is notable as well. But I have not seen provide clear evidence being provided from any of the keep voters that the identity of all his wins as a group receives enough notability in the mainstream reliable sources that they merit a standalone article in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Again this isn't a motorsport fansite. And remember that he's only the fifth all-time in number of Grands Prix wins. If really desired we could always incorporate a form of the list in his own article in a similar fashion to this. The claim that the results summary in his article doesn't allow an interested reader to easily find a compare his wins is nonsense. The wins are clearly highlighted by using the number one an by having a specific color. The wins stick out clearly from all the other results. T v x1 20:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Tvx1. "Nonsense" is a strong word to use here. I can understand your stand but you should see that the editors out here are only trying to help you reach a decision on whether the article should be deleted or not. It's not a battle of you against others. Thanks for linking up WP:LISTN. I see that the guideline does clearly mention that "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")" – given that this list is named List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna, I can now understand why you are debating. But your point that editors have not addressed the standalone notability is wrong. Multiple editors above, including Harrias, have shown that the stand alone detail is clearly notable. Reliable sources commenting on Senna's wins can be found quite easily specially given the recent Hamilton surge, for example – Fox Sports photo feature on Senna's F1 wins, The Telegraph on a watch series based on Senna's 41 wins, ESPN on Vettel crossing Senna's record, CNN on Hamilton matching Senna's victories, Fox Sports doing the same, BBC, The Guardian, Sky Sports, and many more. As Harrias mentions, this happens every time someone comes close to Senna's record. To preempt a possible rebuttal based on these references, WP:LISTN also says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Do reconsider this nomination if you can. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I think you are misinterpreting WP:LISTN here. It states that there is no requirement that each item on the list is independently notable. That means one doesn't need to provide mainstream reliable sources for each and every race Senna won, discussing it in detail, but rather some mainstream sources that discuss the list of wins he achieved. With the exception of the Fox photo series you came up with, none of the sources you came up with mentions even one of the races he won. They only mention the fact that he won 41 races, which I already is the only notable fact about his wins. So having not seen any proof that the list of his wins (not just the number) is a notable topic in mainstream sources, there is no chance I will reconsider my nomination. I still don't think this article sits within the purpose of a general-purpose encyclopedia. What's most unconvincing in your stance, is that deleting this article would eradicate all information on Senna's wins from wikipedia. That's simply not true. His wins are already listed in his own article and could always be given a dedicated list there as well. The meaningfulness of his number of wins is already addressed in List of Grand Prix winners and List of Formula One driver records. A standalone list that does nothing but state where he won each of his 41 wins is therefore overkill. T v x1 17:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining Tvx1. Let me clarify. I have never said that "deleting this article would eradicate all information on Senna's wins from wikipedia". On WP:LISTN, I have read up your explanation. Let me be honest that I am all but two months and a few days into this project so you and others obviously have more experience and knowledge than I have about policies and guidelines. For an editor like me, WP:LISTN's statement that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been" would clearly signify that there is no need for the whole list to be documented. If one were to go by your interpretation, then the guideline should have read "The entirety of the list needs to be documented in sources for notability – but there is no requirement that each item on the list is independently notable." Given this, your interpretation of the current words of the WP:LISTN guideline seems faulty. If you believe that the current guideline does not represent what your interpretation alludes to, then with your experience you should go and change the guideline because the current wordings do not at all convey what you seem to be forwarding. I shall repeat, I am not an experienced editor here and you should not consider my words the final ones. Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You handily left out the following sentence of the guideline though: Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. This clearly shows that all the items in the list don't need to pass WP:GNG independently, but only the list of items have to as a group. All you have proven so far is that the number of wins he achieved is notable, not the set of which wins he achieved. T v x1 18:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because as per guideline The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been, your reply above may well have been the closing statement of the administrator closing this discussion as a keep. Tvx1 as I feel we both are repeating the same points, I would now await the administrator's views or of other editors'. It was a great learning experience commenting here. And I have to thank you for that. Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merrimack politics of 2002[edit]

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

The article was created by a bot in 2009 based off of a Wikibooks article. Since that time, it has had a notability tag on the article for six years, and nothing has improved. Additionally, none of the people listed here are inherently notable, especially as this moderately-sized town in New Hampshire. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I am also nominating Politics of Merrimack, New Hampshire as well, as it is a list with nothing substantial on it, except for this one page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No more notable than any other town in the area, and there's been no activity for a long time on either of these pages. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles extremely small city, paltry articles, no notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not independently notable for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian National Union – New Democracy[edit]

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

This article reads like a political campaign platform, not an encyclopedic article, completely unsourced. If this article is kept, it needs to be substantially rewritten or pared down to one paragraph. But in this case, TNT might be the way to go as the article reads as if it is promoting this political party. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite the lead and discard the rest. It's a fairly marginal party (less than 6000 votes in the 2014 elections) but its outrageous activities have received quite a bit of media coverage. Uanfala (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was thinking about prodding this, but I found enough hits on Google News that it seemed easier to let someone else deal with it. Since we're here, I went back and did more thorough searches. They do have a bit a coverage, it's true – but it seems to be mostly trivial mentions as a part of neo-Nazi activity in Bulgaria. A sample of what I've found: [2] from San Jose Mercury News (an AP story that was widely syndicated), [3] from USA Today (another AP story that was widely syndicated), and [4] from Sydney Morning Herald. There are a few more, but they're either even more trivial (names in a list of far-right parties), or they're syndicated AP content. I don't think there's really enough here, though I'm willing to reconsider. There are also some hits at Google Scholar, but I had a bit of trouble finding ones that weren't trivial mentions and gave up a bit quicker than usual. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehh, I guess the rewrite is fine. Bulgarian editors say there's coverage, and so there probably is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like Uanfala's suggestion to rewrite the lead and discard the propaganda which is likely a direct translation from the party website. The party is notable and is featured in national news in Bulgaria from time to time, mostly because of its extreme character rather than any significant public support. That international media have mentioned it is surprising to me, but it's an argument for keeping the article in some form nonetheless. — Toдor Boжinov — 08:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if someone can write a sourced, neutral stub, then I guess that's fine. I did a few searches to find hits in Bulgaria, but my ability to do so and read them is obviously quite limited. Google Translate only takes you so far. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cleaned it up some. The party appears to be notable enough by our standards, if only because their antics get them in the news. Can't figure out if they're really Nazis or fascists. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the recent thorough improvements and some added sources. Additional Bulgarian-language sources possibly exist (additional reporting is mentioned in ref #1 for example). GermanJoe (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I have requested a SPI about the recent disruption of this AfD nomination (see article history). GermanJoe (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at best Move to AfC draft as although this is newly founded, it may have local coverage thus familiar attention is needed. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Islam Slimani[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason, not notable for it's own article. Besides the articles mentioned below doesn't feature the respective country's top goalscorer:

Created on behalf of C. Ronaldo Aveiro (talk) who added them to an already substantially developed AfD. I will comment separately on my opinion of these articles below. Fenix down (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability, just lists of goals, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:GNG applies. Giant Snowman 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as WP:LISTCRUFT. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all - Per GiantSnowman. CR7 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Articles should either be kept or have their information merged with their parent article so no information is lost. Also see this AFD where under near identical reasoning the result was keep. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD was not a keep close because of notability, there were significant concerns that there were simply too many lists for a reasonable outcome to be achieved and the nomination was withdrawn. The AfD noted in the withdrawal achieved a slight consensus that such lists are notable when the player is the country's all time leading scorer of is significantly notable in their own right. Fenix down (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing inherently notable about scoring a goal at international level. This AfD achieved a slight consensus that players who are deemed "world-class" or who are their country's all time leading scorer are inherently notable for such lists. None of these players are. Why would any of the lists be more relevant and notable than a list for someone who has scored only one goal? Fenix down (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - for failure to meet WP:GNG Spiderone 15:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subconscious music[edit]

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

May not meet WP:GNG. An unnoticeable record label with nothing noticeable. Sources really don't come up with any information about the label. Will211 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable; fails WP:MUSIC. Zero reliable third-party sources, and article itself has no citations. The one link therein has no content and merely links to a Bandcamp page. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet any solid signs of a better applicably notable article for a record company. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. only editor requested deletion DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Ferron[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Davis (rugby league)[edit]

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

Fails WP:RLN as has not played a first grade game of rugby league or an international test match. Not enough coverage to meet GNG Mattlore (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, a quick Google search reveals significant coverage of the player from The Courier Mail, Sydney Morning Herald and Newcastle Herald. There are plenty of other trivial mentions in match reports and the like. While being aware of OTHERSTUFF, he is clearly more notable than a lot of the English footballers that have articles, so I'm leaning towards a keep. On the other hand, I think it is more likely that we are simply too inclusive on footballers! Harrias ^talk 21:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Clearly fails WP:RLN, but a surprising amount of coverage meets GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question, are the NRL Auckland Nines a fully professional competition? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, on further reflection, I think that he meets the spirit of WP:RLN, if not the exact words, having played in the National Rugby League Nines. The surprisingly good sourcing tips it over the edge for me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bugi (disambiguation). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bugi language (Papuan)[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that either language is known as "Bugi language." None of the sources at Nambo language or Agob language lists "Bugi" as an alternative name and my own search didn't turn up much. Unless there's something I'm missing, this should be deleted as misleading or incorrect. If they are valid alternative names, they need to be sourced at their respective articles (otherwise it's a violation of WP:DABMENTION), and then there's a pretty complicated web to unweave here. As it stands, this is an WP:INCOMPDAB and there isn't a Bugi (disambiguation) to merge this into. Bugi is a polish village, and all other hits I found are actually related to Bugis or Bugis (disambiguation). -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bugi is an Agob village, like Dabu (another alt name). Chalmers e.g. wrote A Vocabulary of the Bugi Language, British New Guinea, J.A.I. Vol. 33, 1903, and there are other mentions, e.g. the report of a Cambridge expedition that speaks of "the Bangu, Dungerwab, Bugi, Dabu, and Kunini vocabularies". Then Kloss & McConnell in Composition Linguistique Des Nations Du Monde (p. 384) give Bugi as an alt name of Nambu. — kwami (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Create Bugi (disambiguation) to mop up Bugi (script), Bugi language, Bugi language (Pahoturi), the links here at Bugi language (Papuan), etc. With a "see also" link to Bugis (disambiguation). Then redirect this title to that dab page. PamD 09:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... and not forgetting Saint Bugi, son of Gwynllyw. PamD 10:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the saint: http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id21.html PamD 10:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And http://www.archive.org/stream/livesofbritishsa01bariuoft#page/382/mode/2up ... I think I feel a stub coming on when I get home from where I need to go out to right now! Wikipedia, the infinite jigsaw puzzle/time-sink. PamD 10:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Bugi (disambiguation) now exists. Redirect this page to that dab page. And I'll have a go at the saint! PamD 14:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Saint Bugi now has an article. PamD 16:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second User:PamD's proposal to redirect to the new dab page. On a side note, although I agree in large part with the reasoning in the nomination, I don't think I see the relevance of WP:DABMENTION. Doesn't it only apply to items that appear within the target article (as subtopics or related items), rather that ones synonymous with the target, as in this case? Uanfala (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a term is synonymous with another one, there should be evidence for that synonym. Disambiguations don't use references, so the synonym should be cited in the article so we know there's evidence for it. "Bugi" isn't mentioned at either of those articles, so it shouldn't be mentioned in this disambiguation unless we can verify that, yes, "Bugi language" is another name for "Agob language" (which, from Kwamikagami's source, it seems to be a name for a village, not the language itself, but that's just my interpretation of it.) I see where your coming from, but I interpret topic as including synonyms, because the logic is the same. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of the alternative name should be contained in the target page – I agree with that! But the rationale behind dabmention is helping readers, right? The relevant sentence is "If the title is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic." If the target article has the same scope as the dab entry then readers definitely will find information on their topic. Anyway, it's not rare for a name of a settlement to be used as the name of the language of its inhabitants. That's the "Bugi language" of Chalmer's article that kwami cited. Uanfala (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per speedy keep#1, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black music[edit]

