< 14 February	16 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Zarinegar[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP. None of the sources discuss the subject except in passing and only in relation to the company. The subject lacks sufficient coverage, and is largely unsourced. Bilby (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and possibly merge. Web search reveals only social media profiles, the odd financial filing reports regarding the company, and little else. The company itself doesn't seem notable (but that's a conversation for another AfD). As Bilby says, sources are about the company anyway. It also reads like an autobiography, and more specifically like a LinkedIn page (WP:LINKEDIN). Fails WP:ANYBIO - no significant award (the award mentioned is "Emerging market leader" for the company (under it's former name), where he is mentioned as 'Sean Zar'? in a not particularly notable publicationm, and no obvious significant contribution to the field. If the company is notable, I'd suggest merging a short bio as a section (a lot of the content is promotional) Olly^{say hi} 16:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, I think that, the page can be merged with the company page as a new section.--27century (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable for the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not independently notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:10, 23 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 Dota 2#Gameplay. MBisanz ^talk 14:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dota 2 Heroes[edit]

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

WP:GAMECRUFT. This article should not exist, when nothing of the sort exists for League of Legends or any other MOBA. It doesn't even explain the heroes and what they do at the very least either, so I don't see the purpose. A list of heroes in the Dota 2 article would be removed, so how would this stand? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Prisencolin (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dota 2#Gameplay. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I think we can be bold about this, this is a clear case of a WP:GAMEGUIDE like article. I can't believe this has existed since November 2011. --Soetermans. T / C 14:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets notability guidelines for standalone lists with the number of sources present. We have articles on the fictional characters of in many video games and series, and Dota 2 happens to be one of the most widely played games in the world. Also, you can't really consider this to be a guide because it doesn't "read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box" Thus burden of proof lies in proving that article is an explicit game guide or fancruft rather than making vague waves towards such descriptions. --Prisencolin (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But it doesn't pass WP:GAMECRUFT #5 (class and attack type), #6 (most of the sources don't comment on the heroes themselves, but are either guides or their opinion), and #7 (obvious). None of the heroes are independently notable, and a list of them on the main article would be removed, so how does having an independent, but terribly written article, sidestep that? This page belongs on the Dota wiki, not Wikipedia. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any sort of rule that says guides can't be used as sources, only that wp can't be written AS one. Also, most of the sources very much do talk directly about the heroes as a grouping or even about specific heroes. Perhaps WP:LISTGLOSSARY can satisfy this article for notability? It is essentially just a list of terms.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing, this is very WP:GAMEGUIDE-like information, merely listing in-game information that is only useful for gamers. --Soetermans. T / C 08:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being "only useful for gamers" is a pretty subjective quality. I mean in that case we might as well delete the section on gameplay on the main dota 2 article.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed, in-game information like what role a hero plays isn't something Wikipedia should focus on, unless it's written as very basic information. Also, stuff like "The best Dota 2 heroes for beginners" should not be used as a source, I mean, what exactly are you trying to reference from it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That source was meant to try to establish notability. Maybe I'll remove it if it's clear that this is notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: These are the information that we do not want to have in an article because they are considered as WP:GAMECRUFT. Lead information can be merged to the main article in case this hasn't been covered already. If someone manages to turn it into List of Dota 2 characters with decent quality, I will withdraw my vote and go for keep, but as of now, this article is a violation of WP:GAMECRUFT. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as a non-notable list of WP:GAMECRUFT failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS, that focus on the list as a group rather than individual entries. Does not meet WP:LISTN and does not warrant a WP:CFORK from the parent Dota 2 article at this time. The available sources–although usable–do not provide material to write a meaningful article without WP:PLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT and with WP:WAF in mind. Such content can be summarized in the parent article with characters that are notable for the game's gameplay. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if there are any characters that are more welll known than the others, so I'm not sure if that's an optimal solution--Prisencolin (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of Melbourne Student Union[edit]

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

Not a notable organization by our standards, notwithstanding a few mentions in the press--which don't seem to discuss the organization in any depth. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the most famous campus student organisations in the southern hemisphere. Its ructions (and there have been many) have made mainstream news (in significant detail) many, many times, and I'm not remotely exaggerating there: I saw this and was like "uh, you nominated what?". If you were trying to make some point by nominating a student union for deletion, you sure picked about the worst conceivable example in this end of the world. (For context, this editor nominated the Monash University student union, an organisation with a UC Berkeley-like history that is ridiculously well reported on in all manner of sources, for speedy deletion, which shows the level of diligence that went on beforehand.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You should literallly stop yelling at me. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's the nature of Student Unions that their activities are inward, thus not covered extensively by the press - regardless, this one seems to have quite a few mentions nationally, appears to have been mentioned in parliamentary debate, and exists in a notable university representing 42,000 students. If this criteria is applied, a lot more student unions would be nominated. The article definitely needs a lot of work, and doesn't appear to be have been extensively updated for some time, so keep and improve. Not totally familiar, so open to thoughts to merge Olly^{say hi} 23:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentions in parliamentary debate, that may help, if you have some secondary sources to verify this--or to verify anything about its importance. The best verified thing here seems to be some commentary about Mrs. Thatcher, verified with one mention in a newspaper. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you see that mass-AfDing a bunch of notable organisations instead of asking politely is going to get you off on the wrong foot if you're genuinely interested in seeing these topics fixed? This article doesn't need mentions in parliamentary debate, because it's about the lowest-quality of source on the subject; in this particular case, where major widely-reported stuff went down a year or two before our newspapers started publishing all their articles after that in Google for free (and that is not remotely the union's claim to notability, just the most obviously major news thing that happened last decade), you could have saved us all the trouble by going through Factiva before nominating everything in sight for deletion or making any kind of attempt at research. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll just add what I was able to find regarding parliamentary debates^[1]^[2], as I've made all other points above. I'll concede the reference is sort of fleeting, but the organisation is notable enough to be mentioned and understood. The context isn't readily available due to the nature of release of old Hansard. I'll add that many other much less notable organisations are kept on less, and within the context of education and universities in Australia, I'd be hard-pressed not to find this notable. For the sake of completeness of the encylopedia, I think this needs to stay Olly^{say hi} 08:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just in case that isn't enough, let me point out that Factiva has 472 newspaper hits for the union, many of them focused directly on the subject. I'd also point out that Factiva's coverage gets really patchy in Australia before 2000, and this is an organisation that has been around and prominent since 1887. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. There appears to be some confusion going on here due to an objection to the words "student unions." --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears notable, and has encyclopedic value. Unclear why nominator wishes to delete. Aeonx (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Drover's Wife has provided sufficient sources to demonstrate the subject's notability. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 20:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glamour Solos[edit]

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

Fails NFILM and the GNG, and violates WP:NOTDIR. "Best Solo Release" (aka something like "Outstanding Achievement in Masturbation") falls well below the NFILM standard of "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". No independent sourcing, reliable or otherwise. Just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of castlists. The article just bristles with unacceptable content -- original research inaccurately conflating three different video series with similar titles into a single line, cut-and-pasted promotional copy, wretched sourcing. It also achieves new depths of porn related stupidity: among its listed notable female performers are male professional poker player Kenna James and former major league baseball player Randy Moore, who is apparently masturbating posthumously. There's no reason to salvage anything from this mess. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - As per Hullaballoo. A web search shows nothing but where to watch it - porn and streaming sites. The series is on IMDb, but what isn't - also the IMDb entries are nothing but cast lists, no ratings, no reviews. Would struggle to find what criteria it meets at WP:NFILM. References are shaky at best - mostly links to the award nominations at AVN. Also pretty promotional, but this is by the by. If anyone from WP:XXX can offer a different perspective, ~~I just don't see how this is notable or valuable to the encyclopedia~~ Olly^{say hi} 22:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - changed from delete as per clarifying comments from Erpert and Rebecca1990 - I think i underestimated the notability of AVNs. Thanks for the insights, I suppose porn has a different context to mainstream filmography that must be considered. The rest of my comment still stands re promotional, but the awards make the article notable, thanks guys Olly^{say hi} 09:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Adding a recommendation to keep and improve the article with regards to tone and references Olly^{say hi} 09:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think "Best Solo Release" is getting confused with "Best Solo Sex Scene"; although the latter has been determined to not pass notability by itself, I have yet to find a consensus stating that the former doesn't. And the argument that there is no independent sourcing is inaccurate; the only way it would apply is if all the sources came from girlfriendsfilms.net—and frankly, this is a common mistake that comes up in porn-related deletion discussions: as I hinted at here, the subject of the article is Glamour Solos, not pornography (pornography is the category). There are plenty of independent sources from AVN, XBIZ, etc. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - many awards, notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFILM with 5 AVN Awards for Best Solo Release/Movie ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please identify any discussion supporting your claim. Neither WP:NFILM nor any pertinent discussion on its talk page supports your claim that all AVN Awards inherently meet the NFILM standard of a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking, or that an AVN Award in a narrow, down-level category like "Best Solo Release" (ie, masturbation video) is legitimately considered a major award. The complete absence of independent coverage of that award so plainly belies the argument. Since NFILM is careful to state that its award criterion is merely a "rule of thumb", a less reliable indicator than found in other SNGs, and that independent third-party sourcing is required, the lack of such sourcing compels deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to disagree with you that AVN award is not a notable award. AVN award is a major award for excellence in pornographic industry. It was first awarded in 1984, over 30 years ago. Today, it's a major award specific to pornographic/erotic film and video as demonstrated by multiple independent reliable sources including this book published by Harvard University Press. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep .... We all know why I'm !voting Keep and it's not because of policies. –Davey2010^Talk 03:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - My !vote is a "HOTTIE" one... –Davey2010^Talk 22:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 5 AVN Awards are enough to meet WP:NFILM. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:08, 21 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 03:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic organizations of Nigeria[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is about Eket front and not about all ethnic organizations in Nigeria. Still could not find any strong source to show that it passed notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be about an organisation called the Eket Front, which fails our notability requirements. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really obvious delete. No references, nothing on Google for "Eket front" excepting this article and a facebook page. And the article name is highly misleading. Created by the eponymous SPA User:Eketfront in April 2015, and they haven't edited since. Frankly, if I'd come across it at an earlier stage, I'd have speedied it. It appears the only reason the previous AfD was closed as "no consensus" was the complete lack of interest. It was "relisted to generate a more thorough discussion" twice, fruitlessly. Please let's do it right this time. Bishonen | talk 15:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete: Very obvious this is a hoax! Wonder how it stayed this long before deletion. Misleading title, without any content.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is actually speedy material. Not notable at all. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 09:00, 22 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 14:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ICES - International Civil Engineering Symposium[edit]

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

This new article, written by the eponymous editor User:Ices516, is purely self-sourced, with no third-party sources to indicate notability. The author has removed my PROD without explanation, as is their right. I have asked on their page whether they have a conflict of interest, as the name sounds like it, and the article is pretty promotional. ("ICES'15[7] was all over a huge success", etc.) Bishonen | talk 19:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - It really does read like a brochure -"It was commenced with the releasing of the conference proceedings by our guests Dr. Robert Stevans". At first I thought the event itself might be notable, but with poor content, but there really doesn't seem to much mention of it online. Personally, it seems 'international' is slightly misleading. A lot of the content wouldn't be usable anyway, and as per Bishonen - with a username like that, it would seem they are only here for one purpose, though we'll await their reply Olly^{say hi} 22:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Olly150, but the new user has not responded to my question, although they have continued to edit (and have again moved) the article. This could be one of those unfortunate cases where the individual isn't aware they have a talkpage. There may be more chance of them joining the discussion here, which is linked to in the AfD template at the top of the article. We can hope. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen, I think you may be right, and I now see that the user has been blocked due to the WP:UNP violation. So unfortunately it looks like they haven't, or more likely didn't realise to, engage with the concerns. The strongest AGF but the article is what it is Olly^{say hi} 09:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly promotional with no evidence of non-trivial third-party coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Kinu. --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 22 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 14:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Health association[edit]

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

Unreferenced and lacking in useful content Rathfelder (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources and really more of a dictionary definition. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Article's topic is too obscured and impossible to verify with no sources. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Definition is so broadly drawn as to be useless. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:14, 23 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. Per the consensus here and the previous AFD's consensus (as well as the consensus at the two other AFDs linked in the discussion below), this article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Youth Organization (United Kingdom)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:ORG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I represent the WYO and we were distressed to see the page had been marked for deletion. We'd welcome any help in rectifying issues with the page. Thanks. JackMeeson (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the previous AFD discussion (WP:GNG and WP:NCORP). There are some sources that discuss the launch of the organization, but there doesn't seem to exist significant secondary coverage on the company itself. I mostly see primary and self-published sources, and because of this, I feel that it's WP:TOOSOON for an article at this time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply because there's just not enough coverage yet. I would wager that this organisation will no doubt be notable in the future, but they need to be in Wikipedia because of what they do, not what they may do - and they were only founded a month ago. I'd encourage the contributors to definitely reconsider writing the article in 6 months - with some significant national press under their belt. However WP can't serve as a directory for up and comings. Certainly a case of WP:TOOSOON Olly^{say hi} 08:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails notability criteria for WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. No evidence of any significant coverage by independent reliable sources -- only blogs or trivial local news press releases about a single event. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - this article is also part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieran Goodwin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieran Max Goodwin and the subsequent sockpuppet reports and blocks from those AFDs. This relates to previous attempts by socks and SPA meat puppet accounts at self-promotion of Kieran Goodwin and the World Youth Organization. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Tromp[edit]

