The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:G7 -- the author blanked the page — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Izzad Bakhsh[edit]

Izzad Bakhsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A meaningless article; non notable and non sourced. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Actually fits CSD WP:A3. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 14:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:A3; no meaningful content Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:54, 4 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. J04n(talk page) 00:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C1N1K1LL discography[edit]

C1N1K1LL discography (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)

Discography of a band whose article was speedied A7 for lacking any substantive claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC, and whose sole album with an article was then speedied A9. Accordingly, I then speedied the discography — but was then challenged by one editor on the grounds that as neither A7 nor A9 makes any specific provision for artists' discographies, there were no valid speedy grounds at all (not even the snowball clause was acceptable) and the discography thus had to be kept for seven full days of process wonkery even though my opponent fully agrees with its deletion.
This discography, for the record, is every bit as unsourced and unsourceable as the band's article was (reliable source coverage at big fat zero on Google), and fails to even name the chart the albums purportedly attained their claimed chart positions on — and because artists do not automatically get standalone discography articles as separate topics from their main article, but rather get that treatment only when the main article is long enough to need spinoffs for size management purposes, it should never actually have been left to stand alone as a separate article in the first place. So if it had been handled properly, i.e. redirected back to the band article, it would have become speediable as a G8 (redirect to a nonexistent page).
So I guess my real question has less to do with whether this is deletable or not — that's a no-brainer — and more to do with asking whether there's the will to formally establish a consensus that speedy deleted artists' discography articles should become eligible for speedy under A9 if the artist and all of the albums in the discography are all redlinks, or under A7 on the grounds that it's not really a true standalone topic in its own right, so much as a formatting choice that we sometimes apply to the band's article, and is thus really a subpage of the deleted article rather than an independent topic. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Isn't the proper venue for this Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion? Not sure why you've restored a deleted page and launched a deletion discussion when you've said yourself it's a foregone conclusion. Adam9007 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia process essentially requires admins to reverse their own speedy deletion, and take it to another forum for wider discussion, if somebody expresses an objection after the fact. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case delete per original PROD. As I said, it's very much a borderline case, with Boing! said Zebedee: thinking this meets A9, and me A7 because it's indirectly about the band itself, and that this should really have been on the band's article, which is A7-able. I'm not sure if A9 covers discographies but apparently not. Discographies are basically catalogues of an artist's albums or songs, whereas I think A9 only covers individual albums or songs, though I could be wrong. But I suppose this is technically outside CSD's scope because, as stated, neither specifically state anything about discographies; by default they're not quite about albums/songs (A9), and not quite about a band or singer (A7). They're sort of in-between. Though I suppose that had the band's article been kept, it wouldn't have been an A9 in any case. Adam9007 (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say that the article is not about a discography; it is a discography, so I agree that they should be speediable if the artist and the albums are redlinks. But under A7 or A9 I'm not sure. Adam9007 (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete of course, and I would support the modification of A9 to include discographies when neither the band nor albums (including singles) have Wikipedia articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for obvious reasons LavaBaron (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if the artist and albums are not notable then the discography has no valid reason to be kept. Daft that A9 does not cover as its only a grouping of the musical recording that are covered. KylieTastic (talk) 19:42, 28 January 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. J04n(talk page) 00:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Eyang[edit]

William Eyang (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)

WP:TOOSOON? Fails WP:NFOOT because he made no appearances Ueutyi (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:10, 29 January 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) 03:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrdad Myrkyany[edit]

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

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

I have doubts about the notability of these awards (As far as I can tell from the almost unreadable translation from Farsi, most of them were not awards, but occasions where he was listed as a "candidate"") DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I marked it as reviewed and bookmarked it for later as I also questioned it. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG not sure if he won the award or was merely a candidate further how notable is the award. Lacks third party references and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:32, 24 January 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. There is consensus that there is insufficient sourcing available for a standalone page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Conner[edit]

Naomi Conner (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)

