The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker^talk 00:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Project announced in 2006, never followed up; several references listed are dead links; couldn't find recent news coverage about the project in the last 5 years; related to similarly-abandonedRas Al Khaimah spaceport project — JFG ^talk 00:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed, there's very little value in keeping them for historical purposes, while sourcing is substantially lacking. SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Planned but no better noticeable solid plans and thus nothing to suggest better independent notability if there's no further information. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 29 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ras Al Khaimah spaceport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Project announced in 2006, never followed up; most references listed are dead links; couldn't find recent news coverage about the project in the last 5 years — JFG ^talk 00:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject may be notable but lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best because the majority of what my searches found were from 2006 and none of it overall seems convincing enough, even including the recent coverage which is not as noticeable and that's imaginable because there was nothing else of plans....Certainly not solidly independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 29 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a performance artist and activist with no substantive or properly sourced indication of notability for either endeavour -- this is written like a prosified résumé, and sourced only to the topic's self-published content about themself with no indication of any reliable source coverage shown. As always, a person is not automatically entitled to an article just because they exist -- RS coverage supporting a proper claim of notability must be present for them to earn one. And for added bonus, the creator's username (IGR2016) suggests that this is most likely an WP:AUTOBIO (or at least somebody close enough to the subject to have a WP:COI.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I've tried to get this to vaguely resemble an encyclopaedia article, but it's in such a state so perhaps it's best to blow it up and start over. Adam9007 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Blythwood (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 29 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Prod removed following discussion at Talk:Xemi#PROD. Original concern was that the subject fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Concern remains valid. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No appearances in Spain's two professional leagues or for a team from one of those leagues against another in the cup. That he is a medical student is interesting, but doesn't salvage a WP:GNG '''tAD''' (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. MYS77 ^✉ 17:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as many has said above, fails notability guidelines WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Qed237 (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete - Well I may aswell pile on so here I am lol, Anyway fails GNG & FOOTIE. –Davey2010^Talk 21:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Friends of Hue Foundation. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Hue Foundation Board Members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional. Self-referential Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Nominator proposed merger to Friends of Hue Foundation first. Do that. AFD opened one minute later is not needed. Please withdraw this AFD item. I agree a separate article does not need to be split out to give details about each board member....that is too much detail for an encyclopedia article. --doncram 03:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Friends of Hue Foundation as seperate article is not needed.Atlantic306 (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite happy with merger.Rathfelder (talk) 22:39, 27 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO- the article is trying to claim notability from being from a notable family, but notability is not inherited. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I could find no sources adequate to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 24 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, noting also the copyright violation concern. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Despite the numerous links listed, I'm unable to find even a single reliable source that directly addresses the subject. WP:BIO or WP:PROF appear to be a long way off being met. SmartSE (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advert masquerading as an article, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - What is the conflict of interest issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon: see WP:COIN#679699sof, an editor has declared they are related to the subject via Espenshied/Overstolz family (see this revision and this declaration for connection). – Brianhe (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's be clear though, COI has nothing to do with my nomination - the subject isn't notable, plain and simple. SmartSE (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Are there current concerns about copyright? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - a large chunk of the article is directly copied from her website. SmartSE (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article may have slipped by my watch (but it appears that a considerable amount of cruft was added to it after I accepted it). Without respect to notability, paid editing and copyvio are reasons for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She is not a professor, whatever she may choose to call herself: "Dr. Sanford is a clinical associate professor of management (specializing in law and ethics) at W. P. Carey School of Business.". That is, she's someone from the business community who teaches of few courses, not a member of the regular faculty. I cannot find her books on worldcat. She is not notable3, this is an advertisement, and I suggest speedy deletion as G11, It canl;t be cured by fixing the copyright. It amazes me that ASU let her post this on their website. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as certainly questionable overall, best deleted and restarted if better is available. None of this better satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 16:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. My sweeps turned up empty although I found a mention here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ...or add some contact information, 'cause an advertisement needs that. Anmccaff (talk) 17:53, 26 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 Smokey and the Bandit. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This does not strike me as a notable topic; one notices the lack of sourcing, even the lack of a basic description, which boils down to "something that was on a menu in a movie". I don't think this passes the GNG, and I invite the participants from the talk page discussion from last year to participate: Ibadibam, OmikronWeapon, Froglich. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Smokey and the Bandit – I have seen no evidence that this sandwich exists outside the one-minute passage in which it appears in Smokey and the Bandit. All other mentions I have found are in reference to the movie. But the fact that it was discussed in cable TV show is worth mentioning in a "cultural legacy" section, along with the film's effect on Trans Am sales and other cultural impacts. Ibadibam (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While inadequately sourced (one RS at present), this low-importance article concerning an inoffensive subject is harmless in its present state with tags at the top awaiting future improvement. I don't think merging into "Smokey" is appropriate as that'd necessarily entail a larger fraction of space in that article than it rates in the film (where it exists as a prop for one of Jackie Gleason's more quotable lines). The movie is almost forty years old, but culinary interest in what a "diablo sandwich" really is (or was) continues to this day. As the Roadfood source makes clear, a diablo sandwich was an actually existent regional entree rather than script fiction. --Froglich (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:HARMLESS. The sources we have don't demonstrate notability so much as they just postulate ingredients based on what was depicted in the film. The RoadFood post makes no conclusion as to whether or not the diablo sandwich exists outside of the film. To this day, we have not one menu, not one advertisement, not one source of any kind that mentions this sandwich as anything other than something in this movie, nor do we have anything that actually documents enduring culinary interest – just a few forum posts and a movie food trivia show. If it's not significant enough to be mentioned in the film article, how could it be significant enough to have its own article? Ibadibam (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Smokey and the Bandit, which presently does not mention the topic. The topic has received minor coverage, but not nearly enough to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect as it clearly fails GNG on its own. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Smokey and the Bandit. I admit that I was waiting to see what Northamerica1000 said, but I was already strongly leaning toward a merge. I see a few trivial mentions scattered about, such as this, but there isn't enough to establish notability here. Redirect is alright, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Smokey and the Bandit or Delete. The sources, most of which are blogs or other, non reliable sources, all reference the movie. I can't find independent, reliable sources that predate the movie. Perhaps as part of an otherwise notable movie, this is worth inclusion. If not for the movie, the sandwich is more like something made up. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per SK1 - Nom Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Looking at the victims (1 dead, 2 wounded hospitalised, 4 treated on the spot) and the fact that it is only a minor railway line (not a main line) a not notable accident. No disaster whatsoever. The Banner talk 17:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - firstly, I do not claim it to be a "disaster". The Zwolle-Emmen line at 75 kilometres (47 mi), cannot be called a "minor railway" either. There is more to this than meets the eye at first glance. The crane had waited for one train to pass before crossing, and then started to cross the line before it was struck by a second train. Apparently the crane was only crossing at a very slow speed (less than walking pace?). This was a single-track stretch of line, although double between Zwolle and Dalfsen, presumably the two trains crossed there. The accident has been widely reported in the UK, Netherlands, USA, India etc. WP:GNG is met in spades. Note that the nominator has also !voted for deletion of the equivalent article on nl-Wiki. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is every train accident with one deadly victim suddenly notable? The Banner talk 18:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. However, a lack of, or low number of fatalities ≠ a lack of notability. IMHO, it is the circumstances that give this one notability. I don't know the full facts yet. Was the level crossing on a public or private right of way? In the UK, on a public right of way a telephone is provided so that drivers of very slow vehicles ≥5mph can get permission to cross. Some private crossings are so supplied. Even so, this does not always prevent accidents. Hopefully, details will become clearer in the coming few days. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I don't usually participate in deletion discussions on this project, so I might be horribly mistaken, but surely notability of an event (or specifically a train accident) isn't measured by the amount of deadly victims? At least not according to WP:GNG. Woodcutterty (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Worldwide coverage Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG. oknazevad (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per arguments above. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per arguments above. Multichill (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plain news hunting for an encyclopaedia what makes it a free for all to add almost every accident. Completely silly. But I withdraw the nomination. The Banner talk 18:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep easily passes WP:GNG. Deadly rail crashes in the Netherlands are not a common occurrence. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (in Dutch) Six since 2000 but excluding accidents between trains and cars. The Banner talk 19:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, six isn't a high number. Thanks for backing up what I said. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:26, 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. The article's subject is found to be a neologism and to lack the notability required for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This seems to be an attempt to promote a neologism or at best a dictionary definition. Of the three sources, Google Books says that two don't even mention the term. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or Merge with quantum electrodynamic haunting).- Someone put some words together that have superficially-plausible meaning, and then some other people thought it made them sound like serious researchers so they used the same neologism. The passing mention of this concept in a few popular books is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.- MrX 17:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect and Merge to Ghost hunting. It's apparently a term used often enough by ghostbuster hobbyists to have shown up in pop culture and entertainment sources [1]. (Note that However, the term being mentioned in such sources is not sufficient for a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's too fringe, and too poorly written. I think WP:TNT might apply, even if the subject is worth mentioning (preferably as a merge). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In this diff I have listed some potential sources on the article talk page. Checking the logs for the page I see an unreferenced article by this name was deleted in 2007, so I began my search for sources looking specifically for ones that pre-date 2007 to avoid circular referencing issues. I found evidence of its use among "paranormal researcher" types dating back at least to 2001 and evidence of its use in ghost fiction at least as far back as 2004. I found at least one book that begins to meet reliable source standards and can be used to begin to re-write this article. I found evidence of a page describing the concept published on the Appalachian Paranormal Center website as far back as 2002, and the current page there is an extensive treatment of it, which is also a usable reference, though it should be treated with caution (seems to be written and maintained by a pair of paranormal investigators or ghost hunters; I'd have to do more research on them before I could state with confidence that it's a RS). I found an excellent article in the South Jersey Times which is also a RS and gives an in-depth treatment. The South Jersey Times article does not pre-date the Wikipedia page, but given the other results that do I am confident in asserting that this is not a neologism which has made its way from Wikipedia into the mainstream. Over the next few days I'll see if I can't re-work the article into something more acceptable. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the sources you're suggesting building an article around. "PARANORMAL CORNER with Kelly Roncace" is not a WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie: Oh? An article in a mainstream regional newspaper by a staff features writer isn't an reliable source by any stretch of the imagination? Maybe in that case, it's not the source I need to read, maybe I need to re-read WP:RS. However, having re-read WP:RS, and more specifically WP:NEWSORG just now, the only caution I see that would apply to this article is the one on avoiding circular sourcing, which I already addressed. Going back to your suggestion to read the source (which I did do, btw), I notice that it follows a typical feature article/lifestyles article story arc, and she defines term "intelligent haunting" in her own words in the fifth through seventh paragraphs making reference first to ghost stories and movies, then to paranormal investigators. She then goes on to back her assertions with quotes and anecdotes from her interview with a local paranormal investigator. She then goes on to discuss residual hauntings, which most of the sources I have seen, and the article itself as it stands, contrasts with intelligent hauntings. It seems to be a fairly typical article of its type, and seems to meet the standards for sources imposed in WP:NEWSORG. Your comment made me wonder if, perhaps, she is a columnist who restricts her column to paranormal stuff, but clicking the link for her bio on the newspaper's website [2] I see she describes herself as a "a Lifestyles reporter" and has written about not only the local paranormal scene, but also Ringling Brother's Circus, a local teacher winning "Chopped", new stores coming into a local outlet mall, a local bakery, a tatoo artist convention... in other words, nothing that leads me to believe she is anything less than a staff reporter who writes for the lifestyles section of the paper. So how does this not meet Wikipedia's standards at WP:NEWSORG? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is framed in the same terms as a horoscope, and is as reliable as a horoscope as a source. Which means, in case it was not blindingly obvious, not reliable at all. Wikipedia is a reality-based project and we use reality-based sources. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking though, horoscopes in the newspaper are not written by staff journalists. This is more akin to if a newspaper wrote an article on terms used in astrology, and interviewed a local astrologer to define the terms. It would then be a reliable source for demonstrating how the term is used in astrology. I am not proposing to write an article claiming that intelligent haunting exists, just as if we were discussing an astrological term I would not propose to say that astrology and horoscopes are valid predictions of the future or of a person's personality traits. I am proposing to write an article on the concept of intelligent hauntings, as opposed to other types of hauntings, and how the term(s) is used in fiction and in paranormal circles. This seems to me like a perfectly acceptable source for that. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly columns written by reporters who believe in ghosts aren't considered independent reliable sources to describe ghosts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough reliable sources that use this term. Note that the word haunting redirects to List of reportedly haunted locations, that might be a suitable article to redirect this term to as well. JuliaHunter (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Couldn't find reliable sources. It's not out of the question that folklorists may eventually produce RS on this, as a cultural phenomenon. Geogene (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Geogene makes a good point; these kinds of distinctions between kinds of haunting may eventually become a notable cultural phenomenon, deserving of an article from the folklore point of view, much as Bigfoot is. But it hasn't happened yet. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Geogene. Preaky (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. I could not find any RSes to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets WP:GNG per the following: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] ~Kvng (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Satisfies GNG per Tiny Mix Tapes review and Stylus Magazine review.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The content found by Kvng seems like local coverage and it did not appear in my Google search, possibly because it's behind a paywall, but it is good. The content found by The Cross Bearer. Nomination withdrawn. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 24 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 speedily deleted by Sphilbrick per CSD G5 (created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Zurkhaneh Sports Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article about an event sponsored by an organization that doesn't even have a WP page. Existing is not the same as notable.Mdtemp (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails notability, this is not even a serious sport. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:37, 24 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Also nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE or WP:NSPORTS. Mdtemp (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator - the language is pretty promotional.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found no significant independent coverage of him and the article's sources do not meet WP:GNG. There's no mention of him at the IBJJF website and nothing to show he meets WP:NSPORT or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 00:31, 28 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No supporting evidence to show he's a notable kickboxer and lacks the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There appears to be some notability, however I'm not convinced it meets WP:GNG, greatest claim to fame appears to be that he was Australian Muay Thai Cruiserweight Champion in 1995; none of the sporting achievements appear to meet WP:NSPORT. On that basis, it's a delete vote from me. Aeonx (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless some independent evidence can be presented he meets WP:NKICK. Papaursa (talk)
• Delete as per nominatorPeter Rehse (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Putting aside the question of the number of Google hits, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, there is consensus that the secondary sources/3rd party sources that are needed to demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are lacking. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lack of secondary sources available, there is only 162 results in Google for this BLV, and no article in national press or any exploitable reliable reference to source the bibliography. Dereckson (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Google Search about Pierre Jovanović: 162 results

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 15:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 15:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument according to which a "Pierre Jovanović" Google search only gives 162 results is a particularly dishonest one. The accentuated "ć" character is NOT used in France or in French. The same Google search conducted with a plain "c" instead of a "ć" gives 234 000 results. Pierre Jovanovic is a well-known French writer, polemicist and financial analyst. He has published many best-selling books. His French page is regularly attacked because of his dissenting views on politics or on financial matters. - preceding comment added by 82.224.192.226 in Revision as of 12:25, 28 February 2016
  • I noted the inappropriateness of the Google count in AfD. Yet, to answer the accusation of dishonesty, no, there isn't 234 000 results: you have to go to the last page to get the real count, 234 000 is only a rough estimate, the real count drops around 200. It's only 207 for example for "Pierre Jovanovic" with a plain c. The results seem very similar for the two queries by the way. --Dereckson (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: An equivalent discussion on the French Wikipedia in August 2014 led to deletion: [9]. AllyD (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: The subject continues to be active journalistically (with contributions to the Equality and Reconciliation site: [10]) and does have books translated into languages other than French (though I would want to see independent evidence for best-seller status rather than just the introduction to a website interview). However I am not seeing the reliable 3rd party coverage needed to meet the biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : inexistence of focused secondary sources. Then Equality and Reconciliation is not considered as a reliable or notable media. Kumʞum ouatizite ? 17:56, 29 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Same as the prod. "Non - notable programming language. I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that the general notability guideline is met." duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my PROD rationale. The sources added to justify the de-PROD are not RS and I'm still unable to find anything better. SmartSE (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Usually, there's at least basic coverage of notable tech Taiwanese companies at the Taipei Times, and I can't even find a single press release about them or this product. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software (programming language) article of unclear notability, lacking quality RS references. Refs provided are low quality blogs or PR sites, or company pages. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. joe decker^talk 00:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as although the current article initially seems acceptable, my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: what do you mean? I'm not challenging you, but I'm not understanding what you're saying. It seems to say "This is acceptable, but delete because I can't improve it" which I'm pretty sure is not your point. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