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

The term "black music" could potentially be seen as disparaging, and the article itself is based on a stereotype that black artists write similar types of music to one another. Ches (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This list opens up a lot of links. Originally, this list was only created as a redirect 1, which itself was pointed to yet another redirect 2, which pointed to African-American music. It was changed to a stub Black music is a term encompassing music produced or inspired by black people. In modern circles, this has come to usually refer to the great many music genres that have developed as a result of African American music. Over the years, it has become a list which seems to gleen the contents from other articles, but has no sourcing whatsoever. Not everybody in the countries listed are black, or consider themselves black, and a lot of the music listed is not exclusively black or has evolved exclusively from so-called "black" culture. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems quite pointy to be nominating this for deletion during Black History Month. Anyway, the topic is quite notable as there are many books about it including:

R&B, Rhythm and Business: The Political Economy of Black Music
Lying Up a Nation: Race and Black Music
The Power of Black Music: Interpreting Its History from Africa to the United States
Cultural Codes: Makings of a Black Music Philosophy
Sounds Like London: 100 Years of Black Music in the Capital
Roots of Black Music: the vocal, instrumental, and dance heritage of Africa and Black America
Who's Who in Black Music
Giants of Black Music
Hard Bop: Jazz and Black Music 1955-1965
On this Day in Black Music History

The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per WP:IMPERFECT, WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, I wasn't aware of that. My apologies, I am not being rude. --Ches (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that Ches was acting in good faith; it just struck me as remarkable that, as many editors are busy working on articles about black history, we should have an attempt to get rid of such a major topic. Andrew D. (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, I was completely unaware of the fact that February is Black History Month. Had I known, I wouldn't have done this. I wasn't acting in bad faith. --Ches (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but what now? If you've had second thoughts, you might reasonably withdraw the nomination per WP:WITHDRAWN. Andrew D. (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, yes, indeed, I am withdrawing my AFD request. --Ches (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, this may seem like a stupid question, but do I close this discussion with closing templates, or do I merely have to state that I have withdrawn my request? Thanks, --Ches (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could close it but the process is fiddly so, if you've not done it before, then it's safest to just leave it and wait. An independent editor will turn up in due course and take care of it for us. Typically, this will be a non-admin closure. Andrew D. (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben de Noronha[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Local interest coverage only. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, as I've requested. No more indication of significance, and no more notability, than the first three times an article about him was deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Memorandum of agreement[edit]

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

"memorandum of agreement" cites no sources in English, Dutch, or Korean. This is a stagnant article and the concept is not differentiated from "memorandum of understanding", which is a viable article.

There is nothing here that can be merged, because no sources are cited. There is nothing more in the history to restore, either. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am tentatively in favor of keeping this article~~, though it definitely needs a ton of work. I did a google search and I found a few sources that describe distinctions between MOUs and MOAs. See, for example, this explanation from the US Army Corps of Engineers and this article from The Economic Times. I am open to changing my mind if someone show that MOUs and MOAs are, in fact, the same thing. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: I am changing my vote to delete per TJRC's comments below. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to be a combination of discussions of actually enforceable agreements, which is best handled in Contract; and the non-enforceable Memorandum of understanding, without the clarity of which of the two is being referring to in any particular part. Those two articles really handle everything in this article, which doesn't do a whole lot more than confuse the two.

The US Army Corps of Engineers article cited above is distinguishing between an unenforceable MOU and an actual agreement, or contract; a memo of agreement, if drafted to be enforceable, is an agreement. The Economic Times is drawing a distinction between an unenforceable MOU and an enforceable agreement; not between an MOU and an MOA. TJRC (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was an excellent explanation, TJRC. I thought that MOUs and MOAs may be used differently within certain industry-specific circumstances, but I also recognize that no matter what you call an instrument, it can still have the power to bind parties if drafted correctly (or incorrectly, as the case may be). In any event, I am now convinced that there is no meaningful distinction between MOUs and MOAs, and I will change my vote accordingly. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simranjeet Singh[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSICBIO —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Davit077 talk 11:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Ridiculously promotional , not notable and poorly written. Highly entertaining read, but obviously for the wrong reasons... Check out this nugget: "He is highly appreciated with his beautiful song "Vroom Vroom" which is getting good response from viewers in all over the world. The song is just fantastic and is getting positive user response from all over the world. The song lyrics are truly speechless and needs hats off to the writer of this song for such a brilliant composition."-- Hybris1984 (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Coia[edit]

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

The primary reason for inclusion appears to be that he has written some film scores for rather obsure (mostly Italian) horror films. Many of the cited references do no appear to support claims to notability. One of the most notable references is IMDB, but it is possible that the bio there was created by a single-purpose account. Shritwod (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" of WP:BASIC. There's a single Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno newspaper profile which I can't judge the weight of (User:Pizzole has given links to a cropped scan of a two-paragraph article purporting to be from the Gazzetta, uploaded to Scribd by "Antony Coia" on the same day that Pizzole added it as a reference to the article), and the rest of the sources are WP:NEWSPRIMARY interviews (with Coia, or with colleagues who mention him in passing), film credits pages, WHOIS website records, and articles which either briefly namecheck Coia or (in the case of some reviews) don't appear to mention him at all. The Italian Wikipedia project deleted Coia's article there last year. --McGeddon (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per McGeddon's argument and also due to the lack of hits in Google Books. It can show people's names in certain film directories, especially when they precede the Internet area, and this composer's name did not come up at all to at least indicate print-based notability. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so McGeddon will stop to harass me.--Pizzole (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Delete per McGeddon. Definitely does not meet any of the four criteria at WP:ARTIST. There are several passing mentions here, and a brief "local boy makes good" piece in a reputable but strictly regional newspaper, the Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno, which covers Puglia and Basilicata. There's no in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. (Note to Shritwod: IMDb cannot anyway be treated as a reliable source for our purposes, per WP:RS/IMDB). Obviously, the relentless (self?)-promotion here does not help either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note La Gazzetta del mezzogiorno is not the only newspaper. There are sources from Il Secolo XIX and La Nuova Ferrara talking about Coia. There is Bloody Disgusting too. And movies are not obscure because there are articles on italian newspaper, on Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, Twitch Film. Movies has festival premiere, DVD release... Please stop talking about what you don't understand. You are wikipedian only.--Pizzole (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Il Secolo XIX article is a single paragraph about a website. The Bloody Disgusting blog post mentions "the italian composer Antony Coia" in passing as the organiser of an event, and was written by one of the jurors for that event so is not "independent of the subject". None of this is "significant coverage" of Coia as a person. --McGeddon (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also to Pizzole, throwing what is in essence a temper tantrum by deleting every page you have edited one really isn't the way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE You are deleting a page that is on Wiki since may 2015 and then passed BLP and COI many times. Lot of admin patrolled the page but you are deleting it. I'll do the same with your works.--Pizzole (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzole , if you're talking about going to the nominator's pages and editing them out of revenge, please be aware that this will be very poorly received and can end with you getting blocked from editing, possibly permanently. FWIW, I've heard of this composer but there just isn't a ton of coverage out there in reliable sources. It's difficult for most conductors to receive coverage and most only assert notability by way of the productions themselves being overwhelmingly notable - even then it is sometimes argued that the work's coverage must mention the soundtrack to some extent. Now for niche, indie horror composers, it's even more difficult to gain coverage, since indie horror productions tend to get fairly solidly ignored by what Wikipedia would consider to be reliable sources. This has the unfortunate side effect of most indie horror movies never gaining enough coverage to firmly pass notability guidelines as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable film composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I was going to close this a day early and had even deleted it, but I was involved with the deletion of one of Pizzole's other pages, so I felt it would be best if this was deleted by someone other than myself, just so all of the protocol is followed. I think that a deletion at this point in time is inevitable, however. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Those arguing to delete cited a number of issues. The most common complaints which could be traced directly back to policy included WP:BLP, WP:COAT, and WP:FORK. On the keep side, the most common argument was that this is well-sourced (which it does appear to be) and that it meets WP:GNG.

There's no particularly killer arguments on either side, so weight of opinion will rule the day here, with deletes outnumbering keeps by about a 2:1 margin.