With very limited local coverage of the WP:ROUTINE nature and basically nothing about her life or accomplishments other then she lived, had a family, and eventually died, there is no notability established here. Per WP:NOPAGE she belongs on the appropriate lists but no stand alone page. Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, an entry in List of supercentenarians from the United States should suffice. Sionk (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Being the oldest person in Texas is notable. And being one of the overall longest living people ever is notable. Also per WP:GNG. We dont delete articles on WP:IDONTLIKEIT or article quality. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She was the oldest living person in Texas at the time of her death, but not the oldest ever person in/from Texas. From what I've seen of similar AfD discussions, we don't generally keep articles about people simply because they didn't die for a long time. For Conner we don't have much else about her than a grandchild count. Sionk (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or Redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. A GRG table, a dead link to her obituary and two routine birthday articles that go to the same website (suggesting local coverage only) do not establish notability. Removing the longevity trivia leaves you with a name, age, country, nickname and how many siblings and grandkids she had. Nothing of interest here. Entry in a "list of" is enough. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge/Redirect One dead link, GRG, and two local TV bits =/= sigcov. And see WP:NOPAGE. EEng 13:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States largely per CommanderLinx who sums up my line of thought. Blackmane (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, then redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. There's no reason for this to have a stand-alone article. The assessment of the "sources" above is spot-on, as is the reference to the WP:NOPAGE essay. David in DC (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. The available sources do not appear to satisfy the requirement for a standalone page per WP:N, although there might be enough for an entry via a merge. Canadian Paul 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States (with the history preserved under the redirect). Several editors have suggested a merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright, the page history must be preserved if a merge occurs. Therefore, I recommend retaining the history under the redirect so that interested editors can selectively merge material to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Cunard (talk) 05:45, 31 January 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) 02:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knjiga joga za nosečnice[edit]

Knjiga joga za nosečnice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable book. Twenty Google hits, all sales sites or promotional, none independent. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no indication of notability--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NBOOK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is not convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 1 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 procedural close. Nomination withdrawn (nominator blanked the discussion) with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of school massacres by death toll[edit]