78.26 The current article would seem acceptable at first because of the listed sources but it's actually a questionably notable article because my searches found nothing to enhance it. There's some coverage, sure, but this is still questionably solidly notable as it's own article, with none of the listed sources convincing us of a better independent article. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Trivial references. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete WP:A3 -- GB fan 14:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of global research institutes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No refs, no categories, not sur if A3, only links to other websites. 333-blue 13:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete no content. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Better to speedy delete per above. Nordic Dragon 14:26, 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) sst✈ 14:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nominator has listed all articles from now-blocked User:Albanian Historian. The WP:IDL is clear. I know some users have had not "friendly" or pleasant experience with User:AH, but this is not a reason to retaliate. --Mondiad (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., AnywayI'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- While a couple of the sources look non-RS, at least two look sufficiently academic to be reliable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 25 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) sst✈ 14:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article is about a person who is notable. The nominator was such in a hurry that forgot to see the article's content or the sources. The rest as per rationale given by IJA above.--Mondiad (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., AnywayI'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It has two apparently RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 25 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) sst✈ 14:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The previous AfD result, less than 30 days ago was Keep as was found to have been notable. Nordic Dragon 13:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nominator ignores the fact that this article was recently discussed. Clear WP:IDL.--Mondiad (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., AnywayI'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The notability of this subject is substantiated by reliable sources, several of which are cited in this article. A search on Google Books also revealed a large number of books in Albanian that talk about this individual (see, e.g., this book). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- adequately sourced. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 25 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) sst✈ 14:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per rationale given by IJA. Also, the article might need additional work to conform to standards but it is not a reason for deleting it.--Mondiad (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., AnywayI'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 19:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article cites sources (albeit in a foreign language) that substantiate notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- adequately sourced. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 25 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) sst✈ 14:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination. 23 editor (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per rationale by IJA. Also, the article is about a real event and is referenced. --Mondiad (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway, I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 19:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article cites many source that discuss this battle in some detail. See, for example, this book, which is cited in the article. It appears that this was a real conflict that has received coverage by a number of historians. If there are problems with WP:POV, then those should be worked out on the talk page rather than at AFD. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Uprising of Lumë (the alternative title given in the lead), unless someone can point to an appropriate merge or redirect target. It seems to be a factual account of events in part of Albania, and may be regarded as one of the campaigns of the Balkan Wars of that period. I suspect that it has been titled "battle of", so that a "battle" template could be applied to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep articles like that should be improved, not deleted. SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:04, 28 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) sst✈ 14:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -as per rationale given by IJA. --Mondiad (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Found 10 Gbooks mentioning him.--Zoupan 19:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As Zoupan mentioned above, there appear to be large number of books (in Albanian) written about this individual. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- adequately sourced. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 25 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per rationale given by IJA.--Mondiad (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Still fails notability? 0 hits on Gbooks. Refs used in the article are unrealiable. Merge content into List of Kachaks if you insist.--Zoupan 19:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - How are the references unreliable? Are the published books which are used as references unreliable? If so please explain how. 0 google books searches means no books on google books, not 0 books on the topic. IJA (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Just about adequately sourced, though it is not a good article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be right, this is a forum, and this one is obviously not reliable. The reference that is left is a 1937 travel book, with 1 mention of the person ("It's the song of Ndoc Mark Gega. And he was? A great outlaw")? Should not be kept.--Zoupan 15:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete 0 hits on Google Books. Clearly fails notability. 23 editor (talk) 15:53, 28 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) sst✈ 14:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination. 23 editor (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per rationale given by IJA. The nominator cannot claim POV as he hasn't raised any discussion about the article itself. I am sure he hasn't even gone though the paragraphs. The is a spree deleting/renaming project taken over by the nominator involving many articles so far.--Mondiad (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Found an Albanian monograph about him by Fazli Muriqi (1997), and another ref mentioning him (2 Gbook hits).--Zoupan 19:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- not very well sourced, but there is too much detail for this to be invention. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 25 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) sst✈ 14:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. 