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

Non-notable musician; sources do not appear to be reliable or prove how he meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC standards. The article was speedy deleted in January 2015 as a WP:HOAX. only (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best creating a page so I don't see why it should be removed. Should I add a record label, more details, dig deeper? Please let me know because I don't think it's a non-notable musician. Thanks, !testTimo92! — Preceding unsigned comment added by !testTimo92! (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at WP:MUSICBIO...what criteria there does he meet? And what evidence is there to prove he meets that criteria? only (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this including the Dutch Wiki has any better satisfying signs of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Take a step back from your computer, count to 10 and then re-read what you typed

- HyperGaruda (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and all WP:MUSICBIO criteria: no significant coverage in reliable sources, mentioned awards are from a non-notable social network for musicians, most biographical information is from a musician's version of LinkedIn, has never reached national music charts... - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As HyperGaruda said: Fails WP:GNG and WP:Musicbio. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient reliable sources. Fails GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:15, 23 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of prime numbers[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a how to guide reddogsix (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This has been created a couple of times, and speedied for context and for "made-up". As it sits now, this is somewhere between a personal theory (original research) and "nothing new" from the prime numbers article. Crow^Caw 19:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing new, nothing notable, several assertions with no proof or citation which suggests made-up and OR. Magidin (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, and I doubt the topic meets notability for a standalone article. There is no content on this in Prime number (except maybe for Goldbach's conjecture) so until there is proper content on the topic, there is no need for a redirect either. Gap9551 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is the author trying to disprove Euclid's theorem? Unless someone can show there are reliable sources substantiating the notability of this topic, deletion is the way to go. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is full of nonsense and I'm not sure there's anything other than nonsense here, unless you count trivial things like the fact that one can add two prime numbers together. "If an infinite prime number is summed to a finite prime number, then the infinite prime number invalidates itself." What would that mean? Or any of a number of similarly nonsensical statements? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see why adding prime numbers to each other is a notable topic. Are we going to write about adding even numbers next? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Blythwood (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, redirecting to Goldbach's conjecture would be harmless and perhaps even useful. Someone who has only vague memories of what Goldbach's conjecture says might enter "addition of prime numbers" into the search box. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Author states that "God could not make the added prime numbers stretch to infinity. Therefore an alien or us can never do the same" which says everything about the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:18, 23 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 14:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Detective (TV series)[edit]

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

Article has no references. Appears to be an amateur project starring a kid named Lewis Wheelhouse as a detective. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Nothing at Google News for "Lewis Wheelhouse", the lead actor of this web series. S1 E1 has 2300 views, S2 E2 has fewer than 300 views, so we're not talking about a web phenomenon. Looks like Wikipedia is being used for promotion or legitimacy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with submitter's opinion. Shritwod (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From LWPictures' website, it seems that it was initially a school project or along those lines. No sources, nothing on web search, and from the tone of the article, it seems like the main contributor has a WP:COI. Simply doesn't meet any criteria (WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, and as per Cyphoidbomb, WP:WEB). Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON Olly^{say hi} 22:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate this is notable beyond any other Youtube amateur videos. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and fails to meet the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:20, 23 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 personally think it might be notable, but there are still not enough reliable sources to prove it. I suggest re-creation in Draft space when there are, but not until then. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I2Pd[edit]

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

Inadequately-sourced article about software. The two sources cited in the article seem to fail WP:RS. No evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG notability. - Mr X 21:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, unfortunately.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 22:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails WP:RS. Ireneshih (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've been asked to reopen this discussion after having closed it, so that further arguments may be put forward. In particular, please consider sources that were added to the article since the nomination was made. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, around 10% of the I2P network uses i2pd and keeps growing, I believe it is an "applicable notability" meaning 1000+ routers. Ireneshih, unfortunately most of the information is located inside I2P, and can be considred as "reliable source" due the nature of this darknet. However last reference is an academic magazine mentioning EdDSA in i2pd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I2porignal (talk • contribs) 16:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't verify I2porignal's claim of 10% of I2P network using I2Pd, neither can I find any sources mentioning i2pd except the Russian blogs referenced in the article. Publishing the code on github does not warrant a stand-alone article. A selective merge to main article I2P would be an option if there were any reliable source. Harsh (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh, the only way to verify this statement is to run an I2P floodfill and collect some stats, e.g. you must do it inside I2P. You can's find any sources mentioning i2pd? Let me help. Try to search "#i2pd" in twitter, you will find a lot. Go to I2P main page, "Privacy solutions" section, it's there for a long time. "Except Russian blogs" sounds discriminating, doesn't it? Please, don't merge to the main I2P article, because it's completely different and independent project, delete it instead. Let's wait until it will take more that 50% of the network and I hope you and other guys will fill ashamed for statements like "Publishing the code on github does not warrant a stand-alone article" for the prject that exists more than 2 years and has a lot of customers including business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I2porignal (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely sorry if my comment was offending. The point I made was, blogs aren't considered a reliable source. Please understand that, as editors, we are only required to assess whether an article meets the given standard criteria. Since Wikipedia does't have a specific and detailed notability policy on software/applications except WP:WEB , the general guidelines serve as an outline for the purpose. Even if the outcome of the AfD isn't favorable, you can ask for moving the article to your userspace and you can re submit it in the future, if you think it meets notability. Harsh (talk) 00:51, 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 keep. There is nothing close to a consensus for this article to be deleted here; any further discussion in relation to merging the article (or otherwise) can be held at the appropriate location (the talk page). Therefore, the article's subject is found to be notable for stand-alone inclusion at this time, without prejeducie to a merger after further consensus is found on the matter. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Action Plan[edit]

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

This AfD needs to happen per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate action. Personally I'm not sure which way it should go. I like the current format of being basically a disambiguation page, but I question how useful it is. I leave it to the community to decide. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's a bit strange. Really it's a list of US organisations with a Climate Action Plan rather than an article about what they are. Is it just an offshoot of another article? Shritwod (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is much connection between Climate Action Plan and climate action - they just happen to have similar names. The climate action plan appears to be a name for a set of local plans in the USA; as such, it is probably a real if minor thing. Also, their capitalisation is different :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work, but serves as disambiguation and as stub to collect aspects common to all or most climate action plans. Hugh (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Speedy Keep Wikipedia:Snowball clause or Rename Useful information and links. This should not be deleted. That being said, it is a bit of a 'bait and switch' as it doesn't discuss plans or their meaning or application. Adding content to this article and having a linked "List of Climate Action Plans" (to/from this article content) might be a good plan. WP:Before not followed, or honored 'more in the breach than the observance.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: Thanks for this, I'd actually never seen WP:BEFORE before. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 17:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common affliction. Then there are editors who have seen it and don't think it applies to them. Another variant is a GIGO problem. Article names (particularly involving proper names and other language, alphabets, etc.) don't show up in searches. So even a diligent editor can be unaware of the potential sources. 17:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jsharpminor. If WP:BEFORE is new to you, then you will also have a leg up on other nominators if you study WP:Alternatives to deletion (WP:ATD). Note that WP:ATD is a Policy, as is WP:Before. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 06:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: Also, I believe the disagreement below eliminates the rational possibility of snowball closure of this discussion. We should let it run its course. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep There is a rich set of sources out there. This article needs to become less of a dab page and more of an expansion of the whole concept. It looks as if there is enough information to eventually provide a full article and a list of other articles. It should not be deleted. — Gorthian (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just found List of climate change initiatives, an outdated mishmash of a list that could eventually be a sort of "parent" list to this article/list. — Gorthian (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep I agree with Gorthian that this article can (and IMO should) be developed to more fully elucidate the contents of US President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. MaynardClark (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Climate action plan. Only one of the two refs refer to a Climate Action Plan as a title case proper noun, and that's the 2nd one. But it only does so in referring one particular plan, for Detroit. Tellingly, it then goes on to say "over 600 U.S. cities have developed climate action plans (CAPs)," which indicates that this is a common noun, and that our standard article capitalization rules for such should apply. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming 'CAP' to 'Cap' BECAUSE this term, 'Climate Action Plan', is a proper noun (proper nouns in English should be capitalized; the US President's Climate Action Plan should be capitalized!), and the US White House refers to this Executive Order as the Climate Action Plan.^[1]^[2] MaynardClark (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Oh I see. Well, if it's a so-named White House initiative the article lead needs to be rewritten to reflect that. There's no mention of that at all, currently. I'll strike through my !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to Category:Obama Administration initiatives, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ edit: Possibly just Merge to the master list /endedit This is a list of plans instead of the two duplicate climate articles AfD has gone through. Maybe rename it List of Climate Action Plans since there is only a brief intro until the listing begins. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed, like someone pointed above, that we already have List of climate change initiatives. Wikipedia's web of climate pages are quite confusing. At least I updated the see alsos of both articles that people can find content the other doesn't have while I try to wrap my head around this. I now also noticed there's thing called Biodiversity Action Plan. Is there a Biodiversity change mitigation article somewhere? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm second-guessing my vote. Since List of climate change initiatives is the "master list", is there a need for a CAP article at all since they all would naturally be included in the master list and some are already? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should List of climate change initiatives also be renamed List of climate change mitigation initiatives? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I oppose the renaming of List of climate change initiatives to List of climate change mitigation initiatives. No one on Earth in the year 2016 is suggesting that we should be changing the climate. Every climate change initiative currently on the board is for coping with or preventing uncontrollable climate change. That being said, we should keep the article as what it's referred to by in the press, etc. Google pulls up approx. 158,000 hits on "climate change initiatives"; "climate change mitigation initiatives" generates 9,800. Finally, keep article titles as short as are useful. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of books, articles, and essays that discuss climate action plans (see, e.g., this book and this book. This article definitely needs expansion, but deletion is not warranted here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or possibly Merge by incorporating List of climate change initiatives here and having it redirect here, rather than vice-versa for reasons explained in my second paragraph). The page started out as a disambiguation page, and I could see there should be no problem developing it into a full article. Based on the fact numerous cites have them and use the same name, I had no doubt there was WP:RS to be found, and I found a couple of journal articles and added them, but did not have time to include the abundant material in just those two articles. As stated above others are aware of more RS on the subject, so this article will no doubt eventually grow and be fully fleshed out from its recent infancy of a disambiguation page.

The one major advantage of the name "Climate Action Plan" over List of climate change initiatives is that it is simple and simple to Google, making it useful to those seeking information. When I Googled "Climate Action Plan", our article came first and I did not notice the other one. My guess is that the name "Climate Action Plan" developed from a diverse group of names, and now that is the name most commonly being used, which is why the other article is so old. For that reason, I am inclined to want to keep this one as a major source of information and so it still comes up in Google, and possibly move the bulk of the information from the other article (rather than the other way), unless there is something distinct that differentiates the two and then both should be developed separately. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink all the approach to all these articles

Currently from the leads:

- 'A Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a set of strategies intended to guide efforts for reducing greenhouse gas emissions'
- 'Climate action describes various efforts to prevent what is considered dangerous climate change'
- List of climate change initiatives: 'Here is a list of international, national, regional, and local political initiatives to take action on climate change'
- 'Climate change mitigation consists of actions to limit the magnitude or rate of long-term climate change'

The above four articles are all relatively confusing in any differentiation.

I suggest the best course of action is to look at them as a group, and not whether or not individually the should be deleted, merged, or rewritten.