List of school massacres by death toll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I guess I will just repeat what was said in the last deletion discussion. Obviously this article was moved from the List of rampage killers (school massacres) article (which has since been restored) without the user even making a proposal and a consensus being reached in the latter's talk page. Also, according to Millionsandbillions, this article violates WP:NOTCENSORED by redacting the names of the perpetrators. In addition, there seemed to be a "single-editor ownership" going on before the creator got banned, suggesting a skewed intention for the article at best. Parsley Man (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see no reason to delete this important and interesting list. Can be used by many readers to navigate this major subject as well. The article is well-sourced also. Clear keeper. BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Can be used by many readers to navigate this major subject as well." So does the List of rampage killers (school massacres) article. Parsley Man (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply.BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the whole thing was copy-and-pasted from that article, with the exception of the redacting of names. Parsley Man (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it's a mess and almost worse than useless (for example it didn't include last year's major Garissa University College attack). The inclusion criteria is laughable (why exclude attacks if they are carried out by a member of staff?). But the tolerance of list articles is high on Wikipedia, so I've no reason to delete it. The nominator doesn't give a coherent rationale for deletion anyway. Sionk (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The nominator doesn't give a coherent rationale for deletion anyway." I will repeat myself, "Obviously this article was moved from the List of rampage killers (school massacres) article (which has since been restored) without the user even making a proposal and a consensus being reached in the latter's talk page." Parsley Man (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of school massacres by death toll certainly copies the style and format of List of rampage killers (school massacres) but it appears to list very different things (i.e. the massacres not the perpetrators). List of rampage killers (school massacres) is still there at that target (I assume any redirect was reverted). The original list seems hardly better (I would say worse, considering we have no widespread definition of "rampage killer"). I'll assume you simply didn't express your argument very well, however, if an article started by being copied from another article, that isn't a valid reason for deletion is it? Sionk (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the redirect was reverted; I checked the history. And yes, an article started by being copied from another article should be deleted validly. Parsley Man (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A replication of the same article could be deleted validly. But we're not talking about that at all here. They're now very different in content. Sionk (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the way it was created without a proposal even being made first? Parsley Man (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles aren't normally created after making a "proposal", they are just created. And certainly never deleted just because a proposal hadn't been made before creating them (or any other procedural issue). You reiterate this point, but it's invalid. LjL (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)To be honest, I don't see any evidence of a discussion before List of rampage killers (school massacres) was created from List of rampage killers. Sometimes it is good practise to discuss an article split. But here someone has created a list of something different, though in a similar style. If there is a problem perceived with List of school massacres by death toll it can be dealt with in the normal way, discussion and editing/cleanup. Sionk (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - And considering that this article was kept less than three months ago after a No consensus !vote in a AfD putting it up again so soon seems excessive. That the creating user has been blocked is irrelevant to an articles notability, WP:IDONTLIKEIT which seems to be the nominators main concern is irrelevant to an articles notability. BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LjL said this, and I quote: "Discussions closed as "no consensus" (like the previous AFD for this article) can properly be re-opened." Parsley Man (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but nothing in this article's current nomination actually suggests it should be deleted, but rather, fixed and improved. It's not proper to delete an article that does belong on Wikipedia just because the present state of it is suboptimal, or other reasons such as the creator being blocked or an agenda having been pushed in the pastr. LjL (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The List of rampage killers (school massacres) article already covers a majority of the events included in this article, the remainder can be categorized or is already categorized in other appropriate lists such as List of battles and other violent events by death toll, and this article's creation goes against Wikipedia's standards of proposing for it and seeking a consensus (as it was done right off the bat without anyone else being aware of it), WP:NOTCENSORED is being violated by the redacting of names. Parsley Man (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So debate in favor of re-addition of the names, not of deletion of the article. I simply loathe it when people want to delete articles because their current content violates a "rule", when they could simply be fixed to adhere to that rule instead. As to rampage killers, I'd say the topic of massacres is a lot more notable than the topic of individual killers (note that single massacres may be performed by more than one individual). By the way, creation of articles doesn't have to follow any particular standards of proposing it etc etc. In fact, there is a "WP:Be bold and just do it" "standard". LjL (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, the List of rampage killers (school massacres) article, which DOES include the names, has already been restored. And what kind of standard is that?! It sounds like it could lead to some problems. Parsley Man (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the two articles entirely overlap each other, then they can be merged, without a need for deleting one of them. The "standard" is a Wikipedia guideline, and while of course it must be applied in concert with all the other guidelines, it seems to have contributed to creating a successful encyclopedia where people are bold and edit. LjL (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I give up! Disregard this, please! Enjoy this terrible article! :( Parsley Man (talk) 00:56, 25 January 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) 02:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Games (video game developer)[edit]

Urban Games (video game developer) (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)

Too small to be notable, fails WP:CORP JMHamo (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not better convincing from the current article and information. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I couldn't find any coverage in a reliable source that was in-depth or independent from their game, Train Fever. -- ferret (talk) 02:31, 26 January 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Asare[edit]

Angela Asare (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)

At best notable for a single event. Per WP:NOPAGE should be on the pageant list of winners and not have a stand a lone article. Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by page creator She has a stand alone page on Italian Wikipedia where I did the translation.She wasn't just a Miss Universe contestant she was also Miss Ghana.She was also the tallest contestant at the Miss Universe--Rberchie (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tallest? Sounds like WP:TRIVIA Legacypac (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as Miss Ghana. I understand that winners of contests are subjects of some disagreement but such articles are generally kept as notable at the national level per our long-standing consensus. @Rberchie:, the fact that the subject of the article have a stand-alone page on Italian Wikipedia is not a valid reason for a stand-alone article on the English Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Wikicology. Nom is also merely arguing for a redirect, which is not an AFD discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention a redirect. I want a delete. Now stop staking me and my nominations. Legacypac (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, I don't see any case of stalking or hounding here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, stop making false personal attacks. You've nominated an page for deletion after I declined a speedy earlier today. And this isn't even the first time today. It's certainly not me who's doing the stalking. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the trolling Wolfowitz. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:GNGBabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added a source, wikilinks and corrected some details. Keep, because she won the Miss Universe Ghana contest, she was Ghanaian national ambassador for AIDS awareness, she was the face of RUNWAY AFRICA 2007, the first African fashion show in the US. And if you look at Category:Miss Universe 2006 contestants you will see that taking part in the Miss Universe competition should be sufficient for notability. Besides, is it not like each country sends their local winner to the competition so for taking part you should have already one the national beauty contest, which generates notability imho. --Gereon K. (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 January 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 lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old khiva hotel[edit]