23 editor (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per rationale given by IJA. There is a huge number of articles currently proposed for deletion just because of the WP:IDL or renamed without consensus by the nominator, all simultaneously.--Mondiad (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Found 5 Gbooks mentioning him.--Zoupan 19:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- far from an ideal article, but not so bad as to need TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 25 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) sst✈ 14:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per rationale given by IJA. --Mondiad (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Found 7-8 Gbooks mentioning him.--Zoupan 19:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets gng, so the creation by sock is just rationale seems to be a revenge vendetta rather than a rational argument for deletion Jacona (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Adequate sourcing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 25 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. 23 editor (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as per rationale given by IJA. The nominator is currently trying to delete or rename without consensus a series of articles just because he doesn't like them, clear WP:IDL. --Mondiad (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Still fails notability? 0 hits on Gbooks. Refs used in the article are unrealiable. Merge content into List of Kachaks if you insist.--Zoupan 19:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - How are the references unreliable? Are the published books which are used as references unreliable? If so please explain how. 0 google books searches means no books on google books, not 0 books on the topic. IJA (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IJA: The Truth on Kosova comes from a publisher I can't find anything about so it might be self-published, which goes against WP:SPS. Albaniapress.com makes no claim of being a news outlet. Botasot and Express are both aping the interviews done by Liman Rushiti and I can't speak to NPOV because there's a lot of partisanship in that part of the world. Obviously the YouTube video isn't a source.. so I don't see any real sources to base an article on here. The onus is on the article to make a claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Without reliable sources, the article makes no claim of notability and has none. Although the article doesn't qualify under WP:G5, it makes sense to nominate POV articles written by a now-blocked crank. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets gng, so the creation by sock is just rationale seems to be a revenge vendetta rather than a rational argument for deletion.Jacona (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JaconaFrere and Davey2010: Could you point out which sources support this claim of general notability? None of these look reliable to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Adequately sourced. He assassinated of a notable figure, whose subordinates then wreaked disproportionate revenge on innocent villagers. His actions were thus the cause of the massacre. I think that makes him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 25 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) sst✈ 14:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - this person is notable and the article is referenced. Most of all, per reasons given above by IJA.--Mondiad (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources cited in this article substantiate notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets gng, so the creation by sock is just rationale seems to be a revenge vendetta rather than a rational argument for deletion Jacona (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- adequately sourced, though not yet a good article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 25 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per rationale by IJA.--Mondiad (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Still fails notability? 0 hits on Gbooks. The refs used in the article are unrealiable, as per RS-board. Merge content into List of Kachaks if you insist.--Zoupan 19:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - How are the references unreliable? Are the published books which are used as references unreliable? If so please explain how. 0 google books searches means no books on google books, not 0 books on the topic. IJA (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malsia.eu was deemed unreliable, as per other nationalistic sites. Dedushaj is obviously unreliable. The two others sources are works on folklore, don't see why, as I said, a summarization into List of Kachaks is unwanted?--Zoupan 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the University of Michigan an unreliable source? It can be mentioned on List of Kachaks, but why isn't its own article allowed even if it is a stub? IJA (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete No notability whatsoever. 0 Google hits for "Ahmet Zenel Gjonbalaj" -wikipedia. Davey2010 Please explain how WP:GNG applies to an article with 0 Google hots on the title. --T*U (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise google books hits was a necessity to define notability... Oh wait it isn't! Why is the University of Michigan an unreliable source? IJA (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention Google Books. I mentioned 0 Google hits. I have more than 100 Google hits on my name, and I can assure you I am not notable. As to Michigan, I dio not read Albanian, so I cannot read the source, but does it really say anything about Ahmet Zenel Gjonbalaj that indicates that he is notable? --T*U (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- adequately sourced. The two University of Michigan sources appear to refer to "folk lore". If he is the subject of a significant folk tale, that would make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 25 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) sst✈ 14:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albania's Golgotha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars. 23 editor (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That article doesn't address the same content, right? It'd probably need to be a merge if done like that. Appable (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Nominator hasn't claimed any deletion reason that falls under deletion criteria and I don't see any reason why POV issues mean this article needs to be deleted (not that it's not an issue, just that I don't think it's something unsolvable), nor does being created by a sockpuppeter. Seems to be sourced somewhat sparsely but adequately to justify an article, likely more sources in non-English language. Appable (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per rationale given above. This article is about a book published in 1913 by an Austrian politician. And there are sources to support it. The nominator's rationale is vague and and "article is questionable and highly POV" demands a minimal discussion at the talk page of the article which is missing.