As a purely administrative note, I'm concerned over what appears to have been a copy-paste fork of this into userspace. There was no reason to do that; I (and, I believe, any admin) would be happy to restore and userfy most deleted articles. The problem with the copy-paste is that it forks the edit history, and makes it very difficult to comply with our attribution requirements, should the userfied draft ever find its way back into mainspace. @BD2412:, I encourage you to delete your copy-paste version; upon request, I'll restore and userfy the current article -- RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no preservable edit history in the deleted version. The edit history is already in the version in my userspace. bd2412 T 00:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is in turn because bd2412 userified the article by moving it (together with its history), on third-party insistence (see below). LjL (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Hillary Clinton[edit]

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

This is in no way a notable topic for a stand-alone article. This is a WP:POVFORK instituted by people who didn't get their way in the numerous page name debates that have happened for years over Hillary Clinton's article name. The article Hillary Clinton already mentions all of her various names, including birth name, maiden name, various names she used while married. There is no reason for this POV-WP:SYNTH mess of an article to exist. Jayron 32 16:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no opinion at this time as to whether it should be deleted. But I would like to mention that the main author, User:BD2412, ultimately prevailed (i.e. "got his way") in the page name debate at Hillary Clinton.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the merits. The lengthy dispute over what to name the article only took place in the first place because this is an issue, and it is one that has received independent coverage in high-level reliable sources over a long period of time. The article is thoroughly sourced, and the specific topic is the specific focus of many of those sources. It is also a good outlet for the already lengthy Hillary Clinton article; rather than having this information crammed into a footnote and otherwise scattered throughout this article and a few others (like the Clinton e-mails article), keep it all in one place where those who are really interested in the subject can see it. bd2412 T 17:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: BD2412 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: if there is a consensus against having this article as it presently exists, please return it to my userspace so that I can revise it in accordance with the objections raised, and prepare its contents to be merged into the main Hillary Clinton article in the interim. Of course, consensus about the propriety of including a topic can change, particularly where there is a possibility that new information will become available in the future raising the profile of the topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why ask this? Perhaps you would like the administrator to fetch you a pillow and a cup of tea as well? Put it in your userspace now, if you want it. Then the administrator is free to delete it without any aggravation. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that would be appropriate in the middle of a discussion? Particularly one where there is not yet any clear consensus? bd2412 T 15:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's totally appropriate, and following the discussion it seems pretty clear a closing administrator will delete the article. The weight of the "delete" argument is significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then, I have done it per your insistence. bd2412 T 16:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The actual subject of the article (the names) seems to itself be notable enough, as the many references in the article show. The article certainly isn't a "mess" by any means, and I see no POV being pushed. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's well-written and informative, she's an extremely important individual, I assumed her middle name was Rodham, the nickname section is unique too. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This article also replaces two l-o-n-g footnotes with a link to this article, see dif. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's well-written, properly cited, and meets general notability guidelines. In fact, I plan to nominate it for DYK. Jonathunder (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing anything here that wouldn't easily fit into the subject's main biography article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject's main biography article is already 228,210 bytes. Do you think that article should mention, for example, that her middle initial was used in the transcript of her commencement speech? Or that her detractors call her names like Hitlery, Hildebeast, and Shrillery? bd2412 T 02:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure that derogatory insults against a BLP subject should be repeated anywhere at Wikipedia. If some book mentions that some random British soldier called George Washington a f**king piece of sh*t who scr*ws livestock, I doubt that's worth mentioning explicitly at Wikipedia even though GW isn't a living person.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - We are reporting documented facts in a neutral - and uncensored - tone. This is no different than the fact that our article on Bill Clinton has said for years that "opponents sometimes referred to him as "Slick Willie", a nickname which was first applied to him in 1980 by Pine Bluff Commercial journalist Paul Greenberg"; or that our article on Richard Nixon says "During this campaign, Nixon was first called "Tricky Dick" by his opponents for his campaign tactics". bd2412 T 11:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but we also don't have an article named Insults for Richard Nixon. --Jayron 32 13:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        We also don't have numerous reliable sources describing changes in the name used by Richard Nixon over his public lifetime. If there were, we could have an article on the topic. Please do not mentally reduce this in your own mind to an article on "insults"; they are noted for completeness, though the majority of the article discusses the very real issue of how middle names and maiden names are incorporated into the life of a particularly notable individual. bd2412 T 13:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The issue is not the existence of reliable sources that give her various names. The issue is that the article relies on WP:SYNTH-type original research to turn disparate sources into making this a "thing". The problem is not the lack of sources, per se it's the use of sources to support a stand alone article on this non-topic. --Jayron 32 16:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        We're not talking about "reliable sources that give her various names", but about reliable sources that discuss her evolving use of various names over time. If that is WP:SYNTH, then so is every article that discusses any phenomenon that has changed over time. bd2412 T 17:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because any of those facts are worth singling out for mention in Wikipedia at all? Christ on a stick, I've occasionally used my middle initial in formal contexts where the use of a middle initial might be expected, without that fact meaning anything that would be worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article if I qualified for one — and the unflattering nicknames that my bullies or enemies might have called me behind my back (or to my face) wouldn't be worthy of note either. Bearcat (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two relevant considerations with respect to this AfD: (1) Does this article pass WP:GNG and (2) does this article deserve its own page per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Here, the substantial coverage of this subject in The New York Times, The Boston Globe, NPR, and other sources (all of which are cited in the article) clearly satisfies WP:GNG's requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Turning to whether this deserves a standalone article, WP:PAGEDECIDE specifically cautions against articles becoming "too unwieldy." The article for Hillary Clinton is already very, very long and merging the entirety of this article would make it far more unwieldy and lengthy. I think a much better option would be to include a very brief summary of the contents of this article at Hillary Clinton and then direct readers here with ((see also)) or ((main article)). Consequently, I think we should keep this as-is. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant, annoyed keep. Newspapers and other sources have gotten ahold of it and won't let it go. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Variations of a person's name should be discussed, briefly, in that person's biography. Creating a spinoff article about a woman's use or non-use of her maiden name, and then tossing in discussion of vile insults directed against her, is in my opinion also vile. I am not a Clinton supporter but this is inappropriate, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BLP, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented" then it's valid encyclopedic content. Derogatory names for Clinton may be well-documented, and may be relevant to the scope of this article, but noteworthy? Noteworthiness seems kind of subjective, and to me it's more than adequate to note that she has been called a lot of names, without doing the name-callers the honor of repeating their masterpieces.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cullen328 and Anythingyouwant:, since your primary objection here seems to revolve around the documentation of derogatory nicknames, I have removed these. This still leaves, however, a thoroughly well-sourced 10,000 byte article. bd2412 T 12:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My primary objection is to the strange notion that a woman's use or non-use of her maiden name or married name ought to be the subject of a freestanding encyclopedia article. My objection stands, though I am glad that the cheap shot insults have been removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate the removal of the derogatory names, thanks. The strongest argument for this article is that it would allow removal of some stuff from the main Hillary Clinton article, which is way too big (or "badly bloated" as I like to say). So, it seems to me that the main problem with this proposed article is that the scope is too narrow, and therefore would only allow a little bit of stuff to be removed from the main HRC article. I hope that some thought will be given to broadening this article's scope in some way (maybe "Personal characteristics of Hillary Clinton" or something like that). As it is, an article about her names alone just seems too narrow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One, I don't think there is a problem needing fixing here. Longish notes are a feature of scholarly writing, and with WP's technology notes appear to the reader as mouse-over tooltips when reading the text – there is no need to click away and then click back and find your place in the text, as there is with a separate article. Two, I've looked at a bunch of "Names of ..." articles, and I find no precedent for this one. They are usually about scientific naming conventions, or different names for deities, or naming controversies based on national identities. I don't think a woman who has used different forms of her name after marriage – which is not that unusual – is really sufficient to create a new precedent. Three, the new "Nicknames" section is just an invitation for trouble, and its use of Edward Klein as a source is alarming. Klein is so vile that even many professional Hillary-haters have distanced themselves from him. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP frankly WP:COAT. The fact that the article creator, an administrator, thought that we should have an article to devoted to trivial modifications to a name and such nuggets as someone, sometime, calling her "Hitlery" -- get it? -- is gobsmacking. Hasn't she also been called "that bitch" or "cunt" -- how did we miss that? It's forever going to be a POV magnet, and anything truly noteworthy about changes in her name should be briefly summarized in her bio article. And as noted above, there's nothing particularly unusual about women modifying their names after marriage -- or people in public life doing so, in general. Wikipedia is being used for WP:SYNTH here, to try to create a false impression that there is a notable subject here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hitlery" is no longer in the article. In fact, it was removed from the article, along with all of the derogatory nicknames, several hours before you wrote this. WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"; in this case, the propositions set forth in the article are explicitly stated, by multiple of the sources. bd2412 T 15:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you removed that attack content as the result of this Afd process. The repellent has been removed; what we we are left with is the trivial. It's unfathomable to me that as an experienced editor and a sysop, you feel this merits a standalone article but hey -- it might survive Afd. It shouldn't imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK and WP:BLP. I'm stunned this exists, quite frankly. Arguably, it's sexist to have an article ostensibly about whether or not a woman uses her maiden name as her middle name. Mentioning her Secret Service name is just a pathetic attempt to legitimize this nonsense. And this article will surely become a shit magnet for every unpleasant term Clinton is called in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scjessey: Is it "sexist", then, for Janell Ross of the Washington Post to publish an article focusing on this issue? Is it sexist for Joseph Williams of The Boston Globe and Ron Elving of NPR to do so? Is there sexism inherent in every journalist, male or female, who discusses this? bd2412 T 16:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. It is sexist to discuss the use of a woman's maiden name. It is more than adequately covered in Hillary Clinton and there is no need for a whole article on the matter. Also, you don't need to reply to every single comment you disagree with. This is a common problem with you. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - We're having a discussion here. I just want to understand the degree to which the problems asserted with respect to the article are fixable. bd2412 T 17:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - It isn't fixable. The article is built entirely upon the synthesis of sources. No article of this type should exist on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Well and the article creator will contest that SYNTH applies, as he did with me. But then WP:NOT#JOURNALISM isn't something fixable, either. Once the attack stuff has been removed -- if only for the moment -- does a handful of articles about variations in her name mean that we need a fork about those variations? You know my feeling on the matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. Is there a reason we have to have a page dedicated to what Hillary has been called? Leaving politics out of this, I wouldn't want this article for any BLP at all, regardless of their political affiliation, etc. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST but there are numerous WP:RS who are discussing this topic. It passes WP:GNG on its own even if Hillary wasn't herself notable. More importantly, it lets us isolate some of this cruft out of the main articles. Also, some have raised tha rugment that this topic is sexist. That may be. but per WP:FLAT we do what the sources do, even if the sources are ultimately wrong. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Except it doesn't pass WP:GNG because it relies on synthesis to build a "name change" narrative. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - This narrative is explicitly described in the sources. Nothing is implied from sources that does not exist in them. For example, the Washington Post article says:

“

Clinton is also a woman who has fairly consistently dropped and reassumed a combination of her maiden and married names, as NPR put it. She's done so at times when it seemed politically prudent and maybe even personally meaningful.