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

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

No indication that this hotel meets the general notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a modern hotel built in 2012. I propose to move this stub to Wikivoyage or just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NearEMPTiness (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not even any minimal signs of a better article, not to mention better in-depth. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 25 January 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Seaton (sailor)[edit]

Ryan Seaton (sailor) (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)

Delete: non-notable as sailor or in any other way. Possibly too soon. Quis separabit? 19:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Verifiable Olympic competitor.[1] All Olympic competitors and Paralympic medalists are presumed notable per WP:NSPORT. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Olympic competitor, in 2016 Olympics, silver in the World Cup, gold in 49er class in Sail For Gold, and loads of coverage. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 04:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. As per Gene93k, Olympians automatically notable. (Have added more direct ref. in article.)--A bit iffy (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Double Olympian.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As an Olympic competitor he clearly meets WP:NSPORT - Basement12 (T.C) 16:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Florida, 2016. The article's subject is found to currently lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Wilcox[edit]

Todd Wilcox (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)

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a candidate in a party primary for a future election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. This article, however, fails to properly demonstrate that he had preexisting notability as a businessman: his business career is sourced entirely to mentions of it by way of background information in coverage of the candidacy, which is not how you get a person over our inclusion rules for businesspeople either. Wikipedia is not a public relations platform on which political candidates are entitled to maintain campaign brochures. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the Senate seat. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to United States Senate election in Florida, 2016 where all the candidates can be described in a neutral fashion. As it is, this article is more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as mentioned, questionable for his own article yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United States Senate election in Florida, 2016 as suggested above. Per nom., not yet notable enough for his own article (as he will be if he wins the election).--Newbreeder (talk) 21:42, 25 January 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) 02:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuele Cilia[edit]

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

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

I couldn't verify that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 19:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 19:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches found nothing better than one link at Times of Malta. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:35, 31 January 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) 02:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maya (2015 UK film)[edit]

Maya (2015 UK film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable movie. I don't see any reliable secondary sources (only IMDB and the web page of the producing company). Vanjagenije (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless better WP:RS shows up. Article created by COI editor, likely promotional. There is another film with the same name also in 2015 which is muddying up searches.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

• Delete per lacking the coverage to meet WP:NF. Perhaps when we have confirmation of release and some coverage, the topic can be re-visited. For now it is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted as no indication of importance; there was an earlier version, properly speedy deleted as advertising DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Heaven[edit]

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

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

A worthy organization, perhaps, but not one that has attracted much notice from the world at large. The only cited source is the organization itself, and searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and EBSCO found nothing more about this "Children's Heaven" than this passing mention. So does not meet WP:NGO. Worldbruce (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I have speedy tagged. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 30 January 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 lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fairyland (video game)[edit]

Fairyland (video game) (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 topic, an MMORPG video game, lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Its only hits were directory pages, press releases, or one-sentence mentions—nothing in depth. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 17:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still questionably notable despite the listed links. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 25 January 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. Michig (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

River Lea (song)[edit]