--Mondiad (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - nominator has given no real reason for deletion. BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Appable, Mondiad, and Davey2010. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets gng, so the creation by sock is just rationale seems to be a revenge vendetta rather than a rational argument for deletion Jacona (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This seems to be a description of an Austrian book, highlighting atrocities committed by the Serbian army in the course of the Balkan War and may have had an effect on their subsequent behaviour. If so, it is clearly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 25 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) sst✈ 14:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per rationale given by IJA above.--Mondiad (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails notability, "Cel Shaban", "Cel Shabani" and "Cel Gjonbalaj" 0 hits on Gbooks. I would suggest that a list of Kachaks be created where these articles failing notability be summarized into.--Zoupan 18:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My bad, "Çel Shabani" 5 hits.--Zoupan 19:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - How are the references unreliable? Are the published books which are used as references unreliable? If so please explain how. 0 google books searches means no books on google books, not 0 books on the topic. IJA (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets gng, so the creation by sock is just rationale seems to be a revenge vendetta rather than a rational argument for deletion Jacona (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Little more than a stub, but adequate sourcing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 25 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per rationale given by IJA above.--Mondiad (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Still fails notability? 0 hits on Gbooks. The refs used in the article are unrealiable, as per RS-board. Merge content into List of Kachaks if you insist.--Zoupan 19:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - How are the references unreliable? Are the published books which are used as references unreliable? If so please explain how. 0 google books searches means no books on google books, not 0 books on the topic. IJA (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete Absolutely no notability. 4 Google hits for "Ajet Sopi Bllata" -wikipedia. And please check the references for reliability. Not very... --T*U (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- There are sources, though I am uncertain of their quality. I am also concerned as to his general notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 25 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) sst✈ 14:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Expulsion of the Albanians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Users are willing to work on the article, as per talk.--Zoupan 12:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the technical grounds that the nominator has failed to give a valid reason for deletion. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per rationale given above. Perhaps, the nominator might also check the talk page first.--Mondiad (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zoupan. Discussions on the talk page indicate that editors have expressed a willingness to improve this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets gng, so the creation by sock is just rationale seems to be a revenge vendetta rather than a rational argument for deletion. Jacona (talk) 12:59, 25 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. joe decker^talk 00:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not an obviously notable band. Their main claim of significance is that they have Vaylor Trucks (son of Butch Trucks, cousin of Derek Trucks) in their line up. I would have cleaned up the article if I could have found any sources of substance, but there doesn't appear to be anything beyond routine mentions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve. These guys were regulars (and attracted good crowds) at Wanee and a few other festivals, which in and of itself suggests some degree of notability. I may take a whack at improving if I can find proper sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.113.11.16 (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indications of notability. Being regular fixtures at a festival is not, in itself, notable. Find the sources, and then we can re-evaluate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as certainly applicable for deletion because none of this satisfies the band notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 25 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 12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

While some WP:SIGNIFICANCE is credibly asserted, I don't think this artist passes the test for having received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There are no doubt many highly talented artists and art teachers who nevertheless do not met the notability criteria. The references given appear to be those a non-notable artist may accrue in the course of their career. As always, I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think exhibiting in ICP, Bronx and Brooklyn Museums of Art makes a statement. Also, about the sources: Juxtapoz Magazine is a reliable source in the art world and she got an article their. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in addition she's had at least one non-trivial review of her work in the Boston Globe.--Jahaza (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:BASIC with significant coverage in Juxtapoz, AI Magazine, and Atwood Magazine, among others. She has exhibited over 50 times and is included in the Brooklyn Museum's Feminist Art Base. Since the article was nominated for deletion, it has expanded significantly and 9 sources have been added. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the editors above, especially since she's covered in art magazines like Juxtapoz. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]