”

bd2412 T 20:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making her different from several million other women in the world...how, exactly? Or for that matter from the similar discussion that's followed Barack Obama, because he used to use his Indonesian stepfather's surname and/or shorten his first name to Barry, without occasioning a separate article just to cover that discussion? (One was tried. It got canned.) Bearcat (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bearcat. And artists often change names too – think of Prince (musician), who has a birth name, a stage name, an unpronounceable symbol, a formerly known as stage name, and a half-dozen aliases and pseudonyms, all of which has gotten more publicity than the HR/HRC/HC variations. That doesn't mean that having a separate Names of Prince (musician) article makes sense. The main biographical article is the natural place to describe any changes in the name of the biographical subject. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per Gaijin42 and simply because it passes WP:GNG. What this major figure is called is a topic and its notable as verified by the coverage in major sources over a period of years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing about this topic requires a standalone article as a separate thing from her main biography. A fair bit of it is pure trivia of no note whatsoever (sometimes used her middle initial in certain contexts? who hasn't, and why should we give a honk?), some of it was actually inappropriate until that crap got correctly stripped, and the little bit that's actually noteworthy — her use or non-use of Rodham — is already in the main article anyway. Bearcat (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is nothing but gobbledygook. There's no article titled Names of Bernie Saunders or Names of Donald Trump. It's oddly strange how Wikipedia professes ad nauseam that the gender gap is irrelevant to the site and then they create articles like this! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scjessey and Bearcat. The material in this page can easily be added into the content of the subject's main page. --Enos733 (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and the comments of Wasted Time R, Scjessey, and Bearcat.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Bearcat. This is a non-notable POV fork. Graham (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepRedirect to where this is at issue in Hillary Clinton since apparently it is a thing some seek information on (and consequently some write articles about). Merge what isn't already there. This ought to include the "Shrillary" designation, since it's sparked conversation about whether a woman is called shrill for using a tone which in a man would be deemed forceful. Pandeist (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My mind has been changed by User:LjL; and by having read the news articles about this. It really is a thing with a life all its own. Pandeist (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But maybe a name change to Name of Hillary Clinton. We are not after all speaking of the Names of God here. Pandeist (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - But if you're a pandeist doesn't that mean you think Hillary Clinton is partly god? LjL (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That you can say a lot about a particular detail of someone's life doesn't necessarily mean that the detail is notable -- it means that the person is very notable. There are any number of details about her life -- as with other celebrities' lives -- that one could write about, but, again, that there are sources about an aspect of someone's life doesn't necessarily mean it should have a stand-alone article. That the article is very long is not a strong argument to me in this case, as all that means is a very long section about her names is simply WP:UNDUE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is evidently notable and we have other similar articles where there's a complex naming history, e.g. Names of Ho Chi Minh City. While the topic is obviously split from the main article, this is not grounds for deletion as forks and splits are undone by merger not deletion, per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Andrew D. (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. I am not seeing anything that would qualify this as a biography topic. I mean, everyone has alternate names, but I don't see any notable articles for those. Parsley Man (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hillary Clinton if feasible, or keep as interesting WP:SPINOUT. The fact she used a different name throughout most of her political career, and was "forced" to give in and eventually use the husband's name, is of non-trivial importance, and there is very little doubt that one can find many sources discussing it. The whole deal may be able to be summarized into something shorter and kept within the scope of the person's biographical article; if not, it should be kept. LjL (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is absolutely ridiculous. AusLondonder (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I find absolutely ridiculous is that someone would think "this is absolutely ridiculous" is a valid explanation for a deletion !vote. LjL (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous is the kindest way to describe this article. Only in America would editors seriously think to spin-off a whole separate article noting that political opponents and lunatics had resorted to invoking a Hitler-based pun on someone's name or the fact they had a candidate had a different surname pre-marriage. Tony Blair's actual birth name is Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and sometimes political opponents called him "Bliar". You'd be laughed at if you spun-off an article about that. AusLondonder (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to actually read the article, then come back and give us a little for detail about how ridiculous it is to spin off a side article describing the instances and frequency with which a notable person has personally chosen to be known by so many different name variations, keeping in mind the size of the primary article. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle Milty: Since you asked, I've read it again. Still absurd, WP:POVFORK, sexist and laughable. AusLondonder (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: Since almost all of this article is drawn directly from content already in Hillary Clinton (see the first two notes under Hillary Clinton#Notes, and other references throughout the article); the primary exceptions being the summary quote at the beginning, the use of longer quotes from the sources quoted, and the accurate and thoroughly sourced section on nicknames. Is this material, as already included in Hillary Clinton, absurd? Sexist? POV? If not, then what is it about setting it out in a separate article than makes it so? bd2412 T 16:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced article with a sufficient level of notability.--ICat Master (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— ICat Master (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong delete per WTR, Shawn in Montreal, Cullen, Bearcat, Scjessey,and - I'm pleased to note, Anythingyouwant -among others. Many reasons: this is a classic POV magnet, trivia, sexist, and utterly unnecessary article. The main HRC BLP has long included a more than adequate treatment of this matter, appropriately centered in footnotes, and at an acceptable length. It is notable to include mention there, as has been for many years, because her name choices are of interest to readers and well sourced. That belongs in a biography. But it is not notable or needed to have a separate article in an encyclopedia devoted to it. There was no problem to be fixed. Tvoz/talk 22:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How anybody could think this is an encyclopedic subject is mind boggling. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. The small substantive information can and has been handled well enough by the main article. Bits about initials in slightly formal contexts or attack nicknames are unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Batelaan[edit]

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

Non notable actress, The article's already unsourced and I'm not finding anything but mentions on Google News/Books, If anyone can find any sources I'd be more than happy withdraw, Anyway Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She played a character notable enough to have its own page and has been in other notable works, the sum of these parts makes her notable. She's young yet. Possibly not gossip mag fodder yet. JesseRafe (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

She's been acting since 2002 and has been in an extremely notable programme since 2002 .... yet the only thing I'm finding are all mentions.... If she's not notable to have an article now then lets be honest she never will be... –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She has only had one "significant role" in a single television series, thus she doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR, and she meets none of the requirements at WP:GNG. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if needed and also then Redirect to Nip Tuck as 36 episodes is enough for her to be best known for that. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Ellahi Shaikh[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Stub biography consist of only intro lines of company and journalist. GeeAichhBee (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GeeAichhBee (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability. Being a board member for a large company does not qualify for significant nobility. Also, he is not covered in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable. He is going to run one of Pakistan's largest companies, he has married the daughter of the largest province's Chief Minister, and he is already a business executive with Ellcott. Bloomberg is a reliable source. Curro2 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ says Ellcott, where Ellahi is the director, has more than a billion in sales. [5] Curro2 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Curro2 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Relationship with any notable doesn't establish notability. I can't find reliable source more than mentioned above.GeeAichhBee (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman. Much of the claim to notability relies on saying what he will do in the future. However, we do not know what will happen in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems the subject has yet to escape WP:CRYSTALBALL status. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 05:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gilde Flores[edit]

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

Seems to fail notability. While meticulously sourced, all the sources are fan-written - IMDb (twice (and spelled wrong)), about.me, and his own site. Nothing secondary. Also overly effusive while being as vague as possible. JesseRafe (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not covered in secondary reliable sources, only self-published. Meatsgains (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You want to delete this article, yet Gilde Flores has mastered and licensed for some of the biggest names and organizations in TV, Internet, and Radio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocus47 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; blatantly non-notable. Doesn't get any clearer than this... FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Plank[edit]

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

As sad as this is, I don't believe this person is notable and feels like a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:VICTIM Gbawden (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very sad event, and tragic that her family lost her so young. That being said, this is a case of WP:BLP1E, and WP:NOTNEWS. It's an accident that made local news at best. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A NN crime victim. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Undue burden. Hit and runs and Marines both die by the hundreds or thousands each year. Don't see how the confluence of the two creates notability. JesseRafe (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The profile is significant simply because of the subject's considerable service for the United States forces. Furthermore, and in accordance with Wikipedia's Woman of the Year, it is important to note that women's deaths in the military are especially invisible. The article looks to acknowledge service of a military personnel and acknowledge women presence and service in the military. We are trying to continue to work and build on it. Hannahelong (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your concern in this area, however in the case of this person she doesn't meet the standards of notability as seen here: WP:BIO. Unfortunately just serving in the military is not enough to justify an article. It was a tragic accident that killed her, however that also is not notable enough of an event. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to be an university assignment per Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Miami/Women In Warfare (Spring 2016). Also several other articles started within the same assignment have the same problems. Beagel (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notice. Related Afd is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carri Leigh Goodwin. Beagel (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not news.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the editors above, and further, she doesn't pass GNG with coverage over time. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Evolution Soccer 2017[edit]

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

An as yet unreleased game with no evidence of notability: sourced to blogs, YouTube, etc. (A PROD placed by McGeddon was removed by the creator of the article, without explanation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:CRYSTAL. A game with this name probably will be released at some point, but the only secondary sources given are a possibly-hoax "leaked footage" video and a three-sentence blog entry about how Konami haven't given a date but the blogger reckons it'll be announced later in 2016. Not seeing any obvious press coverage of the game yet. --McGeddon (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have flagged for speedy deletion per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarojupreti, the creating editor was evading a block. --McGeddon (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Well it's going to be released most likely, so will the version in 2018, 2019 etc. SHould articles be made for those as well? I'd think not. Anyway, once the game is announced and being released it's time to re-add it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This seems more of a placeholder article than an actual encyclopedia article. --TL22 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly there's no solid material for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Nomination withdrawn' LibStar (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer the Hammer[edit]

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

fails WP:NSONG. has not reached any recognised chart position LibStar (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:NSONGS, in that it is subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. Dan arndt (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Would have been reviewed in the major English and Australian music papers of the time. Unfortunately, very few appear online. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - another unfortunately low quality deletion nomination - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St. Lynn's Press[edit]

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

Non notable company. Speedied before but the tag was removed after 1 reference was added. Fails GNG Gbawden (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as although Eastmain, who is currently not considerably active, improved it somewhat since Ubiquity tagged it in October 2014, the article is still questionably notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One reference, showing that a non-notable organization gave them a couple of awards for two non-notable books. Searching online doesn't reveal anything. Unless we feel like any award from anyone makes an organization notable, I think notability has still not been demonstrated. ubiquity (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Israel Railways. Merging seems the bestest option here so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GEC Alstom Push-pull[edit]

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

The article doesn't seem notable enough to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Rollingcontributor (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A railway coach type will be the subject of multiple independent sources and passes the WP:GNG. Mackensen (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If not keep, then merge into Israel Railways. Useddenim (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Israel Railways. The article name can be considered as a generic term, push-pull trains are used throughout the world.