May I suggest then that:

1. Climate Action be merged into Climate change mitigation with a redirect from Climate A/action to Climate change mitigation.
2. Climate change mitigation describes/defines what a Climate Action Plan is in a section with a link to the article List of Climate Action Plans
3. Rename Climate Action Plan to List of Climate Actions Plans (CAP)s
4. Climate Action Plan redirects to the section in point 2 above.
5. Climate change mitigation also in another section describes generally what climate change initiatives are, whether or not they are in documented specific CAPs, with a link to the article List of climate change initiatives. CAPs are the particular jurisdictions combinations of climate change mitigation initiatives and why that jurisdiction believes that combination is best for them. Climate change mitigation initiatives could be and are common/shared between jurisdictions.
6. Merge Avoiding dangerous climate change with redirect into Climate change mitigation
7. Move what are really CAPs from List of climate change initiatives to List of Climate Actions Plans and check generally for consistency

Aoziwe (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you suggested turning the CAP article into just a list of climate change initiatives that have the name Action Plan — like I did, is there really need a separate article or would they be well fit with just a section titled Climate Action Plans in the List of climate change initiatives article? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:31, 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 14:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shuja Ali[edit]

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

Unreferenced with no reliable sources found. There are a few passing mentions as the director of Baat Bann Gayi (itself borderline notable). Falls way short of the GNG. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as none of this suggests an independently notable article and this could also be moved elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. poorly referenced. LibStar (talk) 15:30, 19 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 03:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Kannah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Issac Kannah

Articles for deletion/Isaac Kannah

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

Isaac Kannah has not played in a fully professional league or for the Liberia national football team, nor has he received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Note: This article was previously deleted by discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issac Kannah. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:31, 15 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. No real need to salt given the near five year gap between the creation of the articles. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 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 withdrawn -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Agustín Delgado[edit]

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

These lists might be notable (per previous AfD's) if there is evidence as to why the subject deserves a list. In this case there is no reason for this footballer to have a list of goals. Simply not notable. Qed237 (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – Looks notable as the top scorer of Ecuador. Qed237 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Per This AfD, the player in question is his country's all time top scorer, that is clearly the justification of the list in the lede to the list. Fenix down (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As nominator, looking around it is apperently notable. Qed237 (talk) 14:55, 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 Nomination withdrawn.

Symbaloo[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, either in cited sources or in results of searches. Firstly, the sources cited in the article are: (1) Alexa Traffic Ranking information for the site, which is no evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, (2) a page at en.support.symbaloo.com, which is clearly not an independent source, (3) a review on cnet (4) a blog, (5) a news announcement when Symbaloo was going to extend its availability. The cnet review is the only one of these sources which could be regarded as the sort of coverage required by the notability guidelines, and that one review on its own is not enough. Secondly, I searched for information about Symbaloo. The first hits on Google were pages on Symbaloo's own web sites (www.symbaloo.com, www.symbalooedu.com, www.symbalooplaces.com), this Wikipedia article, download sites to get Symbaloo and similar, a blog, pages on the web sites of schools that use Symbaloo, designed to give people at the schools access to it, pages on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. Nothing at all that I saw could be regarded as substantial coverage, let alone substantial coverage in a reliable independent source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I originally proposed deletion (PROD) but the creator of the article expressed disagreement, so I removed my PROD, and left it to give the creator or anyone else a chance to find evidence of notability, but after three and a half weeks nobody has shown any sign of doing so, so I have brought it here for discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Frankly, I am a little surprised about this deletion proposal. We had a discussion about this before. I submitted a number of extra sources and asked for your help integrating these sources. Now you submit this deletion proposal, completely ignoring the extra sources I provided and my request for your help integrating them. For reference, let me copy the sources I cited before:

Theo Besteman (13 September 2010). "Symbaloo start aanpasbare startpagina met slot" (in Dutch). De Telegraaf. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
"Startpagina Symbaloo voorgeïnstalleerd op Toshiba computers" (in Dutch). Emerce. Retrieved 21 January 2016. ("Start page Symbaloo preinstalled on Toshiba computers")
"Appreview: Symbaloo" (in Dutch). Nu.nl. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
"Make a Modular Start Page with Symbaloo". Lifehacker.com. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
"Symbaloo Makes Creating a Modular Start Page Easier". Lifehacker.com. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
"Inlogproblemen plagen nieuwe Symbaloo". Emerce.nl (in Dutch). Retrieved 21 January 2016.

These sources clearly show notability. There's coverage from Emerce, De_Telegraaf, Webwereld and Lifehacker, which are all reliable and independent media. Furthermore: when I visited the IPON 2016 fair last week, there was nobody who did not know the name Symbaloo. Michieldewit (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, my sincere apologies to you, Michieldewit. You posted a list of sources to the article's talk page, and asked me for help. I said that I wouldn't have time to deal with your request properly for at least a few days, but, knowing that I might forget, invited you to come back and remind me in a few days. I duly forgot to come back to it, and you didn't remind me. Yesterday, when I re-discovered the article, I did not remember that you had posted sources on the article's talk page, or that I had said I would look at them. I do apologise for my mistake.

I have now checked the sources which Michieldewit posted to the talk page, and which he has now linked to again on this page, and here follows my analysis of them. The first link is the same one that is in the article, and which I listed as number 5 in my original post above. The second is a report that the company had announced that Symbaloo was now being preinstalled on some computers sold in Europe. The third is a 7-sentence description of what Symbaloo does. The fourth and fifth are two blog posts, by the same person on the same blog. The sixth is a news announcement that a new release of Symbaloo was causing logging problems.

Unfortunately, none of that adds anything different in character from the sources that I had already seen, and taken into account when I made the nomination: none of it is substantial coverage of Symbaloo, of the kind needed to establsih notability, in reliable independent sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Thank you very much for your apologies. I am not completely sure what kind of sources would establish notability, if not those stated before. Would this establish it? Michieldewit (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Nederlands webbedrijf Symbaloo boekt succes bij Amerikaanse leraren". FD (in Dutch). 1 February 2016. Retrieved 16 February 2016. (To read the article, access it through Google)

@Michieldewit: The description of the kinds of sources that support notability is at wp:rs. In searching I find quite a few schools that have this product on their web pages, so I would expect to find articles in education magazines -- and I did. I can't easily share them because they are behind a firewall, but here are a few citations:
- TOP PRODUCTIVITY TOOLS FOR ADMINISTRATORS & EDUCATORS , Tech & Learning, 06/2013, Volume 33, Issue 11
- Symbaloo Introduces a New Visual Way to Organize and Share your Online Life. Virus Weekly, 12/2009
- Organize online resources with Symbaloo by Miller, Shannon McClintock. Learning & Leading with Technology, 03/2013, Volume 40, Issue 6

I'm not saying that these are enough, but this seems to be the angle to use when looking for sources. LaMona (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 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. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 20:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historia (PUC Chile journal)[edit]

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

Article creator/maintainer has inadequate understanding of journal notability guidelines (WP:NJournals); attempts to request proof of notability were rejected with simplistic arguments: "its a major journal where many notable authors have published their works". fgnievinski (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see a rather vague rationale (not comply with WP:NJournals? How does it not comply?) with no specific point. Other than this the nomination is mostly an ad hominem commentary. Dentren | ^Talk 16:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not comply in any way -- unclear abstracting and indexing status, to start with. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Please quote from WP:NJournals#Notes and examples to demonstrate how exactly the present nominee is notable. If the the burden of proof cannot be satisfied, I suggest the journal be described in a section of the article about the publisher and a redirect be put in place. fgnievinski (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fgnievinski is wasting his, and mine, time here. The article complies with the three basic points of WP:NJournals: it is considered influential as its inclusion in the site Memoria Chilena (published by the National Library of Chile) attests.[6]. Second it is frequently cited [7]. It has historical purpose as sources in the article state within he journal figures like Jaime Eyzaguirre, Armando de Ramón(Chilean National History Award), Gonzalo Vial(Minister of Education), Gabriel Guarda(Chilean National History Award) and Ricardo Krebs(Chilean National History Award) converged. I don't understand the nomination as I it confusing to see its relation to Fgnievinski two attempts to move the page name on dubious grounds details here. Dentren | ^Talk 19:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it would seriously astonish me if a 50+ years old Chilean journal of history, founded by one of the most important Chilean historians, published in Chile by one of the top universities in all of Latin America, was not considered 'influential' in its field. I'm not saying it's impossible, but given I don't speak a lick of Spanish, I can't say I would support deletion at this time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indexed in Arts & Humanities Citation Index, so it meets WP:NJournals (I only checked the Thomson Reuters journal list, so there may be more). Article has problems and should be improved according to our writing guide, but that is not for AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's also in Scopus, as "Historia (Chile)" with print ISSN 0073-2435 (MIAR -see Headbomb below- uses the same ISSN). --Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It escalated to a deletion nomination because previous attempts at tagging the article for notability were removed with not proof or sourcing: [8] fgnievinski (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep kinda forgot about this one, but according to MIAR it's indexed in several high quality/selective databases. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NJournals; this is indexed in selective databases. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:39, 22 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. Contacting all participants of a previous discussion is not improper canvassing, in my view, so there's no need to doubt the validity of this consensus. Sandstein 20:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 70[edit]

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

Article deleted before on notability. Nothing has appeared to have changed from before. Nordic Dragon 12:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Dragon, where are you getting "Nothing has appeared to have changed from before" from? The deleted article read—in full—London Buses route 70 is a Transport for London contracted bus route in London, United Kingdom. The service is currently contracted to Metroline., plus a list of destinations. This is clearly different enough that WP:G4 doesn't apply; do you have any actual policy-based reason for deletion? ‑ Iridescent 13:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't WP:Notdir be sufficient? Myself and a number of other editors (i.e. User:Davey2010 etc etc) deleted/redirected a number of articles on the ground of notability. Nordic Dragon 13:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it's "sufficiently" identical, there is nothing additional which adds notability beyond "x happened on y date" Jeni ^(talk) 13:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of the many many London bus routes we have which don't even come close to meeting our notability guidelines. Some are notable, most aren't. Jeni ^(talk) 13:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Jeni. Nordic Dragon 13:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Per Iridescent. If it is deleted, then you may as well redirect it to List of bus routes in London rather than fully deleting it. I think you could have just redirected it to List of bus routes in London rather than listing it at AfD, like i did to route 66. Class455fan1 (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, are you suggesting we keep the article as it is, or are you suggesting that it be redirected to List of bus routes in London? It's not clear from your comment. If you're suggesting that the article be kept, how does this meet any of the notability guidelines? Jeni ^(talk) 13:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going for Keep because, while some routes may not meet the notability guidelines, they are encyclopaedic. They do have some facts on them. For example a fact can be "Did you know that, after a successful consultation, route 70 was extended to Chiswick Business Park?". People come to Wikipedia to find out information. I know this because sometimes when i am researching things for schoolwork and revision, I view the pages here. And i have seen people I know look at Wikipedia when they want to find out something.After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Plus, all information on there is supported by reliable sources, unlike on some where they have just fansites as sources. Bottom line is, I would like it to be kept because it is encyclopaedic. The reason why i said you could redirect it is because an AfD did not need to be opened i the nominator thought it wasn't notable, he could have just reverted back to your initial redirect. I was going to edit my initial comment but your question beat me to it. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, if my understanding is correct, you ascertain that because the 70 was extended to Chiswick Business Park makes it notable enough for inclusion? I question that logic.

There is a wikia dedicated to London bus routes where this information is better suited. Jeni ^(talk) 14:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was an example. There are a number of facts on that page, i just included 1 as an example. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see that there is anything about London bus routes which gives them an inherent notability to have an article in their own right. For one thing, unlike railway lines, there are a lot more of them, and usually a lot less to say about them. In the usual way, we'd be looking for independent secondary sources and coverage, of which I'm not seeing anything. JMWt (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is sufficiently notable to warrant retention, and aside from the 1st paragraph is now all cited. This seems more a case of I just don't like it. Given the wide array of editors that have contributed to the various London bus route articles, there seems to be at least a degree of interest.