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

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

I've never seen an article in mainspace which lacks notability more than this does, and see another editor fight for it to stay in mainspace as much as this article. I mean, seriously. Three short sentences, a chart table with two chartings, and two references. There is nothing notable about this song, it's not a single, there's no third party sources or independant coverage, it hasn't won any awards or been nominated for any. Letting the article remain in mainspace in order for it to "expand over time" in the hope that it will become notable is not a good enough reason for it stay in mainspace, AnotherBeliever. You insist on the article not being redirect and keep reverting multiple editors who are redirecting these non-notable articles.  — Calvin999 17:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted twice, but another editor reverted the redirect as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not because they agree that it is notable, I have to add. Only for the debate on it's notability.  — Calvin999 17:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no independent coverage (outside of album reviews/Adele's own commentary) from any credible sources, though I should note that whether a song is a single is not an automatic indicator of notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nominator's rationale which is pretty solid. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets both WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Charting in at least two countries. Here are some sample instances of coverage (collapsed for convenience):

-- Softlavender (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's all very well and good supplying sources, but they aren't any use here. The article is still not notable.  — Calvin999 22:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean? Why aren't these sources any use? They seem quite appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Because this is an AfD? No one reading the article can see these sources or the info they may contain about the song. These sources need to be put in the article, but you don't wanna do that. The time you've spent finding sources and going back and forth here, you could have finished the article or at least had something possibly half way decent to save it from being deleted.  — Calvin999 22:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but notability is not established based on the length of an article. Yes, these sources should be added to the article, but this is a discussion about notability, not an article quality assessment. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:Notability (music) does note that songs must have enough material to grow beyond a stub, though. Even if all the sources listed above were implemented, album reviews and Adele's own commentary DO NOT COUNT as sufficient coverage to warrant a song article. Of the sources listed, the only ones that really give a quality amount of detail are those first two links from The Guardian (the credibility of "Bustle" is questionable). Multiple links from one publication essentially count as one source talking about something, and one good publication covering the song independently (outside of album reviews/artist commentary) simply isn't enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Bustle questionable? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Because they don't have much (if any) evidence of journalistic credibility Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That is very vague, and perhaps a minority opinion. Do you know if a discussion has been had about this reliability of this magazine? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Softlavender's research (thank you for collecting and posting here, by the way). There is certainly enough coverage to establish notability and justify an article. Yes, the article needs to be expanded, but there is no basis for deletion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three sentences and two sources in the article. Perfect reason for deletion. This article is the definition of not passing GNG.  — Calvin999 22:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999, inclusion on Wikipedia is based on notability, not on what the current state of the Wikipedia article is. You misunderstand WP:AfD and the deletion process. Moreover, you are expected to do WP:BEFORE (please read all of that, particularly B2, C1, D1, and D3) prior to nominating an article for deletion. Hopefully going forward you will remember that. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not the only one who has voted delete in these nominations. I've pointed out why it's not notable. If you choose to not agree, then that's your prerogative.  — Calvin999 22:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since the nominator, Calvin999 does not seem to understand the point the other posters are making that notability is not determined by what is actually in the article, but by what sources can be found, I went ahead and added a few, fleshing out the article. Calvin999 does have a point, though, that it's better to add the sources to the article, and it didn't take me very long to add what I did. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for actually adding some, but I would disagree that I am not understanding other points made. If you want to make that case, then they aren't understanding what I am saying, either.  — Calvin999 08:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak to moderate Keep per chart positions and statements from the participants about this passing GNG. Article's a bit short right now, but I think it could be kept. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 06:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Looks promising by the sources provided above that this article can grow, though I must add that this song is not notable by charting alone. --MaranoFan (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - between the source hunting and the charting, I believe WP:NSONGS/WP:GNG is satisfied. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 25 January 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 lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takuyo[edit]

Takuyo (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 topic, a Japanese company, lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There were no new sources from a project-wide discussion (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Sources_for_Japanese_companies) and no sources to crib from the jawp article. There are no worthwhile redirect targets (though perhaps Kaitou Apricot if it is indeed their most notable game). If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 17:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. czar 17:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar 17:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as questionably notable as mentioned, currently questionable with the current information and sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 25 January 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) 02:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uniana[edit]

Uniana (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 topic, a Korean video game company, lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There were no new sources from a project-wide discussion (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Sources_for_Japanese_companies) and no sources to crib from the frwp article. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 17:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. czar 17:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. czar 17:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as, from how it currently seems, this is questionably solid notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 25 January 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 lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsumi (company)[edit]