Merge to Israel Railways. I did prefer to merge it to something related to Alstom, but I don't see any other models listed there. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Franz[edit]

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

Delete per WP:PTM since neither of these people were referred to simply as "Joseph Franz." In both cases, their given name was simply "Joseph" and not "Joseph Franz" (Franz being the middle name). Indexing by "[given name] + [middle name]" is trivial and not something that WP:APO does. -- Tavix ^(talk) 06:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I recall deleting some of the redirects around these names, and we don't need this DAB. Legacypac (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inaccurate and unhelpful, and usurping a name incorrectly. Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no use for this sort of partial title match by middle name. /wiae /tlk 13:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onorati SMG[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; search in English found nothing - perhaps an Italian-speaker could help. Patents do not establish notability. Created by probable User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 05:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 05:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 05:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines. Also, enough is enough. I recommend that every page created by User:Ctway and socks be automatically deleted. It would save us the trouble of doing it one by one.--RAF910 (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no presumable signs of better independent notability for a notable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logan (film)[edit]

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

Doesn't assert notability - just contains a plot summary and infobox, along with some external links. Can't really find reliable external sources that reference this film. There's also a dearth of critic reviews. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any coverage to pass WP:GNG or evidence that any WP:NFILM specific criteria are met. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. Zero reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and searches under the main actors in the article produced nothing. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well... unless a Christian film is big budget with major stars and wide distribution and advertising, it is more difficult to find sources. Just sayin' Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete perhaps as the current sourcing still makes it questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I have speedy deleted as G11 and G12. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dharampal singh malik[edit]

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

Completely awful and un-notable. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 05:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11 because its a promotional resume and G12 because its copied directly from LinkedIn. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted username[edit]

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

The term "Wasted username" lacks notability. The only sources given are a Portuguese wiki and Urban Dictionary, neither of which is reliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons mentioned above. References contain NO reliability. Will211 (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no opinion on notability either way as of yet, but I don't think that it's wise to have a screengrab of an actual user account from another website and label it as a "wasted username", especially since the article asserts that this is a derogatory term. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. No coverage about the term itself in WP:RSs. Heck, there's hardly even any use of the term in reliable sources. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 06:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @ User:Beemer69 Way to insult a user's hard work! The content of the article is all factual. Saying that it's pure nonsense is pure nonsense. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it's pure nonsense.I couldn't corroborate the notability of the topic, but after it was explained I thought it was plausible. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I wrote when I PRODded the article, "Other than use of the term, I don't see substantial discussion about it on the Web." —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little use, not notable, no reliable sources. TheOverflow (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps although I would also suggest drafting and userfying later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Spears[edit]

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

Former news anchor and unnoticeable Public Information Officer in Florida. Both sources are dead. No noticeable awards, achievements, etc. Will211 (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable; no reliable sources found in search, just multiple other individuals sharing this name. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 06:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree.Meadow blue (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No coverage in WP:RSs. No subject-specific notability from being a local news anchor. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the statements in the article do not raise to the level of notability. PR officer for a sherrifs office, local news show reporter. This is not the stuff of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diên Niên – Phước Bình massacre[edit]

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

I have been concerned about the non WP:RS sources used and the obvious POV of this page for some time, I first raised a refimprove on this page in 2011. The principal refs are 3 now dead links. I have searched for this supposed event but just find repeats of this page. Mztourist (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Note that this article has been tagged for sourcing off and on since 2011, with editors removing tag without adding reliable sources. Massacre accusations require sturdy sourcing, and if it's out there for this alleged "massacre" I can't find it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability and improvements, unlikely to have any further information for this article. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Howard Stern Show staff. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Jordana[edit]

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

Simply reading this article will show you why the it was nominated for deletion. Woods01 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now -- I offer no opinion on the nomination at this time. --Finngall ^talk 04:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Exactly and none of this suggests better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is everyone ~~voting on~~ discussing? The nominator, Woods01 didn't say why this article was nominated. "I don't like it" isn't a reason to delete. I'd like to note that the article was vetted through the Articles for Creation process. Also, the subject appears to pass GNG. I think the nominator and those who voted delete, such as @Sir Joseph:, please say why you vote delete. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not known outside (and hardly inside) the Stern Show universe. Thechased (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Redirect to List of The Howard Stern Show staff. Thank you User:Finngall for finding this process and making it possible to discuss this subject. User:Megalibrarygirl is correct this was a defective nomination with no apparent WP:BEFORE. She's also quite correct that, given the defective nom, contributors to this process should feel obliged to give reasons for their assertion based on policy and sourcing. For my part, I'm not overly impressed with the sourcing to date. The MTV and Classicalite links seem to meet RS, but to my eye they appear to be routine entertainment news. Based on a reasonable search, the subject doesn't seem to meet WP:BASIC or WP:ENTERTAINER, at least not sufficiently for a BLP. I'd be willing to re-evaluate if better sources are shown. BusterD (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BusterD for the thoughtful response! I'm on the fence myself. The MTV sources seem good, especially since they are primarily about her. However, the other sources don't lend to her passing GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a second longer look, and I'm not seeing anything else. Using Newspapers.com, I did find one Asbury Park newspaper article which covers some of her 2008 cavorting (behind an additional paywall that even my own normal account can't access), but IMHO there's just not enough upon which to base a BLP. The Maddow transcript doesn't even mention the subject's name; the classicalite link is way tabloid. Aside from the MTV links which do directly detail the subject, I don't think there's enough to meet notability. The most inclusive thing I would agree to at this time is redirect or merge to List of The Howard Stern Show staff. Changing my assertion above; redirects are cheap. If the outcome of this process is that the article is deleted, I will redirect myself. BusterD (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Again, WP:CREATIVE is not the applicable criterion here. Despite this, consensus is that the subject does not meet inclusion criteria for an article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shanti Dynamite[edit]

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

Hardly any verifiable sources. Fails to meet general notability guidelines as well. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. unreliable sourcing. LibStar (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet GNG, NACTOR, PORNBIO. Has not received significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Has not had any notable roles as of yet. Has not received a major industry award or made genre contribution. Cowlibob (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Society Suckers[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The only meaningful hits in a music reliable sources custom Google search was a short XLR8R article. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 03:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 03:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above. Couldn't find print sources either. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador 21[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 music reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 03:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 03:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article, no convincing signs of better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find primary sources. No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands unless and until good refs can be found - David Gerard (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irritant Records[edit]

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

Article topic (currently unsourced) lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a music reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 03:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 03:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find primary sources, not any reliable independent sources to establish notability. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a book source from 2003 but it only mentions the name with the release of an album. Nothing on Newspapers.com and Google News turns up nothing. Fails WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has two notable artists, but one of those was only a 12-inch single (Captain Ahab), and the other (Jason Forrest) released a singular album on the label. If the claims of the article could be verified, I'd !vote weak keep because the operations of the label would bring value to understanding the genre, but as noted above there are no sources (and I could not find any either) that verifies any useful information about the label, therefore more than failing GNG guideline, it fails the more important policy WP:V. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear that the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Kelechi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is questionable for the applicable notability as mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus to delete after relisting. I discount the WP:BEAUTIFUL, WP:HOT !vote. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadia Khan (model)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. She has appeared in just a few serials. No significant coverage and no award wins. Musa^Talk ☻ 22:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 22:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 22:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 22:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 22:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:BEAUTIFUL, WP:HOT Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the above comment cannot be taken seriously and this current t article is not better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, I like her, you got to give a favor to your fellow Wikipedian. :) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment did she have the lead or top three in those serials, imdb says so but is unreliable?Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She had a lead role at least in one serial that I know off. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a WP:GNG failure. I can find primary sources, non-reliable blogs & fan sites, but no significant coverage in sources that would help establish notability. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NMODEL which covers both her careers. Legacypac (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem notable. Also, the references seem dubious. Rollingcontributor (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Watts[edit]

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

Promotional type article for a powerlifter. All four sources on the page are from a website called powerliftingwatch.com. I wasn't able to turn up any mentions from independent reliable sources. Don't think this meets the WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and WP:NSPORT doesn't appear to apply. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps at best as nothing here seems better convincing for notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. No coverage in reliable sources. No indication of subject-specific notability criteria being met. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amir (restaurant)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok, so it's a restaurant. Outside of that, I don't see anything in the way of WP:GNG being met here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tentatively pending some general discussion, or merge to a suitable list-article. Note there are more than 40 restaurants in the chain, as can be found by Google map search or by zooming out from the restaurant chain's locations webpage. And the chain is primarily French-speaking apparently, and coverage of it will be mostly in French language publications which tends to be less easy for us to find and interpret. I appreciate the nom's implied assertion that they looked for sources, but I expect that we just haven't found sources that do exist.

What is notability for restaurants is a big unsettled issue I believe, where I think a clear standard (like the standard allowing high schools where existence is documented) is needed. For example a restaurant chain having 20 or more branches should be presumed notable, I suggest.
Note many American restaurants with just one or two branches already have articles; I believe that non-American and especially non-English-speaking chains should have roughly equal standards. A chain of this size (>40) in the United States would have no problem being accepted as obviously notable.
In general the situation of new editors creating articles only to have them deleted by AFD as here, for vague reasons, is bad...it turns off potential good contributors. So there should be leeway given, if this is a new contributor (but I see that is not the case, this was created in 2010 by an editor who eventually was banned, in 2013).
Elsewhere (at Talk:List of pizza chains of the United States (where I mention this AFD), I propose a standard that a chain of 10 or more should generally be deemed notable for inclusion as an item on that list. The same reasoning applies here about separate article notability: a chain of more than 40 restaurants as here surely has coverage existing (though not yet presented), and this article should be kept.
If the decision were nonetheless going towards deletion, then merger/redirect to a suitable list-article that can include this chain as a list item would be better. That would be List of Canadian restaurant chains, which by the way includes an item with no footnote and just 12 outlets (Vern's Pizza), and an item with 25 outlets supported only by footnote to the chain's own webpage (Mr. Mike's). Actually merge/redirect to there would be okay by me as a quick resolution, leaving proof of sources until later, when the redirect could be restored to be an article with its edit history intact.

Thanks for reading! do ncr am 20:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable aside from its apparent local attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate Doncram's logic, but we can't keep an article because we think there might be sources that we can't find. As of now, searching for sources has turned up nothing significant. As for inclusion in a list article, I don't think we should include something in a list that isn't notable enough for its own article. The fact that there's another non-notable restaurant on the list is WP:OTHERSTUFF, but that's neither here nor there because this isn't the appropriate venue to discuss inclusion in the list. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert H. Tucker, Jr.[edit]

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

The notability of this businessperson has been questioned at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_23#Robert_H._Tucker.2C_Jr I think it's pretty marginal, but throwing it up for discussion. Legacypac (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not a debate forum. This is a Request for Comment (RfC) and discussion should be moved to the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? If the questions are "Is this notable?" and "Should it be deleted?", AfD is absolutely the forum. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see you citing from our WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as nom~~ for he is a standard run of the mill small business person not notable enough for an article. His business has not been deemed notable enough for an article. Being the ex-husband of a slightly notable actress does not rub notability off on him. Legacypac (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination counts as a deletion !vote, you need not do that again. Of course you can add further comments where you feel appropriate. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 17:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I saw this when it was nominated and was not entirely certain what to comment but, looking at it now, it perhaps seems questionable. Delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article seems to be built from the four books listed in the bibliography section. But when I searched those books, Tucker's name only comes up, at most, four or five times in each of them, which I would characterize as a trivial mention. The only other mention I turned up online is the Times-Picayune article, which isn't about him, but is about Tucker's daughter. Tucker himself only merits a mention early on. I don't think there is anything in here to suggest any particular notability - he seems to have been a mildly successful businessman who was involved in the community - nor is there enough reliable sources to create a page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerad Anderson[edit]

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

Non-notable actor and musician. Has been tagged for notability since 2008. Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I believe PROD would've applied, simply nothing better convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. It would seem there's coverage about things this person has been involved in (a movie, a band, etc). Those topics may be notable enough for their own articles, but I see no significant coverage about this individual. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hetman Uneraser[edit]

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

Promotional article from software's creator that lacks third-party sources; all the sources are by websites that also host the downloads. Article fails WP:GNG and utterly fails WP:NSOFT. Aoidh (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please check it non promotional reviews:

3Dnews - http://www.3dnews.ru/584888. 3Dnews is a very popular and trusted IT site - http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.3dnews.ru. This review contained 5 pages: http://www.3dnews.ru/584888, http://www.3dnews.ru/584888/page-2.html, http://www.3dnews.ru/584888/page-3.html, http://www.3dnews.ru/584888/page-4.html, http://www.3dnews.ru/584888/page-5.html.
Remontcompa - http://remontcompa.ru/754-hetman-uneraser-36.html. Remontcompa is a popular computer blog - http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/http%3A%2F%2Fremontcompa.ru.
Helplamer - http://helplamer.ru/?p=1520. Helplamer is a popular computer blog - http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/http%3A%2F%2Fhelplamer.ru.
Softkey - http://www.softkey.info/reviews/review11084.php and http://www.softkey.info/reviews/review16560.php. Softkey is a very popular and trusted IT site - http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/softkey.ru.