Given that these AFDs seem to appear randomly, perhaps a more encompassing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport or somewhere similar needs to be held, to try and gain a consensus that could then be applied across the board rather than just having random discussions that may result in superior articles being deleted while inferior ones remain, For example some major city centre routes that are fully cited, e.g. London Buses route 390, have been redirected, while relatively minor outer suburban routes, e.g. London Buses route K5, remain. 11Expo (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care to expand on how this route passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines, or are you !voting on the basis of I like it? Jeni ^(talk) 08:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this article. It can give you more information about this bus route. Jeni, please keep this article, but referencing with more verifable sources as part of the standard of Wikipedia. Do this for every bus route in London, please --83.67.147.66 (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@83.67.147.66: Can you prove to us that the articles pass WP:GNG, WP:Notable and WP:NOTDIR? Nordic Dragon 07:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry I didn't get any ping here & Thanks Jeni for the heads up, Anyway delete per above- As Jeni notes some routes are notable but most aren't, I know on a few occasions I've !voted Redirect to the list of london routes but we don't need to redirect every single route number back to that page ... I'd imagine searching for the number on Google would bring up the London List article anyway, Anyway non notable bus route fails (IMHO) WP:NOTTRAVEL & WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you further up, didn't it work @Davey2010:?? Nordic Dragon 07:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Dragon - Sorry that's what I meant & nope, It happens everywhere .... sometimes you're pinged and sometimes you're not..... –Davey2010^Talk 12:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage, with no objection to a redirect if desired. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTGUIDE. None of the references apart from the primary source TfL results actually mention this route. We do not keep articles on every run-of-the-mill bus route.Charles (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot even find an assertion of notability on the page. It's a bus route. Buses run on it. Period. The three guidelines Charlesdrakew references above all apply. At most a redirect to [List of bus routes in London]]. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some bus routes are notable, but most are run-of-the-mill, and this is one of the non-notable ones. Reyk _YO! 19:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionably solid for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Non-notable, NOTDIR, NOTTRAVEL, NOTGUIDE. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 21:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—this fails WP:GNG. There is no demonstration of "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" to warrant a stand-alone article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Class455fan1. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDIRECTORY, NOTTRAVEL and NOTGUIDE have no application to this article. That policy would likely forbid the inclusion of a timetable or ticket prices, but not the sort of information in the article, which is mainly about tenders and the location of the route. I am going to suggest that this page be kept as a standalone article because the Transport for London sources are plainly suitable, the information they include belongs in the encyclopedia, and merging it into the list of routes would be less convenient than keeping it apart, as it would make the list much longer and therefore harder to navigate. The TFL sources are independent because they do not actually operate the buses; a private company does that. As government sources on a relatively uncontroversial topic, I expect they will be objective. James500 (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC) For the avoidance of doubt, I should clarify that AVOIDSPLIT allows us, for organisational reasons, to spin off list material without regard to notability. I should also point out that the word "cruft" is the worst non argument possible that basically adds up to "I don't like it". In any event, the location of the route, as a line on a map, falls within the scope of our gazetteer function and, as for the tenders, I expect that our readers will be interested in what is being done with 'public money' (indeed, that is why the process is done openly) and in who is operating the buses. I should also point out that Wikia is not a WMF project, so we cannot say "better on Wikia" as that would be COI. We would have to point to a WMF owned project. James500 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. Class455fan1 (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't disagree more - I was involved in setting up Roaders' Digest - the SABRE Wiki and doing some of the coding, which I know was done in part due to editors frustrated with WP. Yet all that did not stop me from getting North Circular Road, amongst others, to GA status on here. I have shown it is possible to work on multiple projects on the internet and gain respect from all of them simply by acknowledging other sites are okay and do valid things. Hells bells, even Wikipediocracy talks sense more than people give it credit for. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that Wikipedians can't participate on other projects. I said that AfD can't be used to advance the interests of non-WMF projects at the expense of WMF projects by deliberately handing them our article traffic (ie the search engine traffic that comes with the content) on a plate by deleting our content for their benefit. James500 (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Says who?Charles (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect / merge with List of bus routes in London pointless buscruft, that is perfectly fine sitting at http://bus-routes-in-london.wikia.com/wiki/London_Buses_route_70. I never understand why people think Wikipedia should be about everything ever, and directly compete with specialist wikias. It should complement them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing editor There may be a case of bad faith canvassing that has influenced the voting. The article was flagged for deletion on 15 February. After 3 days, about 6 editors had responded with varying opinions. On the latter date User:Jeni canvassed 12 editors [9] etc, on the basis that they had previously expressed an opinion on London bus route 403's deletion discussion. Within 24 hours, about 8 of the pinged editors responded, largely in agreement with her option. Given that these editors had been active in the period between the article being nominated and being pinged, appears they may have only voted as a result of being canvassed.

In fairness to the editor, she did ping editors who had voted both for and against on that discussion. Nevertheless, I don't think it would be too cynical to suggest that the editor was reasonably confident that the net result would be more votes in line with her preferred option which could be interpreted as votestacking, given that the canvassing did occur at a time when it appeared the result was not going overwhelmingly in favour of deletion. Or put another way, had the London Buses route 403 vote resulted in a keep, I doubt the canvassing would have occurred. I have no problems with being on the losing side of the debate, but it should be a fair contest, which this may not have been. 11Expo (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen this on my watchlist anyway,but I sometimes give some time for editors to produce any significant secondary sources for notability before opting for deletion. I believe Jeni was acting in good faith.Charles (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of those canvassed and consider that this was quite improper. There have been many deletion discussions for London bus routes over the years and so to canvass the opinions of only one such discussion was tendentious. It seems fairly clear that London buses are generally quite notable because they are a major historical institution for that city and there is a fair amount of coverage out there -- books, magazines, societies, museums, &c. The main issue is the level of detail in our coverage and that's not really a deletion question as it's best resolved by ordinary editing, merger, and the like. Andrew D. (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take your tinfoil hat off and WP:AGF. Read WP:CAN (The guideline which you cited), specifically the "Appropriate Notification" section:

On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
       Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.

It's unreasonable to expect me to go through every London Bus route AfD, especially since the discussion I used appeared to be the only one within the last year. Even the other section you quote, WP:VOTESTACK, backs up what I did as appropriate. If you were to actually read the notices that I left people, you wouldn't be assuming bad faith. And just FYI, I will do exactly the same thing at the next similar AfD. Jeni ^(talk) 10:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 11Expo, I share your concern about the issue of WP:CAN and thanks for exercising your right to voice your concerns. Considering Jeni's behavior and Andrew Davidson's comment above, will you consider to take this to WP:ANI? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Jeni intended to canvass, and I saw these notifications appearing on my Watchlist. What she did was allowable under WP:CANVASS. If she was canvassing on all these user talks, then I'd have reverted them all and warned her for canvassing, but for this, she wasn't canvassing, she was just asking other editors (regardless of their opinion) to participate on the disucssion. One thing i don't agree with is that she didn't ping some WT:LT members, however this would appear anyway in a notifications section However some may think differently. Pinging Anna Frodesiak and Bishonen to see what they think of this. Class455fan1 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew admitted they were canvassed. I knew this might be unintentional but that's why it was a problem. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do take this to WP:ANI, I'm that confident that no wrong was done. In fact, Wikicology, you don't need to wait for 11Expo, you can start the thread there yourself! I'll even start it for you if you wish? I'm a big fan of outside comment. Jeni ^(talk) 13:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about getting you blocked. In fact, I will oppose your block in any case related to this. My biggest concern is about 11Expo's allegation of [[WP:CAN|canvassing)) and Andrew's comment above. I think the ANI will address this issues perhaps to prevent future occurrence and it might also create a room to learn more on what is considered violation of WP:CAN. You can go ahead to start the thread, if you wish. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology - Who said anything about getting anyone blocked?! 11Expo can make all the allegations he likes as far as I'm concerned, WP:CAN is quite clear on what is and what isn't allowed as per my quotes above. If I would have only notified those that expressed a delete preference, then I would be in volation, however I notified everybody regardless (though I'm sure I can be forgiven for skipping those that had already commented on this page). Why am I so confident? This has come up before and already been to one of the noticeboards (I believe it was ANI). The simple way to learn what is considered a violation of WP:CAN is to read the page. Either way, I await the notification that you've started an ANI thread, as you're so concerned.

Please, in really simple terms, spell out which aspect of WP:CAN I have violated? Then we can all move on and I can finally eat this goddamn chocolate cake that's been staring at me for the last hour! Jeni ^(talk) 13:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damnit why did my talkpage have to be diffed!, Anyway personally I don't believe Jeni canvassed, She did say "contributed" (and as a whole the message was neutrally worded) which as far as I know is fine....., Everyone who goes to others talkpages usually says something along the lines of "you contributed at this RFC X or AFD X" so I don't see how this could be construed as canvassing, Either way I don't think it was. –Davey2010^Talk 15:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In either case, I never insinuated that she did canvassed and I don't see this as a violation of WP:CAN, but leaving a note on other editor's talk page (irrespective of the tone) regarding a deletion discussion in which her position is not neutral could be construed as canvassing by other participating editor, especially when the discussion is not in favor of her vote. I don't like to correct indent but I just did. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who !vote Keep or Delete can still leave messages, Had it been worded to say something like "You voted delete at X,Please vote delete her too!" then yeah but it wasn't.... anyway we're all going around in circles so probably best we all just move on from the issue, (Thanks for indenting - I'm absolutely terrible with indenting everything!). –Davey2010^Talk 16:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but this is going in circles. Either take it to WP:ANI, give proof that I violated WP:CAN or drop it, thanks. Jeni ^(talk) 16:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeni, I usually try as much as possible to avoid conflicts with other editors. I won't comment on this any further. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 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 14:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mualimin Mochammad Sahid[edit]

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

Mualimin Mochammad Sahid would appear to me to fail WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF, and any number of other relevant policies and guidelines. Let's see what happens. Shirt58 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting the guidelines listed. I respect the decision of Shirt58 but I feel it merits speedy deletion; I would disagree that being a Senior Lecturer at a university/college by itself is a "credible claim of significance"; otherwise, we would have numerous articles on unremarkable college professors. I think it also might qualify for speedy deletion as promotional; it just seems to be the person's resume. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the university system. In many commonwealth countries, Sr. Lecturer is equivalent to professor in the US. However, not a precednet on Sr. Lecturers, but on this case, Delete. No claim of significance that would pass PROF or GNG -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No pass of anything. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tend to think that content such as this that is unambiguously a cv rather than a third-person description of the subject could be a G11 speedy, since the main purpose of a cv is to sell yourself, but probably such a rule would be abused to delete articles that are less bad than this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No sources, promotional and not notable. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. CV. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:47, 23 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 14:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 English National Badminton Championships[edit]

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

WP:TOOEARLY, no references. 333 -blue 11:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2017? Wikipedia can't see the future per WP:CRYSTALBALL even though the article doesn't indicate anything. Unnecessary article — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:04, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mkdw ^talk 01:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fabien_Duchene[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Publicity, self promotion, breach of the neutrality of point of view, do not meet the criteria for notability Beretta vexee (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link for finding sources was not correct. updated: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Comment (from nominator) as currently questionable for the applicable notability, non neutrality of point of view, use of fake account for self promotion and reversion war Beretta vexee (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best perhaps as the current article is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of catacombs in Malta[edit]

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

we don't have a list for catacombs for any other country and it's not clear what the criteria for getting on this list. this is better handled as an existing category. let's see if the usual suspect turns up. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps the article can be rewritten as Catacombs of Malta (or Catacombs in Malta), dealing with Maltese catacombs in general? I would be happy to help out, but currently I don't have enough time to do so. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - keep ditto rewrite, with redirect to rewrite. Aoziwe (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The relevant guideline for this discussion is WP:LISTN, which states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", and I have found several sources that do so. First, Late Roman and Byzantine Catacombs and Related Burial Places in the Maltese Islands is an entire book detailing the elements of construction and decoration common to the tombs, as well as the history of the archaeological study of the catacombs. The catacombs are also discussed in this book. There was even a study done on bacterial degradation of artworks in the catacombs. Therefore, this list meets WP:LISTN and should be kept. Altamel (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Altamel has correctly pointed out, the catacombs of Malta clearly satisfy GNG and are notable as a group. A search, especially in GBooks, for "catacombs in malta", "catacombs of malta" and cognate expressions confirms this very quickly. There may be a need for a separate list, in addition to an article on the "Catacombs of Malta" as there are said to be "many" catacombs there (eg by "The Mirror of Literature"). I should also point out that we do have standalone articles for the catacombs of London, Paris, Rome and other cities. Although Malta is a republic, it is actually smaller than, or similar in size to, those cities, so it seems reasonable to treat the catacombs as a group as they are relatively close to each other. "Better as a category" arguments fail NOTDUP. James500 (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and effected a bold page move to the obvious parent title, "Catacombs of Malta". As sources say that there are several hundred catacombs, it is likely that the list will have to be spun out again, though there isn't much point in doing that while it only has six entries. I do not, however, support the merger of the three daughter articles on individual catacombs or groups of catacombs at this time. Those articles are already sourced, there are a large number of sources that could be added to them, there are so many sources on the maltese catacombs that I suspect there is no prospect of fitting all the information in a single article, and the three daughter articles are already quite lengthy. I am also under the impression that shorter articles are less expensive for our readers to download. I have also left a comment on Talk:Citta Vecchia about the need for disambiguation of that page. James500 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Less expensive"? I thought this was Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia; the last time I checked, none of our articles are paywalled. Or do you mean "expensive" in a different context? Altamel (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Altamel: There is a paywall round the entire internet. One has to pay one's phone company to access the internet in the first place, and some of them charge according to the amount of data downloaded or set limits on the amount of data that can be downloaded. [Even if one can use the internet for free at a public library, one has to pay transport costs (petrol, bus/train fare etc) to get there in the first place (and it will not be open all day every day, and some libraries try to censor parts of the site, etc etc etc), so that isn't necessarily better]. So forcing people to download the whole of a large article, when they only want a small part of it, is not a good idea. James500 (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, that's an interesting argument. But practically, I doubt that the marginal difference in cost between loading several small articles as opposed to the whole of a large article is greater than a few ten-thousandths of a cent—and I challenge you to prove me wrong, if you are able to do so. I think it is better if we make arguments based on relevant policy (e.g. notability, WP:Article size) instead of speculating about the WP:PERFORMANCE of data download cost. But I agree that I don't currently see the need to merge the other catacomb articles into this list. The three existing articles on the tombs are already large enough that they would take up a substantial amount of space in the list were they to be merged. Altamel (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:LISTN and the bigger topic meets WP:GNG. Here's an idea that my keep !vote is not contingent upon: Rename this to Catacombs of Malta and merge the articles on the individual catacombs into it. There are only three of them. Two have one source; one has two sources. I think a substantial main article does readers much more of a service than a list article and poorly sourced examples. If someone decides to build out an article on one of them, it can always be spun out again. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - nonsense, meets of WP:LISTN, WP:GNG and other. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:48, 18 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. czar 02:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media Use and Child Sleep: The Impact of Content, Timing, and Environment[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable academic article; none of the researchers have Wikipedia articles. Lacks coverage in reliable sources. CSD (A1) was declined as the subject of the article was clear. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I declined the speedy, as A1 does not seem to apply (the subject is clear) and I saw no clear reason for speedy deletion. However although Pediatrics is a respectable journal, I do not see any particular reason why this paper merits an article. Google Scholar gives its citations as 62,[10] which does not seem all that high for such a heavily studied topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as this seems like a journal report instead of a formal encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into Sleep as a reference in section Sleep#Young humans. Agree the article on an article does not seem any more notable than millions of other articles with no wikipedia article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without any ref-merge (there are thousands of similar articles, so using this would be justified only for an inline ref supporting a specific claim - which one?). The only plausible CSD would be WP:G11 but I do not quite see it.