Tatsumi (company) (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 topic, a Japanese video game company, lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There were no new sources from a project-wide discussion (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Sources_for_Japanese_companies) and no sources to crib from the jawp article. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 17:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. czar 17:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar 17:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the article also currently seems questionable, nothing obviously convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 25 January 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. Any editor may create a redirect if desired. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Deposits[edit]

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

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

I find no evidence that this film meets the notability guidelines under WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Short film lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication of notability or reliable source coverage — I even did a ProQuest Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies search on it, and found a few namechecks of its existence but nothing substantive enough to support an article. I briefly had this notion that I had seen this film's name in the process of reformatting Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television Award for Best Animated Short last week, and was mentally composing a keep rationale on those grounds — but it turns out I was misremembering how and where I had seen it. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Redirect this to a sourced mention in articles on director J. Falconer (article pending) or the husband/wife writing team of Alison Snowden & David Fine. Without newspaper commentary, this still apparently has just enough "note" to have been written of in multiple books.[2][3][4][5] So even without media review, we have enough verifiability for it to be written of in other places. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It seems the article creator simply didn't understand that being produced by a notable film organization doesn't confer notability onto each of its films, automatically. He says he now understands, based on an exchange one can see on the nominator's user talk page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 26 January 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) 02:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QLOC[edit]

QLOC (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 was reverted out of move to draftspace. The company QLOC is not the subject of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, which provides a torrent of one-sentence mentions (mainly that QLOC is the localizer for a single game) and nothing in-depth about the company or its history, even from our Polish sources. Anything at greater length is a press release, such as a job listing, and that doesn't count for notability. I would be fine with a redirect to the mention I added at Capcom#History, since the two companies are documented as working together. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 16:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. czar 16:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. czar 16:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the company is unlikely solidly independently notable for a separate article, perhaps best known through the listed games. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect - nomination sums it up pretty well - sources make passing mentions here and there, but none cover the company itself in significant detail. I do think it would be a plausible search term though, considering the passing mentions and sources that can verify bare-bones facts about the company. It seems a redirect could be more complicated than I thought, and isn't getting any consensus here so far, so no need to hold things up. I'm not against one, but don't find it to be crucial either. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:GNG and nom. If redirected, the target should be parent company 1C Company. -- ferret (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see how this CORPSPAM passes WP:COMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:26, 26 January 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. Arguably eligible for CSD A7 as there appears to be no claim to significance in the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AskGamblers[edit]

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

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

Non-notable website that fails to meet either WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. SmartSE (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I tagged it for further sourcing and the current article is simply seeming not yet convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable website fails WP:WEB and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no !votes to delete. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 19:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yentaganahalli nelamangala[edit]

Yentaganahalli nelamangala (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)

Unclear article. I see that a speedy deletion tag was removed but the actual revision is concealed so I cannot see the exact content of the nomination. The article itself is brief and incoherent, the only source is a blog so I'm not seeing convincing evidence of notability here. Since the speedy was removed I am bringing to AFD. Mabalu (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the article itself appears to be fairly terrible, there is long standing consensus that inhabited places can have articles on them if they are shown to exist. Per WP:NGEO: "Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable". While English sourcing is poor it does exist Google Maps View, One Five Nive lookup, India by road. This subject meets those criteria and therefore can be kept as a suitable stub can be created. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Yentaganahalli or "Yentaganahalli, Nelamangala" "Yentaganahalli, Bangalore Rural". Verifiable village of ~1,160 people according to the 2011 Indian Census.[6] Passes WP:NGEO. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment. I just did some basic cleanup. It still needs work. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to withdraw; Comment - I've removed the last passage which made very little sense and the citation was to a blog apparently advertising someone's medical services. Move sounds good. Am happy to withdraw nom and see page moved to Yentaganahalli. Mabalu (talk) 10:15, 25 January 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. Non-notable event Acroterion (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva week[edit]

Yeshiva week (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)