Hetman Uneraser has reviews on different languages:

Findmysoft is popular and trusted software archive: http://hetman-uneraser.findmysoft.com/. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/findmysoft.com.
Informer is popular and trusted IT site: http://hetman-uneraser.software.informer.com/. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/informer.com.
Idnes is popular and trusted IT site: http://cestiny.idnes.cz/hetman-uneraser-0jz-/Software.aspx?c=A150105_043548_bw-cestiny-software_zel. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/idnes.cz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.196.121.155 (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Blogs and download hosts do not show notability, nor do run-of-the-mill reviews, as WP:NSOFT points out. It does not meet any of the notability criteria that software should meet. - Aoidh (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3Dnews (http://www.3dnews.ru/), Software Informer (http://software.informer.com/), Idnes (idnes.cz) are not blogs or download hosts sites.

I check all other articles from this list - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_data_recovery_software. Most of the articles contains links to the official website or computer blog only. Please check:

That other potentially problematic articles exist is not cause to keep this one, each article must stand on its own merits, and this one fails to meet the notability requirements. - Aoidh (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft and userfy if needed as there's simply not enough to convince. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the sources cited are high quality. SJK (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM. I discounted the !vote by User:SwisterTwister as WP:CREATIVE is not relevant here (WP:NACTOR is the applicable criterion). This leave two !vote, which are convincing enough to close in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chace Ambrose[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, director and newscaster. I was unable to find much on him from a basic Google search. Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails both NACTOR & GNG - He's only starred in 6 tv shows/films all of which don't appear all that notable, Fails GNG as there's nothing on Google on him either. –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeti (programming language)[edit]

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

Article about an ML scripting language still in development (Version 1.0 release "in sight" as of one month ago, with no suggestion that it's actually been released as of today), sourced only to self-published web pages created by its own developer and citing no reliable source coverage to demonstrate that anybody else has taken notice of it at all. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform for computer developers to promote their projects; a programming language only gets into Wikipedia when RS coverage attests to its actual real-world usage. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signs of better satisfying the software notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. A search with the author's name included shows very few hits. Without it, the results do not seem relevant. I even got a few hits on Indonesian yeti. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software (programming language) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this language.Dialectric (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Kingdom of Dreams[edit]

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

Not finding significant coverage of the novel in anything but blog posts. Would welcome an attempt to rescue -- but not seeing a good way to do that. Sadads (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likely Keep: It's almost certain to meet WP:BKCRIT#1. It was apparently a NYT Bestseller, and as a relatively WP:OLDBOOK (1989) that has had at least 30 editions (including many foreign translations), lack of visible RS English-language reviews doesn't mean no RS reviews. Blurb snippets quote Affaire de Coire magazine ("Wonderful!... Judith McNaight is truly the spellbinding storyteller of our times.") as well as something named Rendezvous ("one of the best ever"). Romantic Times gives it 5 stars. Additionally an independent blogpost from a sufficiently notable author or reviewer should still be considered reliable as a source of professional opinion against BKCRIT#1, for instance Sarah MacLean's post. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 11:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more can be done to establish notablity. If there are sources which show it to be a bestseller, add them. I don't think WP:OLDBOOK applies to a work as recent as this. Although this may not strictly be relevant to its notability, the article makes it sound like a load of hokum, it's not clear which English invasion of Scotland it is set during, it can't be set in the Wars of Scottish Independence if King Henry VII of England is a minor character. PatGallacher (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Per PatGallacher, I am not completely convinced of OLDBOOK: 1989 isn't fully in the digital blackhole of internet coverage for sources. I tossed this article out there, because we need the sourcing to be integrated. @Hydronium Hydroxide: integrate what you find, and we can see who else scrapes together sourcing. Sadads (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found the NYT list mention and the RT review would count as usable. This is a good start, but I'd like to see at least 1-2 more sources before this would really be a keep on my end. Redirecting is likely the best outcome here, since that would make it easier to restore if more sources can be found. It seems like there should be more sources out there, but this is never a guarantee, especially as during this time period romances tended to get passed over for review and in-depth coverage because they were seen as "silly" or "frivolous". (This actually still happens nowadays...) As for the blurbs from other places, we'd have to see the review in question to make sure that the review is usable, because sometimes a blurb is just a promotional blurb written specifically for the book jacket. It looks unlikely in this case that it's just a blurb, but we still need to be able to verify this. Now when it comes to author reviews, that's tricky since we need to be able to make sure that there's no connection between the two (ie, friends or they share an agent or publisher). If we can show that there's no strong connection, then I'd consider her a RS in this situation, given the amount of awards and other accolades she's received and that the review is a review and not just a blurb. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McNaught's publisher for the Westmoreland Saga is Pocket (Simon and Schuster) while MacLean is Avon (HarperCollins). Showing that there's no strong connection is kinda proving a negative, but MacLean also credits McNaught (but not KOD) here, her list of faves are here, and a quick search of their names together doesn't throw up any flags. As an additional source, Romance: The History of a Genre from Dana Percec (a Dean at West University of Timișoara) includes a lot on KOD including (titter ye not) "Table 1-4: Features of the sex scenes in Judith McNaught's A Kingdom of Dreams". ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 13:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two other author sources: Elle Daniels (not NYT bestseller but published by Forever=Hachette), and this interview with NYT bestseller Tanya Anne Crosby who's primarily with Avon (authorsinterviews appears reliable for the purpose). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 14:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Buffalo library lists a short review by the School Library Journal here - [6] - "Judith McNaught, now best known for her soft romantic suspense, created an iconic dynasty in the romance genre. While the Westmore-lands were featured in only three historicals, the family's impact in romance fan circles was huge. Set in the 15th century, Kingdom of Dreams .., the first book in the series, is filled with McNaught's trademark mix of lush romance and horrible conflict." so it may just squeak over (or to be more romantic, soar majestically:)) over the notablitiy line? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources (apart from the two blurbs and the Elle Daniels) have now been integrated by Tokyogirl79 and myself. Character section might be a bit OR. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 13:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at best as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Issued by major trade publisher, Significant run as an NYT bestseller, review in significant national magazine, discussion in scholarly work. That's enough to demonstrate notability absent a solid refutation. Even relatively recent book reviews are notoriously difficult to track down online, and coverage for most notable books from twenty-five+ years ago is print-only or mostly paywalled or in proprietary databases. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a bestseller , reviewed in RS, NY Times reference, passes WP:GNG and WP:V Atlantic306 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ladyscraper[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 custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 23:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 23:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Carcupino[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for this project, fails WP:ARTIST. Article created by an indef-blocked editor with a history of fabrication and suspected hoaxes (see, e.g., this and this). The two sources in the article do not have any relevance whatsoever to this person (they are about Carlo Carrà and Francesco Hayez respectively); the references were copied from Brera Academy, where they were originally added by me with this edit in 2014.

Carcupino wrote and illustrated a cartoon in Sgt. Kirk in 1969. He gets one hit on Scholar (a passing mention in a bachelor's-level thesis), 0 hits on JSTOR, is not in Grove Art or Benezit. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~because you want to delete this author? is a beautiful page, the author is known, he also created the framework for the Pope.~~

~~He was very famous.~~ --Max Araldi (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Sock of indef blocked editor User:Alec Smithson[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a lot of books, albeit not in English. This is a case of systemic language bias, and one of GIGO. If you search the books in other languages your notability concerns will be assuaged. WP:Before seems to cover this. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, 7&6=thirteen, this is not a case of WP:Before, and your accusation of systemic language bias is close to being offensive. Obviously I reviewed the few gbooks sources (they're mostly the same as those in the bibliography of the article) before nominating this and, as you can see, reported in my nomination the only remotely notable fact I found in them (a story in Sgt. Kirk). I didn't trouble to report, for example, that between the ages of 14 and 17 Carcupino participated as an avanguardista (a kind of Young Fascist) in a plastic modelling competition reserved for students of Istituti d'Arte and Accademie di Belle Arti. He appears to have been, as the Romanian source says, one of the Gruppo di Venezia, the (fairly large) group of draughtsmen around Hugo Pratt. So please, tell me this: which of the statements in the article are substantiated by the many sources you found? In how many of those sources did you find in-depth coverage of this person, his life and his work? Did you find the two references in the article at all useful in establishing his notability? Or would you care to revise your comment? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not an accusation. Sorry that you took it as such. I simply have a concern that we are looking at English language sources, and that is a systemic bias. If you don't input the right name in the right language and format, it is easily possible we are missing sources that could develop the article. Indeed, there are lots of sources already listed, although I observe that the in line citations here are dismally bad (i.e., absence, poorly formatted). I note that when one clicks on "Books" in the listing there are several listed. Unfortunately, text seems largely unavailable. I am glad that you found one of several sources that mentioned him in a fascist connection. Whether that makes him notable I don't know. But the article as it is holds promise. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 7&6=thirteen. I think WP:BEFORE applies here. reliable sources in other languages also establish notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Before "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Just about notable I think. He certainly seems to exist his website. Judging by a google images search, his work had one big theme, which the article doesn't really do justice to. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel Tie[edit]