No secondary sources, no significant measurable impact, etc. And if you want my opinion, the "blue light disrupts melatonin cycles" thing is highly suspicious. Tigraan (talk) 10:22, 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. As no reliable sources have been provided to establish the notability of this subject during this discussion, the article's subject is found to lack the notability required for inclusion. (Note: This close does not hold prejudice against an article being created for the possibly related spellings of Adiron or Adiriron, if reliable sources can be found for those in the future.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adirael[edit]

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

I could only find this mentioned by Mathers, a writer on magic. I couldn't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE. Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The name is mentioned in a few encyclopedias (e.g. the The Dictionary of Demons published by Llewellyn Worldwide) but all references come from a single mention in the The Book of Abramelin, as one of 49 servants of Beelzebub. I find it hard to believe that they are all notable, and there doesn't seem to be significant coverage, as there would be, for example, if he were mentioned in the Bible. St Anselm (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename The correct spellings based on the Hebrew is Adiron and Adiriron. There are 1000's of sites with information if you use the correct spelling. The spelling up for deletion is Mathers' spelling. It is an important name for magic, amulets, and angelology. He is the archangel of either the 5th or 3rd throne-room.Rename it to one of the accepted spellings and add some of the basic information from one of the many pages about the angel. --Jayrav (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: (1) What makes you think they are the same being? (2) Can you name a reliable source that describes Adiron? St Anselm (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries of demons that have Adriel, as per Mathers, list the source as the angel of the book of Enoch. The angel of Enoch for most people is spelled the other ways. see here

https://books.google.com/books?id=njDRfG6YVb8C&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=Adirael+adirion&source=bl&ots=MkRog5kmdW&sig=mt5CvhOGhqSuQaAVS_LJpAFPZQk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT-I-IpdXKAhUG0hoKHYb-C-UQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=Adirael%20adirion&f=false

Here are two quick sources:http://ejmmm2007.blogspot.com/2008/01/adiriron-power-house-angel-of-merkavah.html

and http://kabbalahselfcreation.blogspot.com/2011/05/divine-names-and-ten-sefirot.html --Jayrav (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two blogs you cite should be disregarded since they are not reliable sources. The encyclopedia you cited does indeed have a variant name, though it is "Adirion", which is different to what you wrote above. It lists the demon as one who followed Samiaza, from Enoch chapter 6. But I can't see what name that would correspond to in Charles' translation. As the Ramiel article indicates, we have articles about most of them. St Anselm (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- There seem to be enough listings for Adiririon and Adirion (on googling this and similar to merit one article, possibly expanding this one and having redirects for the others, but I am not going to compile it. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and mention elsewhere as none of this suggests a solid serpatate article. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 7 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 18:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stacking chess pieces[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY or NOTHOWTO or made up. Is the fact that you can stack chess pieces notable? Gbawden (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very strong delete~~ If it is real and can be notably referenced in the future I would welcome it back, but until then . . ! Aoziwe (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not familiar with this and we can delete it at best until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rework, or merge, would be better than deletion. It seems to me that "stacking toys" (such as rings, blocks and cups) and "stacking play" are obviously notable, with many sources in GBooks etc, but we (bizarrely) don't have an article on them. There are a number of sources in GBooks that discuss the phenomena of children stacking chess pieces (remove the speech marks from the search term to find them), and our article says there is coverage in Chess Life (Aug 1987) and Searching for Bobby Fischer. It seems to me that, if we do not think this should have a standalone article (no comment on that yet), the correct solution would be to move it and rework it so that it is about stacking toys and play generally. Alternatively, we could merge it to a broader article about chess. Like most things, it is clearly part of a notable broader topic. James500 (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC) The content of the article is not an essay (it contains no significant expressions of personal opinion, at least none that are not so minor can't be easily fixed (WP:PRESERVE); it certainly doesn't consist more or less entirely of such content, which is the actual test) nor it is a how to (it contains no instructions or advice expressed in the imperative mood, which again is the actual test). It is sourced, citing a magazine and a film as references. Much of it could be cited to other sources. I should also point out that 'essay' and 'how to' are not arguments for outright deletion. They are arguments for transwiki to our sister project Wikiversity, which accepts both. And the article isn't particularly short either. James500 (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article is a very short unsourced essay and howto guide about putting one chess piece on top of another. Even assuming, arguendo, that the concept of placing one toy on top of another is notable so that we could write an article, it's clear that this article is not it, nor would any of its current content be mergeable there. Reyk _YO! 13:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing of substance here. That a magazine about chess has, at some point, mentioned the phenomenon of people intentionally placing chess pieces on top of each other makes it as notable as Clicking chess pieces together, Twirling pawns between fingers, Throwing chess pieces at kibitzers, or Accidentally knocking over a rook. All that said, I agree that there's a potential article along the lines of stacking (play), but this is not a starting point for that article. It's possible chess pieces could be mentioned in such an article, but there are untold numbers of objects children stack such that it doesn't seem like there's anything to say about chess pieces and stacking that you couldn't say about checkers, playing cards, pots and pans, or cookies. We do have articles for toy block and construction set, which seem like more sensible places to build out the concept of stacking. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: to echo Rhododendrites, just because children do a thing doesn't mean there are articles about Sleeping in a box, Wearing a parent's shoes, or Smearing food on one's face. I am WP:AGFing that this isn't just trolling in the first instance. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination as original research, at best. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to keep This could be one of several aticles on stacking toys. There are articles on sport stacking of cups, stacking cards, House of cards, and dice stacking (which is only a bit better than this article). Needs work, but this is not a reason for deleting it. Aoziwe (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoziwe: You'll need to strike your previous !vote. If you're proposing keeping this as a stand-alone article (vs. using it to build a bigger article), I don't think you'll see much support unless you substantiate that with links to sources talking about it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck above. Sorry - I thought editing was only allowed below the "relisting" line? (It now has one ref) (By the way WP:DEM, so not a vote?) Aoziwe (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You can edit above the relisting line, but new comments go at the bottom. You are right that it's not a vote. You'll see people using the term "!vote" for that reason. It means "not-vote". These discussions look like votes, and sometimes play out as a vote, but they're not. They're attempts to find consensus, with strong arguments carrying more weight, based on the evaluation of whoever closes it. Still, it's uncommon to see a close that doesn't have majority support and people (closers and contributors) are certainly influenced by the discussion as it has taken shape so far. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a joke addition. Delete it and we can move on. Jkmaskell (talk) 00:44, 21 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 14:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah (Web Series)[edit]

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

I'd tagged as A7, and really should have as G3, but I get a sneaking suspicion it's going to get declined because it's a little involved.

The main claims to fame this YouTube channel has are its award nominations. These appear to be entirely fictitious. Visiting the links, which are hosted on a WiX blog, indicates that the company "Insight Corporation" (not to be confused with Insight Broadband), which gives the award, delegates the award to "E Studios Network" (not to be confused with E! Entertainment). "E Studios Network" is the master YouTube channel for Elijah Brown's YouTube shows.

Everything else here is a bunch of puffery. If you look at the YouTube channel itself, this guy has on the order of 5-10 views per video, and not the thousands (originally hundreds) the article claims. This article clearly fails WP:WEB, and the fake awards and skulduggery with confusingly similar corporate names puts it close to if not squarely within vandalism territory for me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Doesn't assert notability at all and it appears to be a hoax. I would have CSD'ed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Be that as it may, given the page subject's willingness to invent awards to give the pretense of notability, I think this is a situation where having the preclusive effect of a formal AfD would be helpful. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; clearly fails all notability guidelines. No coverage whatsoever. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:47, 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 14:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Nabi[edit]

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

Autobiography failing WP:BIO. Lacks reliable sources - those which exist are puff about Kinnect2, self-published, or YouTube. Bazj (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as none of the current article is convincingly better for the applicable notability. Notifying taggers MrX and Ochib. SwisterTwister talk 08:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only sources that I could find were a university newspaper article, a newsletter article, and a newspaper article, mostly about her company. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO.- Mr X 13:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the fluff and edited. I also found the same articles, but I'm not sure about the notability of the Saltire Fellow. It seems important in Scotland. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created too soon. She may be notable if her venture succeeds but right now doesn't pass the threshold. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:50, 23 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 03:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nisabdham[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFF. There's some nebulous claim elsewhere (I can't find the source again) that the film is in post, but there are no reliable sources to support it that I can find. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Michael Arun" "Ajay" "Abhinaya"

Delete for currently failing WP:NF. Lack of suitable sources kinda dooms this article. If they become available, the topic can always be reconsidered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Mr RD 08:38, 21 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. CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young People's Support Foundation[edit]

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

Too many issues; written like an advertising web page and no encyclopedical value. CheeseCrisps (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. Speedily delete this article for Young People's Support Foundation as an attempt to speedy advertise on Wikipedia per the speedy criteria WP:G11. This needs to be deleted as speedy as possible to prevent Wikipedia from being used as an unnecessary advertising locker and make this speedy spam not speedy at all. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 10:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanam (band)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND, poorly sourced, cursory Google search does not reveal substantially enough sources to help article Chrisw80 (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: My cursory Google search was too cursory. Apologies. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:38, 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. Sandstein 15:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional towns in video games[edit]

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

There are a couple of issues with the list article. First, a lot of entries are redirected to articles listed at List of fictional universes in games, like Clock Town, Columbia (BioShock), Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto), Traverse Town, etc. Because most of them are redirects, they are not notable enough to have their own articles.

Second, curious enough, the only reference listed is Real life locations in video games. Without proper sourcing, it fails WP:GNG.

Third, there's the question what constitutes as a town, as opposed to a village or a city.

Fourth, it's near inexhaustive. There are dozens of locations in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim alone, let alone the series in general. Soetermans. T / C 08:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per, well, those four arguments. Can't add much to it but say that I agree with the issues brought up. ~Mable (chat) 09:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just want to note that this article is one of a set of articles that were split off from List of fictional towns and villages, so a "delete" outcome here will probably just result in a merge back to the parent article. Also, I think the nom's arguments are flawed: the first and third points aren't reasons to delete; I don't think GNG is a problem, as a cursory Google search brings up plenty of lists of fictional locations; and the fourth point is addressed by the article's lead, which makes clear that this isn't an all-inclusive list of every town in every video game. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contesting the existence of lists of video game locations, I'm saying that by themselves, they're not notable. Most of these are redirected to the article on the video game they appear in. At WP:VG we're trying to focus more on the development, creation and possible reception of video games and their content. A good example of this is Rapture (BioShock) (which is also the only place with an article); design, in-game function, reception. Dishonored#Design mentions the inspiration of the city Dunwall; the list just mentions it from an in-universe aspect. Merely listing video game locations is the same as a list of levels: inappropriate gameguide material. --Soetermans. T / C 12:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any hope of being a usefully exhaustive list? If not then it fails WP:List and is misleading and will frustrate readers. Aoziwe (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable list if WP:GAMECRUFT failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Does not meet WP:LISTN and does not warrant a WP:SPLIT from any parent article. At best, individual entries would be notable (each have article), and there's only 2, which is hardly sufficient to justify a list. This also appears to be "location" and not towns, though that is a rename issue (if kept). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG and WP:GAMECRUFT. The list has no significant reliable coverage. And, as stated, it's completely inexhaustive and unnecessary. There are millions of cities in video games... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per WP:LISTN's note regarding intersections of categories of items, I'd say this is pretty clearly a delete. See also Hellknowz's !vote. --Izno (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rename to List of fictional locations in games (and merge List of fictional universes in games into it) - There are tons of sources justifying this per the criteria at WP:LISTN: "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Here are a few that took less than a minute to find:
The separate question is about specific list items. We do have a few articles about places in video games to link to (see Category:Video game locations), but to say it should be limited it to that ignores the fact that cities are at the center of many games -- notable video game locations that we wouldn't cover in a stand-alone article because they're practically synonymous with the game itself. Think of e.g. SimCity, the Bioshock games (although we do have a separate article for one of them), Fallout: New Vegas, Resident Evil: Raccoon City, and, of course, the Grand Theft Auto (series). GTA's cities in particular have even been the subject of academic and mainsteam articles (e.g. The Guardian - From Watch Dogs to GTA V, why 'video games are going to reshape our cities').