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

Refs consist of press releases and dead links that do not rise to the level of conferring notability. Article needs references to reliable, independent, verifiable sources to be retained, and these appear to be lacking. Band had won no major awards, and is not signed to a major record label. KDS4444^Talk 09:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator's rationale. Band fails notability guidelines. Safiel (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the group lacks the coverage or the achievements necessary to meet either WP:BAND or WP:GNG Valenciano (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm afraid I discounted the !vote by User:AugustinMa as their argument did not address how the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. I also discounted the !vote by User:SwisterTwister because WP:CREATIVE is not relevant here, rather WP:NACTOR is. After this, there is, I think, consensus that the subject does not meet inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle Perris[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR. There are no reliable sources to be found about this woman, and a google news and google books search only finds few sources saying the name of this actress in passing mention to a film or TV show she appeared in, which her resume also appears to be very small. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 04:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minimal article but the actress has had prominent roles in six feature films and a tv series called "Zimm".Atlantic306 (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... OK, at least her filmography's a little better than I though it was, but still, the actress needs in-depth coverage in independent sources. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 18:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm just not seeing the notability here. Even if we look at the credits list at Imdb, we don't see much evidence of "prominent" roles. Two of the three films mentioned in her Imdb biography don't have her listed on the posters for those films, so even the producers of those films didn't think her roles were significant. The one exception is for The Golden Veil, for which she is also credited as an associate producer (which suggests that she got her starring role because she helped finance the film). In any event, it isn't a notable film. In addition, there has been a multiple-issues banner on the article for almost four years. I see no plausible prospect for any improvement. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- When I wrote prominent I meant 1 top billing, 1 second billing, 2 third billings, 1 fourth billing,2 fifth billings,plus recurring 4th billing in admittedly short lived tv series.Atlantic306 (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. But considering that WP:NACTOR calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films ...", would you specify which of those roles meet this criterion? NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia red tape is what's preventing me from wasting too much time editing articles and contributing more. AugustinMa (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator not being able to contribute to the article is no excuse for an article to be kept. The least you can do is link in this discussion to reliable sources proving this woman is notable. And what the hell do you mean by "Wikipedia red tape" anyway? edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 07:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and can't see how they pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged. The discussion is very slightly leaning toward a keep result, in part per the first delete !vote (after the nomination), which does not provide a guideline or policy based rationale for deletion. There is disagreement regarding whether or not the topic meets notability guidelines, and no consensus has formed herein about this matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keshdhari Hindus[edit]

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

The page is about a term used by a Hindu nationalist organisation. There is no evidence that it is used by reliable sources or by general public. So it fails WP:GNG. It can easily be covered by a short mention on the organisation's Wiki page. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about a throw away term, even mention of the term is not encyclopedic. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DO WHAT YOU WANT TO; BUT THERE IS NO PROOF THAT REFERENCES ARE NOT RELIABLE - There are many evidences including the sources which are mentioned. Multiple sources including reliable Books, Magazines, Newspapers quoting and explaining term and still nominator is doubting its reliability. The boss of RSS quote this term for Sikhs. For general public; it is controversial term and heavily debatable, also full fledged organization was excommunicated by Sikh Highest authority; due to this. Well you can delete article; if it does not meet your reliability and your criteria. (Karantsingh (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself and the facts in the article is controversial where it also lacks General Notability Guidelines. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now at least and improve if needed given the current information and sources. ~~Delete as questionable, restart or draft & userfy later if needed.~~ SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, derogatory terms are not proscribed per se from having articles (compare Yid and Kraut). The term is used often enough in Indian newspapers that readers may be led to look it up on Wikipedia. The article has some encyclopaedic value, being more than a dicdef. It would not be so appropriate to cover this in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh since it is used by other organistions as well; the article names Vishva Hindu Parishad as one, and the movement with which this term is associated, Hindutva, is (according to that article) the official ideology of the Bharatiya Janata Party. I think this is borderline enough that it should be relisted at least once before closing. SpinningSpark 13:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Strange comment that references are not reliable. I have gone through resource links: Jag Bani, Telegraph India, Zee News are among prominent news resources; The publisher Gyan Publishing house is used in variety of articles. Also Penguin Books, Taylor & Francis are also famous ones. Asgharali Engineer, Paul Spickard are notable social activist and historian respectively. So can we trust on reliability of everything? Also message of highest authority of Sikhs is attached. (Ajrawats (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Rocchi[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and WP:CREATIVE. All of the sources in the article consist of passing mentions of the 'this was designed by...' type. None actually discuss him in any significant way. I was unable to find any better coverage. Jbh ^Talk 15:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't read Spanish very well, but my assessment of the coverage is the same as Jbhunley's. The assertion that Rocchi has been "designing some of the most significant buildings and other main works in the Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires" does not seem to be supported. --bonadea contributions talk 14:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I didn't find any proper references in Spanish as well. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best and draft and userfy later if needed as the current article is questionably better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quis-ego[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no good sources, and probably WP:NOTDICT. The best I could find when I went looking for sources or notability was this English Stack Exchange answer, which references the Oxford English Dictionary and a brief mention in Lore and Language of School Children, but nothing more substantive. —me_and 14:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dibs (2nd nomination), where a similar article has recently been deleted on WP:NOTDICT grounds (and fixing up links to that deleted article is how I found this one). I think that discussion had more claim to NOTDICT than this one, but that still doesn't solve the lack of reliable sources or other indication of notability. —me_and 14:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —me_and 14:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched for the term and found next to nothing. Does it only exist in novelty dictionaries? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signs of a better applicably notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Masters Champions League. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libra Legends[edit]

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

This article is largely unreferenced and not so notable to have an article of its own. — 115.118.229.213 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.229.213 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 3 February 2016‎

Comment I've fixed a malformed AfD nomination on behalf of IP 115.118.229.213 (they created the discussion directly to the log) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Masters Champions League. The coverage is all about this event, and apart from that, they don't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Qed237 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leave it with me. I will expand that GreenCricket^TALK 11:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a policy-based comment, as it does not show any Wikipedia policy for why it should be kept. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article about Libra Legends which is a member club of the Masters Champions League (MCL), should not be deleted. I will expand this writing about a Twenty20 franchise of former international Cricket players gradually. SalmanSaleemPK (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple seasons, then in time they may become independently notable. At the present time, all the content in reliable sources is just about Masters Champions League. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Masters Champions League as this is newly founded and unlikely to be independently notable yet, current article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Masters Champion League for now. If there's a long term development of these franchises then there might be a case for redirection and I'd consider that separately at that time. Note that promises of redevelopment have not been met. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability is not inherited from the LaTeX packages he created. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Till Tantau[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

To repeat what I said two years ago: the subject fails to meet the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. There appear to be no useful biographical records of the subject in secondary sources; present sources only contain short mentions acknowledging the use of his software. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Too Early. A GS h-index of 12 is not enough yet in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- I've read through the good arguments on both sides from the last two AfDs, but the number of citations seems too little for a professorial standard in computer science and other details can be merged into the Beamer article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since we're going back to 2-year-old arguments, I guess I'll repeat what I said, as well. Without waxing too much, we have numerous articles on significantly more obscure figures in the programming language community that have handily survived AfD, like Mark Jason Dominus or Audrey Tang. The previous AfD resulted in some good RSs that mentioned him and his work by name. It's easy to check the German media and find lots more commentary on his activities as a researcher and educator, for example the national daily Die Welt and the Lübecker Nachrichten both have articles on Tantau's educational program at Lubeck. I've added these. Agricola44 (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all agree that an h-index of 12 is a no-go in this case. But a different argument has been put forth since then. Agricola44 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the sources are just tangential references to a LaTeX package that he wrote. The package may be notable, but that doesn't make the creator notable when they are just mentioned as the author and nothing more. The sources of him being noted in the German media are just one-liners of him making a comment on a course. Nothing that contributes to the subject's own notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. The articles are not "one-liners of him making a comment on a course". Rather, they are about educational programs of which he is the director that have won large funding grants, which is noteworthy in Germany. Coverage of such notable activities/results/developments render the person responsible for those things notable per se. (If you doubt this, then do a little thought experiment: WP:PROF c1, undoubtedly the most frequently-used notability criterion for academics, works on the principle that a person's work is noted/cited, not the person herself. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, i.e. article stubs, there is no standalone, published biographical material whatsoever of the person. Under your philosophy then, citations would still not be enough to demonstrate notability. But, in all cases where there is a sufficient "citation" collection of sources, the article is kept.) Further, Tantau's educational programs are covered in high-level secondary sources. For example, Die Welt is a national daily, akin to something like USA Today or WSJ in the USA. I can't help but to illustrate the difference in sources for Tantau versus some of the other obscure CS language bios mentioned above that have handily survived AfDs. Agricola44 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The distinction that needs to be made is whether the subject's work on the subject is notable, or if it's the subject's involvement in the work is notable. This subject is covered as being involved in some notable topics, but it is more passing mention rather than a focus on the subject. Until the notability shifts to the BLP itself, it's best to just mention Tantau where relevant under WP:DUE in articles on LaTeX, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not the nature of the mention here that matters. It is the fact that national-level secondary sources discuss educational programs implemented/led by Tantau in detail (explicitly acknowledging his role). These are gigantic "citations of his work", if you like. At the very least, these sources render him notable under GNG. Agricola44 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The sources would need to demonstrate what you claim. Right now, Tantau only gets tangential mention at best in the currently used sources, which is far for gigantic citations of his work. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For this area, the most accurate representation of his research publication record is the one in DBLP, [7], although it doesn't have any measure of impact such as citation counts. I stand by my delete in the previous AfD: citation record not yet strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 and no evidence of WP:GNG-based notability for beamer. Re Xxanthippe's comment about this being a highly cited field: yes and no. The field is on the border between mathematics and computer science, and is much more highly cited than pure mathematics, but not quite as high as more systems-y computer science. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agricola44 and passing WP:GNG. Also Qwertyus nominated the last AfD on this article & needs to learn to let go of grudges. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to take Qwertyus's nomination here in good faith -- the last nomination was two years ago and no consensus after a previous delete, so I don't think one needs a grudge to want to bring this back up. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment, unfortunately, is not based solely on this one event. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 16:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Assuming the article is accurate, why wouldn't merging to Beamer (LaTeX) be preferable to outright deletion? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there would be anything to move really. It would just mention the subject as the author, and that's really about it. That's why I'm looking at a delete instead of merge at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhakar Kesavan[edit]

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

A search for references brought up user-generated content websites along with business directories. The article creator, User:CindyBlankenship created a number of biographies for Indian executives during August 9-20, 2010. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this also has no better convincing signs of a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one of the series is also notable. CEO of a Billion-dollar company is normally a position that usually brings notability. Better references are of course needed. The problem with indiscriminately writing a series of bios such as this is that the good ones tend not be noticed. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 12:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jagjeet (Jeet) S. Bindra[edit]