TL;DR - There are more than enough sources for the group to satisfy WP:LISTN. There are plenty of sources to justify entries' notability for the purpose of inclusion despite not having a stand-alone article. This is a very well covered subject, even if the list as it stands today needs work. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - By the way, I'm going to !vote keep at the List of fictional universes in games AfD, too, but I don't think we need both. We should merge them into a single List of fictional locations in games. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- hopelessly undersourced, no possibility of completeness, inherently OR in that it's inevitably an editor's unbacked judgement call for what counts as a "town" as opposed to a city, or encampment, etc. Reyk _YO! 14:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reyk: How is this incompatible with what I said above? There are lots of sources, so no OR is required at all. Lists don't have to be complete. Town, city, encampment, etc. are all locations hence a simple rename would solve that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. I do not believe cruft can be dealt with by moving it around, any more than you can clean your bedroom by shoving all the clutter under your bed or putting it into another room. Lists don't need to be complete right this instant, but it should be possible to have a usefully complete one in principle and I just don't see that being possible here. Broadening the scope of the article to dodge OR issues won't help here either because then it would become too indiscriminate. You'd still have the problem of a uselessly incomplete list but, perversely, it would also be too vast and sprawling to be navigable. Reyk _YO! 15:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't find analogies that rely on a premise of an unqualified "it's cruft" helpful. The question isn't what to do with cruft, it's whether the list in question is an appropriate and notable list subject. Whether someone fills it with a pile of trivia -- or whether someone could do that -- is irrelevant to AfD except in the most extreme circumstances (which this obviously is not). Also "it should be possible to have a usefully complete one in principle and I just don't see that being possible here", if I understand you correctly, is also problematic. Most lists are not only incomplete but intended to never be complete. Lists of groups of people, lists of people by profession, lists of bands, lists of companies, lists of songs, lists of works of art, etc. -- these lists exist despite having no chance of being exhaustive or complete because it's possible to set an inclusion criteria to make them encyclopedic. We don't delete list of hip hop artists on the basis of it never being complete and people spamming it all the time, for example. So I don't understand this idea that a list which is so conceptually broad needs to be "complete" rather than needs to be well sourced and notable, with a clear inclusion criteria (all of which, as I've explained, are very clearly possible). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Many lists are complete, and the better the prospects for completeness the more useful the list. For example, List of sovereign states or the periodic table are complete and extremely useful. Your example of list of hip hop artists is also complete-ish, in the sense that one can be confident of containing all these artists down to some minimum level of fame or wealth. It only starts getting patchy and spammy around the more obscure artists. Such a list is still useful, but not as much as a complete and well-defined one. Lists like A sampling of fictional locations selected arbitrarily and randomly, however, are very useless. There is no prospect of discriminate coverage, even in principle. You'll inherently get some fictional universes covered in excruciating detail, while others are ignored entirely. There is no natural ordering or tendency to ensure the most relevant and important entries get listed. It really is just a random sampling, and this is useless. Producing an entirely new list does not solve that problem, it just dodges the OR issue while also adding the problem of the list becoming too huge to be navigable. "Lists of fictional X" are among the worst and most embarrassing content Wikipedia has, and should be culled severely. Reyk _YO! 08:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The first couple times I read this I struggled finding any connection between it and our policies/guidelines. Yeah, the periodic table is a list about a fixed set. Ditto sovereign states. And the alphabet, an band's discography, Academy Award winners, Presidents, etc. Lists like this one and like list of hip hop artists are not fixed sets. There's no such thing as "completeish" in this case. There's no way to tell if list of hip hop artists actually includes people above a certain level of fame (whatever that even means), and there's no policy/guideline which says that sense of completeishness has anything to do with whether they're an appropriate list. However, I think what you may mean is that there's no way to set reasonable inclusion criteria that will give us an encyclopedic list of reasonable length. That is, of course, a reasonable concern for a list. So I'll take a stab at one so we can talk about it in terms of "completeness": The list of fictional video game locations should include every notable fictional video game location as determined by multiple reliable sources which cover the location in depth (and outside of e.g. level guides/game walkthroughs -- we're talking about the location).. That seems like a pretty stringent criteria in terms of keeping out "cruft". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be inexhaustive. "Location" can mean anything. To give you an example: The Elder Scrolls are set on the planet Nirn (IGN, GamesRadar, PC Gamer). The games take place on the continent Tamriel (Engadget, Time), which consists of 9 provinces. Morrowind was set in Morrowind, (Rock, Paper, Shotgun, Eurogamer) Oblivion is set in Cyrodiil (Game Informer, Game Zone). It didn't took me long to look up these fictional locations, and I'm not even at the town, cities or encampments. And this is just one video game series. --Soetermans. T / C 15:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Inexhaustive means not exhaustive. Do you mean inexhaustible as in impossible to exhaust? I guess my response is similar to what I wrote just above -- most of our lists are a set of examples from a large group. If you add a few more refs for each one of those such that we can call each of them notable, why would you make an exception to our standards for both list notability and list item notability by deleting this? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I guess I got the words confused, sorry about that."Flammable means iflammable? What a country!"
Keep, or merge with the other list, per Rhododendrites, who has demonstrated that the topic clearly satisfies LISTN. Plus which, this is a daughter list of the main list of fictional places, and, under LISTN, we can spin those off without regard to notability anyway. James500 (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LISTN doesn't say we can disregard notability. "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
- Let's assume there's going to be List of fictional video game locations. Anything can be seen as a "location", right? A universe, star system, planet, continent, country, province, valley, town, village, city, airport, sea, river, etc. Does that all fall under the same group, like WP:LISTN says? Sure, reliable sources say plenty about certain fictional locations, but are we going to consider them to be in the same set now? Is the ever-changing land of Hyrule similar to Rapture (BioShock), just because they are "locations"? --Soetermans. T / C 07:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand corrected. It is the guideline WP:AVOIDSPLIT that says that daughter lists may be spun out "without regard to notability". James500 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - So we've got two contradictory guidelines on our hands. That won't make things any easier. --Soetermans. T / C 23:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no contradiction if you read LISTN carefully: "Lists ... often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability" and "the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources" and "individual items ... do not need to be ... notable" and so on. James500 (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You realize you made me read this like Christopher Walken? WP:LISTN says "Notability of lists (...) is based on the group" and a little further: "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". Like I pointed out, "fictional locations in video games" is not a cohesive grouping or set, so that would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Soetermans. T / C 00:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The list does not meet any of the four criteria of INDISCRIMINATE either. Nor can I see how the group is not cohesive. James500 (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Because anything can be a location. Rapture (BioShock) is a dystopian city with more or less the same characteristics in three games released between 2006 and 2013, Hyrule is land of fantasy that has seen tremendous changes from games released from 1986 to the upcoming 2016 release. --Soetermans. T / C 01:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        How in the world can anything be a location? Rapture and Hyrule are both obviously notable locations. What difference does it make to its inclusion in this list if its name and basic definition (a world in the Zelda games) hasn't changed? If by "anything can be a location" you're saying that a particular pixel, shop, street, cloud, or coordinate can be a location, that's obviously what the inclusion criteria and list definition would set forth. After all, we have plenty of other lists of fictional places. See Category:Lists of fictional cities (video games is one of 7 in that category). Likewise, all of those sources that talk about cities/towns/universes/worlds in video games manage to do so in a coherent way, because after all, if we're requiring sources talking about the locations, those sources aren't going to accidentally write about some random shop or street such that "anything" could be on the list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Maybe it would assuage some of your concerns to call it list of fictional populated places in video games? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        To awkwardly cite myself from yesterday: "Anything can be seen as a "location", right? A universe, star system, planet, continent, country, province, valley, town, village, city, airport, sea, river, etc. (...) reliable sources say plenty about certain fictional locations, but are we going to consider them to be in the same set now?" My point is that in our shared understanding of the word location, we can say "Rapture is a city, and as such a location" and we can say "Tamriel is a continent, also a location". But reliable sources speak of types of locations, they have articles on the best game worlds like Nirn, the joy of running through Kokiri Forrest in Ocarina of Time or criticizing the desing of the City from Thief. We're the ones putting them together. We're the ones looking at what constitutes as a location. --Soetermans. T / C 01:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point I also brought up in the other deletion discussion: what about real world locations with fictional elements? Tokyo exists, Neo Tokyo does not. Or what about real world locations portrayed in a fictional universe? One level of Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves is set in the real-world village of Kinderdijk. Or what about mythological concepts, they're fictional too, right? In Age of Mythology the player visits Egypt, Greece and the Nordic countries, but also Atlantis. My point is, it's arbitrary original research and synthesizing to decide what's what. --Soetermans. T / C 09:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Real locations are not fictional locations, regardless of how they are portrayed. James500 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - While New York City exists, Manhattan's "Fabletown" does not. In S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl a second meltdown devastates the Ukrainian countryside. In Mass Effect our Galaxy has seen countless of wars and disturbances and has alien technology. Still "real locations"? --Soetermans. T / C 23:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Chernobyl and the Milky Way Galaxy are real locations no matter how inaccurately they are depicted. As far as I can see, "Fabletown" is fictional as there is no such place as Bullfinch Street, New York. James500 (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        So no matter how inaccurately they are depicted, when a real location is featured in a video game, that's not fictional. Fictional locations have to be completely made up? What if a name is changed slightly, like Neo-Paris, is that fictional or not? Or what about the Capital Wasteland, which is based upon the old Washington D.C. area? In the game, set in 2277, it was nuked 200 years before and it has a different name, but you can walk around the National Mall. It's not Washington D.C. anymore though. Is that a real world location? --Soetermans. T / C 01:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't have to disregard notability. WP:LISTN is notability, and this passes LISTN. James500's point is that if, as DoctorKubla says above, this was a WP:SPINOUT, there's an argument that it doesn't have to meet notability -- it would just have to make sense to include (with due weight) in the parent article (i.e. if an embedded list gets too long sometimes it makes sense to give it its own article for organizational/aesthetic reasons, not because its notable in its own right). I'm going to suggest we not get sidetracked by that, though, because I think it easily passes WP:LISTN. There is definitely an argument to be made that deleting something that was spun out doesn't make sense, though, because if it was deemed appropriate for another list before it should just be merged back there... As for New Tokyo, etc. that seems like the sort of thing that can be worked out on the talk page. For the sake of argument we could just say "no, it wouldn't include those" to simplify discussion about WP:OR, but that would be worked out there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Consensus can change. Deleting something that was spun out of another article would be okay. List of Mafia characters was redirected again to its original article, while List of Mercenaries characters was deleted. --Soetermans. T / C 14:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, yes, of course, but this thread has no bearing on the consensus to spin it out (assuming it existed). If the question there was "should this stay or be spun out" and it was spun out, then deleting it doesn't affect the previous discussion -- it just means whoever spun it out would have to move it back in because it didn't survive on its own (and then people would determine what, if anything, to do with it on that page). So this isn't actually a consequential line of argumentation because being a spin-out makes it so merge/delete would be treated the same way (except one doesn't leave a redirect), presuming someone is inclined to restore it to List of fictional towns and villages. I didn't mean to create a distraction from talking about this list -- just clarifying what I think James meant. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: and @James500:, I have to say I enjoyed discussing with you both a lot, but I think at this point us discussing the same points isn't beneficial to the discussion. I said what I wanted to say, so I'm going to wait and see what happens. Thanks for your quick and sharpwitted replies. --Soetermans. T / C 01:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I too think hearing more opinions from different people would give a better idea on the consensus. This discussion feels like it's going in circles... ~Mable (chat) 07:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is unnecessary, unsourced, and hard to determine for what belongs on the list. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We would not use a series of listicles to argue for a "list of sexiest video game characters" and by the same logic should not use a series of listicles to prove the concept of "fictional locations in video games" notable. The rationale for this discussion has already been said much shorter in the concurrent "fictional universe" deletion discussion. I'm not convinced by the arguments above. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of video game components. czar 02:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Rhododendrites has provided sufficient sourcing to demonstrate this subject meets WP:LISTN. I like the rename suggested as well, but that's for another process. Citation isn't present currently, sources shown above demonstrate that such sourcing exists, if individual entries might not have coverage in RS. While this sort of article isn't interesting to me, there's more than adequate precedent to establish that AFD is not cleanup. BusterD (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on the related AFD at "list of universes", not only is there a problem with sourcing (indicating a notability problem) but also a problem where this list is basically a directory (and in particular, a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization), something which Wikipedia is not. --Izno (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. While I understand Rhododendrites' point, I can't see how this can be encyclopedic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 23 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. Please drop me a message if you'd like this restored to draft space or your userspace for redrafting. Der yck C. 01:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash Mansarovar four-lane road[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage of this. I've found a article briefly reporting on its construction on Highbeam but nothing else. There is only one source cited (although it is cited five separate times, so it appears that there are five sources in the reflist). Might be notable in the future but as of now it fails GNG and looks like a case of TOOSOON. Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Too soon. Welcome it back with some content after the road is completed. Aoziwe (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree on the notion of WP:Too soon Nordic Dragon 11:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. It'll be better. Mr RD 08:40, 21 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. Der yck C. 01:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rainye Day[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability criteria for authors or the general notability criteria. This is a self-published author who has won local recognition; the awards she has received are not notable.While it is of course a positive accomplishment for a teenager to publish her own book, she is not yet notable per Wikipedia's definition. bonadea contributions talk 08:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. Known only for one work. Awards are minor. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, have found nothing about her or any reliable reviews of her book. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, award appears to be a way for a publishing company to find new talent, having 3 medals for 65 categories. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:25, 21 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) 08:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MintCookie Games[edit]

(Find video game sources: "MintCookie Games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

WP:NOTE Not yet notable video game company. Have not yet released any games and their Kickstarter campaign has only made $11 so far. It seems to be made by the creator of the kickstarter project based on their username. Elzbenz (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, their Kickstarter, company and any other of their games have not yet had any press coverage that I can find. Elzbenz (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources establishing notability. I might suggest that a prod may have been more appropriate. --Izno (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't properly consider the Proposed deletion process. Thanks for making me aware - I will consider in future. Sorry for participating in new pages without realising this. Elzbenz (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta' learn somehow. --Izno (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as seemingly too soon for better notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game developer failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Much WP:TOOSOON to have received any coverage before they even release any products. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 02:27, 22 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) 08:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IBISInc[edit]

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

This appears to be a purely promotion article. It was flagged with {advert} over two years ago and and this has not been addressed. The only references are one to a list of top 100 accounting software resellers, and another that is a dead link to the company's own website. Fails on notability. A google search doesn't turn up any other independent coverage. MB (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have added mention of last year's acquisition of the firm by Sonata Software. Aside from that, and brief mention of the firm's own purchase of another firm in 2005, I am not seeing anything to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still none of this is enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 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. Der yck C. 01:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Bulldogs football (all games)[edit]

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

This article is redundant given set of articles covering the individual Georgia Bulldogs football seasons; see Category:Georgia Bulldogs football seasons. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the list, when complete, will be way too long to be of value as a list. Plus, there are many places on the web where such a list already exists and a simple link in "External links" section will suffice. There's very little commentary and it does not appear to be useful as a navigational aid. I can find no reason to keep this list. (Kudos to who has done the work so far--that's some editing).--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. Completely redundant content with the Georgia Bulldogs individual season articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and others, especially the redundancy. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and other editors, who have covered the reasons for deletion quite thoroughly. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 22 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) 07:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3D cities in Google Earth[edit]

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

This long list of cities is ultimately unsourced, and can only be sourced through actual research (which Wikipedia doesn't do) of the very subject: this means, namely, launching Google Earth and studying which places have 3D buildings and which do not. A reliable secondary source informing us in a feasibly verifiable manner does not seem to be available (except possibly for a KML outline which may pose similar problems as Google Earth itself). The subject itself may not be notable in the first place outside of the already-covered subject of Google Earth, and including it there may be giving this aspect of the software a highly WP:UNDUE weight. See also Talk:Google Earth. LjL (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia lists are for organizing information in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would appear to go against WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Describing the process of the 3-D rendering in general may be of sufficient weight in related articles, but not listing every instance for a standalone article. This would especially become the case as this becomes more common rather than a rarity. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In time, this will merely be a list of most or all cities on Earth. bd2412 T 18:35, 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. czar 02:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blastosaurus[edit]

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

Self published comic does not meet WP:NB. Page reads like an advertisement and appears to have been created by the author of the comic. Carl Brutananadilewski-Brutanunanulewski (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and draft & userfy instead as my searches found only a few links at News and browsers, nothing solidly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 02:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non-notable self published comic. This would require rewriting from scratch if the topic was even suitable here, but I can't find sufficient sourcing. Reyk _YO! 06:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the owner of the domain http://www.blastosaurus.com/ seems to have given up on Blastosaurus. It's now hosting an ad for hair removal. In Japanese. I'm removing the external link as WP:SPAM Mduvekot (talk) 22:29, 19 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. czar 02:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Release Today[edit]

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

This website does not have notability, where it is not covered significantly in reliable sources that are independent of the subject themselves, only with brief mention to their own awards in Jam the Hype. The website is one of the best sources in Christian music, while this does not give it notability for them to have their own article.The Cross Bearer (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Like with Jesus Freak Hideout, there are a lot of sources citing the site's reviews and other events, but little in the way of significant coverage. Here is a list of some of the actual coverage, most of which doesn't appear significant: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best and draft and userfy to draftspace until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to a draft of this article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable per weakness of sources, userfy. Bishonen | talk 11:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Note previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Release Tuesday czar 02:24, 22 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. czar 01:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aderyn's Cradle[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is one RPS article: [16] which contains outdated information. The topic is lacking significant coverage from reliable sources. The1337gamer (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as there's nothing to suggest a currently better article. Draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An upcoming video game? Apparently it's being crowdfounded, per the company's website, since quite some time. A new article can be created when the game has actually been released, if it's notable then — reviews etc. Bishonen | talk 20:06, 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 merge to Sadpur, Uttar Pradesh. czar 02:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary school sadpur[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Nothing but an advert too. Could in fact snow merge this. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Elementary school school with little to no significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:NSCHOOL—UY Scuti ^Talk 12:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively & redirect to the village We should indeed do what we usually do,and that, not delete, is the standard practice. .. When there's an article for a school district we use that for the merge , but otherwise to the locality. Theres always a locality article. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close comment - My apologies I accidentally closed this as Keep as the nominator mass nominated a ton of school AFDs (all which were Keeps) and this ended up with them by complete accident so I've obviously reopened. –Davey2010^Talk 15:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to Sadpur, Uttar Pradesh – DGG is right; this is the standard course of action for non-notable primary schools, which this one is. Quite frankly, this article has more information about the village than it does about the school. However, none of the information is sourced, which makes me hesitate to fully support merging... is any of the information verifiable? Mz7 (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 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. czar 02:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zaman Group of Industries[edit]

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

Non-notable company, tagged as such since created in 2010. Speedy and PROD at that time were contested by article creators. Cited sources are mere directory listings. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, EBSCO, The Daily Star, The Financial Express, Prothom Alo, The Independent (Dhaka), and Daily Sun (for "Zaman Group", the managing director, and several subsidiaries) returned: a single photo caption for Syed Asaduzzaman. There is an Al Zaman Group on the Arabian Peninsula, and other Zaman Groups in Kazakhstan, Los Angeles, Pakistan, and Turkey, but could not find significant coverage in reliable sources of this one in Bangladesh, so fails WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no convincing signs of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no third-party sources. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austral (automobile)[edit]

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

Notability not even asserted. I couldn't establish that it is notable. Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a source at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 1#David Burgess Wise's Encyclopedia. Another source is cited in the German Wikipedia article. Peter James (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and restart if better available later as none of this better convinces for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 7 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 18:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the source provided in de:Société l’Austral:
Harald Linz, Halwart Schrader: Die Internationale Automobil-Enzyklopädie. United Soft Media Verlag, München 2008, ISBN 978-3-8032-9876-8.
There is discussion of an "Austral Wheel Race" at http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/45842517 from The Examiner (Tasmania) and discussion of Austral trucks and motorcycle vans here. There is enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is mention here (p. 13) of the "Melbourne branch of the Austral Cycle Agency", and the Austral Wheel Race article doesn't establish any connection to the French company, but the other two sources Cunard found may be sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions in passing, "Among the other French tricar builders of the period were Austral, Bruneau and Griffon".

Keep. Useful already as a stub. Car is notable although sources will be printed sources pre-Internet. --do ncr am 05:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard and Peter James. Searching other Wikis would be the way to go before AfDing. Nordic Dragon 14:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Drago, the other Wikis were searched, but an unreferenced Dutch stub and a German stub with a bit more but still not confirming notablity were of limited help. Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep all makes and marques of automobile. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - All car manufacturers are generally kept and it's obvious there's not gonna be much info on the net seeing as it was a 1907 company!, I'd imagine there's tons of sources off of the net tho. –Davey2010^Talk 20:48, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons Supremacy[edit]

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

Fails WP:N (video games). No indication of importance and there are no references. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google supports that this is a real Android OS game, but provides no easily-seen evidence of notability. Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's nearly even speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 7 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 18:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it wasn't already here, I'd probably speedy it. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 07:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Producing Great Sound for Film and Video[edit]

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

Non-notable book. No awards. Only potential basis for notability is that it's been the subject of favorable reviews. Prod declined by creating editor. TJRC (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Didn't realize my actions were seen as declining something. Additional citations and reviews were added as suggested in the notice. If those do not suffice, I understand if the page needs to be deleted. Thank you for your time. JJ1214 (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated and expanded article. Book may meet notability requirements as an academic and technical book per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Academic_and_technical_books JJ1214 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing it. Looking at the criteria there:

whether the book is published by an academic press: doesn't seem to be. Focal Press appears to be a commercial publisher.
how widely the book is cited by other academic publications...: no sign of that.
...or in the media: I don't see that either. Plenty of reviews, but no citations. I checked Google Scholar, and it says 10 cites, which isn't all that much. I spot checked a couple, and they didn't pan out (for example, the cite in Single-camera video production is just one line in a list of what looks like close to 100 books in a "Futher Reading" chapter -- it's not cited for authority. Some I checked don't seem to reference it at all.
the number of editions of the book: Well it's on its fourth edition, so that's something.
whether one or more translations of the book have been published: Worldcat shows only English-language editions.
how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines: I don't see anything in the article, or from my own (admittedly cursory) search about its influence in the field. Has the book changed how sound is recorded?
whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions: This is one area where you've documented some schools that use it. But it's not that long of a list, and every textbook is used in classrooms somewhere. I think more is needed here. Do you have anything showing it's the primary textbook in its field, with more academic market penetration than other textbooks in the same field? or that it's so authoritative it's considered effectively the one text that everyone uses?

What I do see here is that "Author Jay Rose is an Emmy-award winning sound professional." That doesn't make the book notable (WP:NOTINHERITED); but perhaps Rose himself is sufficiently notable to merit an article, and a that article could include a paragraph on the book.

Just thinking out loud here; I'm not sure Rose would pass either. In any case, I should probably shut up and have others opine. TJRC (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All excellent points. Not sure I can find more but will also investigate Rose as a separate possibility. Understand if this page needs to go. JJ1214 (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this does end up closed as "delete", it might make more sense for the closing admin to WP:USERFY it to your user space to preserve it for possible transition to an article on Rose. That way you won't lose the significant work you've put into it, and can rework to an article about Rose and move it back. TJRC (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and restart later about the book or the author himself as this is currently questionably notable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 7 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 18:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the original editor I'm happy to take all the notes above and rework what I've found into something more acceptable down the line, likely about Rose as opposed to the book itself. JJ1214 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:Book criteria discussed above are guidelines; I believe this article passes policy WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:GNG It is a university textbook , published by an academic press, and is in its fourth edition.Reliable sources including the University of Southern California,UCLA Extension,Long Island University,Fredonia State University of New York, California State University of Northbridge prove it is a university textbook. Othersources include Videomaker magazine,creative cow, millimeter magazine,San Jose Mercury News. Additional reliable sources would be ideal but I believe this passes WP:GNG as is.Atlantic306 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Berkla, Dennis (2000-03-01). "Producing Great Sound for Digital Video". Videomaker Magazine. Archived from the original on 2016-02-15. Retrieved 2016-02-15.
  The article notes:
  
  Producing Great Sound for Digital Video
  Jay Rose (1999, Miller Freeman Books, San Francisco, CA 94105, 349pp., $40)
  With PBS and Turner Network Television production experience under his belt, author Jay Rose brings a wealth of experience to Producing Great Sound for Digital Video.
  Producing Great Sound is a manual for creating digital audio for Mac and Windows users that matches the growing capabilities of digital video and nonlinear editing systems. Rose suggests that the book will enjoy a long shelf life since, "The techniques of good sound dont change."
  Although the price of the book is a bit steep, you get what you pay for. With over 300 pages and many illustrations, the book is replete with facts and useful information. Rose covers the physics of sound, as well as important step-by-step instructions for everything from using microphones in the studio and on location to editing voices and music. Hes even included a CD-ROM of samples, diagnostic tools and tutorials to enhance the book.
2. Katz, S.D. (February 2003). "Essential Reading for DV Filmmakers". Millimeter Magazine. Archived from the original on 2003-06-29.
  The article notes:
  