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

A search for references brought up user-generated content websites as well as business directories. The article creator, User:CindyBlankenship created a number of biographies for Indian executives during August 9-20, 2010. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing of the current article convinces the better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike the others in this series, I think might just be notable. Being one of the directors of a company is not notable (did the author perhaps confuse this with the UK position of Managing Director?), but he was CEO of several different Chevron-associated firms. At least move to draft space. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 12:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry J Wilson[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Somewhat promotional too. If he had a Telegraph obit he may be notable but at the moment looks like someone is publishing a bio based on regiment history Gbawden (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep prior consensus is that CBE is generally a sufficiently notable award. Telegraph doesn't have online archives from 1985 - you'd be better off checking out The Times (especially) or The Guardian (less likely but worth checking), and of course Who's Who. Also commanded a battalion (a unit of reasonable size) in frontline operations during the North African campaign. Claudebone (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be lacking sourcing that really marks out notability. Just writing "His successful career and promotion through the ranks are noteworthy" in the introductio does not make it so.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 12:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been established over many AfDs that the CBE is sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. If he was considered notable enough to be awarded a high honour by the British state then he is certainly notable enough for lowly old Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before Anybio it does say "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". At the moment its not even cited that he got his CBE. And the Gazette is proving intractable at moment else I'd put it there myself once I'd confirmed it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has an entry in Who's Who in which his CBE is listed. He was a prominent members of the National Farmers' Union (member of the Council from 1954, deputy president from 1959 to 1962 and treasurer from 1971 to 1981) and chairman of the Bacon Consultative Council (!) from 1957 to 1964. No, none of that is particularly exciting, but it does show why he was awarded the CBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy as compromising as this may not yet be solid enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medal "XV years rescue service russia"[edit]

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

Individual medal of negligible importance, does not meet WP:GNG. Aeonx (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best perhaps and draft & userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find reliable sources to substantiate the notability of this topic. However, there may be foreign language sources that I could not find (I do not speak Russian), and I am willing to change my vote if other editors can show that reliable sources discuss this topic. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ttakji[edit]

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

No indication what this actually is, or why it is notable. CxHy (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I think that ttakji is notable in South Korea--CxHy (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)--CxHy (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- ttakji is notable games in South Korea. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- ttakji is notable game in South Korea. -- 낙동혁명 (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mentioned here: Pogs#South_Korea. I added two citations there and an alternative spelling. In the other citation it says the game originated from Japan in the 19th century. This is probably according to some Korean information not stated in that book. Since Menko is mentioned right above in the pog article, it's logical to assume it to have been the ancestor. The instruments are quite different though, with menko played with actual cards. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead and & userfy as this contains nothing convincing of a better article. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as although this could be relisted thrice for better attention, that may simply be taking space, time and efforts where the consensus seems currently clear. This is also considering I was thinking of voting myself but was never certain how and what to comment, still closing as Keep though because of the listed votes (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Belmar[edit]

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP, with definite public relations/advertorial overtones, of a person notable primarily as a county police chief. While the county in question is large enough, and near enough to a major metropolitan media market, that he might be reliably sourceable enough to satisfy WP:GNG, local chief of police is not a position that entitles a person to an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist — and a single source doesn't get him over the bar. Delete, unless somebody can source him a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is St Louis County, population over one million. the area surrounding the city. The police chief of that city would be notable, and so is he. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were sourced and written properly, I'd have left this alone. But "chief of an exuburban police force near a major metropolitan city" is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability that entitles a person to a presumption of notability on an article that's written and sourced like this — it would be enough get a person into Wikipedia if the sourcing and substance were already there, but it's not enough to make him an automatic keep regardless of article quality. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heads of police departments of major cities appears to meet notability requirements. There's even a category for St. Louis Police Department Chiefs, so Belmar's article is far from an anomaly. (I'm not arguing WP:WAX; I'm pointing out that that category, and this one, in which it is nested, suggests a consensus that the occupant of this position is notable by virtue of the position.) Needs cleanup, better referencing and additional categorization, but that's not an issue for AFD. TJRC (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except he's not the chief of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department — he's the chief of the separate, suburban St. Louis County Police Department. Which means that he's got a lot less claim to an automatic presumption of notability than his big-city neighbours do — he could be kept if the article were sourced a lot better than this, but he doesn't get an automatic "because he exists" freebie just because some the chiefs of the next police department over from his have articles (most of which are actually sourced so badly that in reality they're probably deletion candidates too.) Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chief of a police department with over 800 officers policing a population of over 1 million. That meets my notability standards per common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense does not trump the lack of sufficient reliable sourcing to meet WP:GNG, especially in a WP:BLP. And at any rate, my definition of common sense (at least as it pertains to Wikipedia) includes being conscious of the fact that a Wikipedia article can be tilted far too strongly in a public relations/advertorial direction (as this is) and/or far too strongly in an attack-page direction (as this could very easily be rewritten to become, if it isn't generating enough "good editor" traffic to control for that), and that RS coverage is our only mechanism for keeping an article on its moorings. And my definition of common sense includes the fact that a deleted article can be recreated again in the future if somebody can do a better job than the deleted version. So my common sense doesn't permit anybody to keep an article that's written and sourced like this, because deleting this now is not making it impossible for somebody to do better in the future if better can be done. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Greg Jackson (MMA trainer). (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 01:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson-Wink MMA Academy[edit]

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

Unsourced article that largely duplicates Greg Jackson (MMA trainer). Most of the available sources seem to only mention the organization in passing, and most are local news sources and blogs. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaidojutsu. - Mr X 01:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect instead, still questionable for independent notability. Delete as this seems to be an unlikely notable local place. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greg Jackson (MMA trainer). In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Jackson (MMA trainer) I mentioned that if there were two articles one on Greg Jackson and one on his gym one would have to go as one supports the other. There is no need for the level of duplication shown, the new article effectively did a copy.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greg Jackson (MMA trainer) There's nothing to show this merits its own article, so a redirect seems best. Papaursa (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alternate Reality (series). (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 01:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Price (programmer)[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 video game reliable sources custom Google search. I'd support a redirect to Alternate Reality (series), which was recently reversed. czar 22:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 22:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 22:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The game he is "known for" is barely notable in itself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The games he created were very notable, and pushed the hardware in innovating and creative ways.
Delete - Nothing better convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A short look at google reveals: I found at least two printed publications mentioning Philip Price: Dungeons and Desktops: The History of Computer Role-Playing Games (Matt Barton, ISBN 978-1568814117) and Vintage Game Consoles: An Inside Look at Apple, Atari, Commodore, Nintendo (Bill Loguidice, Matt Barton, ISBN 978-0415856003). There are several magazines from the 80s dealing with his game(s), too: “it [Alternate Reality] has been a smash hit over in the states” (ZZAP! 64, May 1986, p 75) So I'd say, Philip Price is indeed relevant. I am pretty sure there are many more pubs even in the academic world. Knurrikowski (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's let the secondary sources decide how independently notable Price is from the game itself. Dungeons & Desktops is a passing mention (nothing in depth that adds anything about the author's life, work, or importance, and certainly nothing we can use to write a full article), and the same for your other source. The Zzap source is about the game, not the developer. In fact all of the mentions are more about the game than the individual, and thus are better sources for the game than the individual. czar 12:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In German Wikipedia a game author (=Philip Price) is relevant if at least one of his games is relevant. Clearly, the game Alternate Reality - The City is relevant (bestseller in the US) and so Philip Price is. In this case relevance has nothing to do with the quality of the sources on the subject. What says English Wikipedia about game authors? Besides that, the current article has sources - not the best though - but is has some. What's wrong with the interview about Price's life, for example? The article should be kept. Knurrikowski (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I need not remind that this is not German Wikipedia? We use the general notability guideline here. See WP:42 for a shortcut. czar 16:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand what you mean, but I wanted to make clear that there is relevance just given by the mere existence of the famous game plus that the article has some sources. So, what would be significant coverage in _your_ opinion? What's wrong with that interview covering most of the person's life? Knurrikowski (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigcov, as a low bar subject to interpretation, is somewhere between three and five in-depth, reliable sources (as in enough content to write a substantial article on the subject). This list of vetted video games sources is a good place to start. If the interview isn't published by a reliable, secondary source, we can potentially use it within the self-published source about self guidelines, but we don't use it as an indicator of external notability (for obvious reasons—anyone can publish an interview on anyone). czar 23:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A programmer working on notable projects doesn't mean the programmer is notable. Sources listed mention Price in passing. --Soetermans. T / C 21:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote the entire game. To say that he "worked on the project" is like saying JK Rowling worked on Harry Potter. 24.206.189.220 (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alternate Reality (series). As much as it pains me to say this, I can't establish notability for him. Alternate Reality: The City is a truly classic game, but any notability for Price would be inherited from the game. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gannon Award[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article flunks the notability test; there is no mention in reliable secondary sources at all. In addition, the award appears to be a long-dead project. Both of the links in References are dead; the award website (http://www.gannonaward.org/) appears to have been repurposed by an unrelated law firm; and the Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/gannonaward) has been abandoned for the last four years. Spectra239 (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite notability not being temporary, I don't think the award was ever notable. The second (dead) source can be found here now, but it's a primary source as it is published by the institution of a recipient. There are some trivial mentions of the award, but all in the Nick Bostrom context. Bottom line, there are no independent reliable sources about the award itself, and as such it is not notable per WP:GNG. The award does not need to be the primary topic, but the mentions are clearly not significant enough even for that standard. There is no detailed information at all in RS, and there would be insufficient material to write a useful article without the award's background, founders, their motivations, the full list of recipients, etc. I can't see any article to redirect this to either. Gap9551 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If everything is in the Nick Bostrom context, maybe redirect to the Nick Bostrom article? Spectra239 (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The award is not mentioned in his article though (and probably shouldn't). There seem to be a few more Gannon Awards such as the Robert A. Gannon Award for Poetry and the Archbishop John Mark Gannon Award, so it may be confusing to redirect this page to Bostrom. Eugene R. Gannon Award for the Continued Pursuit of Human Advancement and Eugene R. Gannon Award exist as redirects to this article, and could be redirected to Nick Bostrom even if it is decided that this article should be deleted. Gannon Award is also a redirect to this article, and may have to be deleted if this article is deleted. Gap9551 (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 3 February 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, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft as this seems potentially notable but not currently considering the article is still currently questionable for notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PMHT[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Author removed PROD. See WP:NEO schetm (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DICT Mduvekot (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism, and WP:NOT#DICT. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Future Group. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ezone[edit]

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

Not notable. Speedy was declined as p"part of a notable organization". That is not in my opinion even an indication of importance, and certainly doesn't show notability . Dealing with subjects like this is one of the valid uses of WP:NOTINHERITED DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and at best then redirect to Future Group as none of this suggests better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Future Group per above. If you can redirect, don't smack the big red speedy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Future Group. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Graber[edit]

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

Promotional and cites no reason why the subject is otherwise notable -- dakern74 (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont see how they meet WP:NBASE. It looks like they never played in any leagues other than independent baseball, and not close to a major league. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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