  Producing Great Sound for Digital Video
  (2nd Edition) 428 pages (includes CD)
  By Jay Rose
  You have your script, a DV camera, and dozens of audio tracks available in Final Cut Pro 3. Eventually, you will get around to hiring a sound engineer, but if that's too expensive maybe you'll just save the money and do the sound yourself. Hey, it's a lot easier than lighting the set, right? Wrong. Shortchanging film sound is typical of new filmmakers, and the emphasis on picture over sound is a bias running through film schools and film publications — articles, books, and courses on visual subjects far outnumber those on film sound. Author Jay Rose is single-handedly addressing the problem.
  Just released in its second edition, Rose's Producing Great Sound for Digital Video is a comprehensive introduction to recording audio on location and editing the sound in postproduction. Acoustic theory and general recording strategies are discussed alongside numerous references to current software and cameras, presumably one of the reasons why a second edition has been released so soon after the book's initial publication in 1999.
  Digital artists are very much hands-on, and Rose is the right man to write audio books for this new generation of filmmakers. Rose operates his own boutique sound studio and bridges the analog and digital eras — he's made the discoveries and mistakes that no one should have to learn on the job. This direct experience with DV equipment and projects is apparent throughout the book.
3. Hartney, John (2003). "John Hartney reviews: Producing Great Sound for Digital Video, Second edition". Creative COW. Archived from the original on 2016-02-15. Retrieved 2016-02-15.
  The article notes:
  
  Don't call Producing Great Sound for Digital Video, Second edition by Jay Rose an audio primer or even a reference source, it's much more. In fact, it offers such a wide range of usable information about hands-on digital audio production, that by reading it, the reader is empowered with production skills and enlightened by an appreciation of how the experience of audio enriches video. It's like taking a class taught by a caring, affable, pro.
  Jay Rose is a master at creating new worlds of sound and in this book he walks the reader through the tools and techniques used in digital audio production for video.
  The book covers all phases of production from acquisition to the post production mix.
4. There are other reviews and information at http://www.jayrose.com/book/pgs2e/^WebCite such as:
  Most folks who write about doing sound for moving pictures, on film or on video, focus on the sexy stuff--mostly writing music, sometimes doing foley, often talking technical. Jay Rose doesn't mess around. He digs right into the hardcore side of audio for moving pictures -- recording and editing dialog, sound effects, and music. He debunks common myths, shows the reader how to make do in limited-budget, time-constrained situations, and puts it all in context on a technical level. Producing Great Soundtracks is an invaluable collection of step-by-step how-to information combined with the technical reasons things do or don't work. It's essential reading for anyone serious about making a living doing moving pictures.
  -- Dominic Milano, Digital Video Magazine
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Producing Great Sound for Film and Video to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
2. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The reviews in Videomaker Magazine, Millimeter Magazine, Creative COW, and Digital Video Magazine establish that Producing Great Sound for Film and Video passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep per being shown as meeting WP:NBOOK. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:37, 18 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. Der yck C. 01:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Andrea Ramos[edit]

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

Person did not place at top 15 in Miss Universe 2006 and fails WP:NBIO. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 03:11, 7 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 18:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:NMODEL Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. "Will RP bet be this year's Miss Universe?". Balita USA. Glendale, California. 2006-07-24. Archived from the original on 2016-02-15. Retrieved 2016-02-15.
  The article notes:
  
  Lia Andrea Ramos, Philippines' bet for the 2006 Miss Universe contest, July 23, could be a dark horse among the crowd. Last week at The Grove on Fairfax and 3rd Street, where all the candidates had a dinner at the La Piazza Restaurant inside the entertainment complex, I was able to get up-close and personal with the Pinay beauty
  As the beauteous candidates uniformly lined up to get in the restaurant, what a coincidence that they were held-up right in front of me, I was able to take a good look at the candidates and briefly talk to her and took a few shots.
  Noticeable with Lia was that she stood out among the rest because of her dark skin and her very slim frame. With a height of 5'7," She is a far-cry of any resemblance with the reigning Miss Universe 2005 winner-Canada's Natalie Glebova, who is actually taller than everyone of the current candidates.
  Lia is a Davaoenian beauty who loves to read novels and short stories, enjoys music, and is passionate about traveling and meeting new people.
  She dreams of becoming an ambassador of the Philippines one day and serving her countrymen. Her first job was working as a visa officer at the Royal Norwegian Embassy and was exposed to consular works. She had worked at The Asia Foundation which she thinks is essential and useful to her dream of being in the Foreign Service and also be involve in international development work.
2. "Filipino stunner hailed Miss Photogenic in Miss U tilt". GMA Network. 2006-07-24. Retrieved 2016-02-15.
  The article notes:
  
  Although she lost her bid to bring home the crown, Lia Andrea Aquino Ramos on Monday morning (RP time) won Miss Photogenic honors at the Miss Universe beauty contest held in Los Angeles, California.
  Ramos garnered the most votes or, as the contest host put it, "the most stares" based on the results of an internet poll.
  Ramos, a political science graduate from the University of the Philippines, failed to proceed to the top 20 semi-finalists after preliminary judging in swimsuit, evening gown and interview categories.
  She donned a white Filipiñana gown and held a matching abanico fan during the contestants' introduction.
3. Ferraz, Ezra (2015-04-20). "[Executive Edge] From beauty queen to innovator: Bb. Pilipinas-Universe 2006 Lia Andrea Ramos seeks to popularize the subscription box model in the country via her brainchild, Glamourbox". Rappler. Archived from the original on 2016-02-15. Retrieved 2016-02-15.
  The article notes:
  
  One of the most interesting business concepts to emerge from the Silicon Valley is the subscription box model. Glamourbox, founded by Bb. Pilipinas-Universe 2006 Lia Andrea Ramos, seeks to popularize such concept in the Philippines.
  She settled on the subscription box model as opposed to selling beauty products only through physical locations after doing some market research with her friends who would become her business partners.
  Ramos realized that she would be able to grow her brand much quicker if it were primarily online, especially as much of her target demographic was consuming beauty-related content over social media.
  As noted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 185#Rappler, Rappler lists corrections here. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations, "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lia Andrea Ramos to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That Lia Andrea Ramos received significant coverage in 2006 for Miss Universe and in 2015 for founding the company Glamourbox establishes that she is notable. I have added these sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per new sources provided in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Person has had significant enough coverage in multiple reliable sources, passes WP:NBIO—UY Scuti ^Talk 13:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per provided sourcing by User:Cunard. Sufficiently covered to pass WP:BASIC. BusterD (talk) 17:03, 22 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 Deuce (singer). Note that I have added a space to the title and moved it without redirect as an implausible typo. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible(Deuce album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album which has not even yet been released. All the references are social media or not independent or don't mention the topic. The album seems to be creating some buzz on social media because of copyright issues, but I don't see any reviews or other good secondary sources. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:18, 31 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 18:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deuce (singer) for now. The artist is notable, but it doesn't seem that the same can be said for this album. Oddly enough, it is being rumored (and even the Wikipedia page here saids) that the album came out on October 31, 2015, but I can't find the album officially released anywhere. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 01:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Non-notable and apparently also non-existent as of today. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Slow movement (culture). czar 02:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slow marketing[edit]

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

Nice idea, but it is really based on a http://slowmarketing.org website and one 2015 article in Marketing Magazine. This Wikipedia article was written by a student and clearly is a synthesis of the subject from a variety of blogs and personal websites. The October 2015 HuffPost blog article only name-checks the movement, while the Ad Age article looks good on the surface but is actually reporting about this Wikipedia article, so of questionable relevance. I'm not seeing sufficient proof this is a widely known aspect of 'slow' life and, it seems, this Wikipedia article is artificially promoting its validity. I'd argue at best it should be very selectively merged into the Slow movement (culture) article (using the Marketing Mag source). Alternatively it could just be deleted, being something not far short of a neologism at the moment.. Sionk (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy if needed as the article is certainly troubled with no better signs of keeping and improving, delete and restart at best. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 7 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 18:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slow living. Either keep all these breakout articles or merge them all back into the header article, Slow movement (culture), but keep the content. I think keep as break out articles, not withstanding the need to improve them all. Aoziwe (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to slow movement (culture). The Ad Age source isn't just about the Wikipedia article; it cites our article as proof that the movement exists, but it also cites other stuff. There's also this article from The New Zealand Herald. But it's difficult to find enough sources to say that this is a notable concept independent of the slow movement. I think a merge would be best for now. In my opinion, some of these breakout articles were spun off a bit too early. The notability isn't quite there yet for this, but it's still sourceable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 18 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. czar 02:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malhavoc[edit]

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

Article lacks any sources and has remained unsourced despite the presence of an ((unref)) template since June 2012. General Ization ^Talk 00:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even the About page of what purports to be the band's own Web site offers nothing useful to establish its notability. General Ization ^Talk 01:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable band bag with zero references and also lacks coverage in the media. Meatsgains (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't Bandcamp edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 01:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete This article does not have the notablity to have an article here. There are no references in the article. If the band were notable they would have news coverage somewhere that could maybe show notability. Jilllyjo (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - there's nothing at all here - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Therese Steinhardt Rosenblatt[edit]

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

Non-notable artist with no documented accomplishments other than one 10-day exhibition at a non-notable gallery and a purchase by the Metropolitan Museum, which appears to have decommissioned the work. Lack of sources. Mduvekot (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator[reply]

Delete perhaps as I was basically uncertain considering the Metropolitan Museum of Art connection would be notable enough but that would actually only be it because my searches found nothing else aside from passing mentions. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It essentially like the athletes in the early Olympics. Getting there is enough. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The purchase and long-term exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art are possibly just enough for WP:ARTIST criterion 4. Evidence of a second public collection would make this a firmer position, but allowance probably has to be made for the pre-web period. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not matter the work was decommissioned by Metropolitan. Being there is the achievement notable by itself. Also, I am not sure we can really establish "non-notability" of gallery in 1945. For someone, active in pre WWII period, the amount of sources is quite enough. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added the NY Times reviewer comments on her show. Also she appears to have been important as a socialite of sorts, her debutante ball got big coverage in the Times. I've added that citation and a bunch of others substantiating the biographical details. I've also pared down the synthesis about the Met. While we know they bought her painting, it's not clear that it was exhibited for many years.--Jahaza (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless it is claimed that the Metropolitan Museum of Art had a lower standard in 1948 and that its purchases from that era carry no effective influence in present-day art world, any artist whose biographical details include such a purchase cannot be considered as non-notable. As for "lack of sources", between the nomination and this writing, ten inline references have been appended. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 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. czar 01:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Game Reviewer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB. Non-notable video game review website. The1337gamer (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Page reads like a puff piece and contains references to blogs but there are still enough sources illustrating some notability. Meatsgains (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains: Where are these references that illustrate notability? Perhaps you'd like to elaborate further because I think your assessment is poor. Currently, not a single reference on the article contributes to notability as outlined at WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage about the subject, Indie Game Reviewer, in any of these sources. The majority of sources are not reliable or independent of Indie Game Reviewer. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1: Alexa rank – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 2: Community group created by Indie Game Reviewer on a raptr – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 3: Dead link and just another community group created by Indie Game Reviewer – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 4: Dead link, Archived version says nothing about Indie Game Reviewer, they just repost an excerpt of the website's review, along with many others. – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 5: Dead link, Archived version says nothing about Indie Game Reviewer, they just repost an excerpt of the website's review, along with many others. – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 6: No coverage about Indie Game Reviewer itself, they just cite Indie Game Reviewer for information on a completely different topic. – doesn't contributes to notability
Ref 7: Not independent of subject – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 8: Not independent of subject – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 9: Not independent of subject – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 10: Not independent of subject – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 11: Dead link, source is user generated wiki anyway so it's not reliable source – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 12: Not independent of subject – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 13: self-published blogpost, not a reliable source – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 14: no mention of Indie Game Reviewer anywhere, the source is a game developer's website so there wouldn't significant coverage on Indie Game Reviewer there anyway. – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 15: self-published post, indiedb is not reliable source – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 16: Not coverage about Indie Game Review, this is just a game developer's website that has pulled a quote from a review. – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 17: dead link, Archived version has no coverage about Indie Game Reviews, it's just a publisher promoting their work by mentioning that Indie Game Reviewer looked at it. – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 18: Database of reviews – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 19: Database of reviews – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 20: Dead link, source is user generated database anyway so not a reliable source – doesn't contribute to notability

Delete - I've stricken through my original vote. I suppose I should have taken more time to go through each reference, none of which are reliable. I must have done a brief skim of the page's sources and assumed they were. That's my mistake. Meatsgains (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per The1337gamer's TKO of the references. --Soetermans. T / C 01:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, no reliable sources. Bishonen | talk 11:32, 18 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.