It is a local event. Tone is mean-ish, and it isn't supported by any sources. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under WP:A7. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:56, 24 January 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Send My Love (To Your New Lover)[edit]

Send My Love (To Your New Lover) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article quite clearly lacks notability. Yes it charted in 11 countries, but that doesn't make it so. There's only song reviews as part of an album review, there's no independant coverage, no other third party sources, no awards or special recognition, it's not a single. There's no point creating articles for the sake of doing so, and that is what is being done here. People can go on about letting it be improved over time all they like, but until then, it will still be not notable for mainspace. if you really feel that strongly about the article staying, be bold and improve it yourself steadfastly so there's actually something worth reading instead of just saying to let it ride and see how it goes.  — Calvin999 11:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, of course. The song is notable. It has charted in close to a dozen countries. Yes, the article needs to be expanded, but that is not a reason to delete it. Let's keep the article so people can expand it over time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you not just copy and paste your reason from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Million Years Ago (song) please. None of your reason for voting keep explains how this is notable. Have you even looked at what constitutes a notable article and what requirements it needs to pass?  — Calvin999 17:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing wrong with doing so if the same reasoning applies. Yes, I have looked at what constitutes a notable article, and I've cast my vote accordingly. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm left questioning your right to be able to edit on Wikipedia then, because you are not adhering to what constitutes a notable article/choosing to ignore it on purpose. Multiple editors have expressed that these articles are not notable and you keep reverting everyone without valid reasons in your summaries which could be interpreted as WP:OWN. Someone of your edit count and longevity of contribution should know the rules better. — Calvin999 17:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am reverting because I believe the topics are notable and should be kept. Others have also reverted the redirects. There is no need to question my ability to edit Wikipedia. We simply disagree, and now we have this space for discussing the song's notability. Let's let others participate in the discussion. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are reverting because you believe that the articles are notable. One other editor has reverted because he thinks that the right place for discussion is AfD. Two different things.  — Calvin999 18:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are right, I did revert because I believe this song is notable. Let's please stop going back and forth and just let others participate in the discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • No one is stopping anyone from participating. Believing something is notable is different to it actually being notable.  — Calvin999 18:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to 25 (Adele album) per the guidelines in WP:NSONG "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." I cannot find any coverage of the song outside that context so merging seems appropriate. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Softlavender. Good work finding significant coverage outside of the context of an album review. Winner 42 Talk to me! 11:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator and Winner 42, AB, love your work but its getting really repetitive with creation of articles failing WP:NSONGS. And yes, I do add my comment after researching something and seeing if its worth keeping or not, which this one does not. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I didn't create this stub. I created the original redirect. Please do not accuse me of repeatedly creating articles that fail NSONGS. There is nothing wrong with creating valid, purposeful redirects. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, your comments seem to contradict what you said here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I explained why later. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Easily meets both WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Charting in at least 12 countries that we know of. There is a massive amount of significant independent coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including multiple full articles on this song:

-- Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Softlavender. Clearly passes WP:GNG. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Softlavender, and I would ask y'all to stop blaming Another Believer for anything, he has done nothing but improve the article. --MaranoFan (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improved? Clearly you haven't checked the article history.  — Calvin999 09:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not expanded the article, but thanks, Marano, for your contributions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per the many sources that cover it in significant detail, and charting in so many different countries. No offense, the nominators of all these Adele songs recently really need to slow down and re-evaluate their thoughts on notability. These have been some pretty rough nominations. Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, as per SoftLavender. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 22:15, 25 January 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martiros of Crimea[edit]

Martiros of Crimea (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:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Search brings up only one reliable source. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @DatGuy: Could you please explain what you think is problematic with the references listed in Մարտիրոս Ղրիմեցի? --Hegvald (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hegvald: If so, then it should also be in the EN Wiki article, and not just in the Armenian one. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- strong, easy keep: a 17th c. poet whose works are still being republished into the late 20th c. (see worldcat: [7]) is an easy keep as a notable author. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject is described in various encyclopedia articles, including in "A Reference Guide to Modern Armenian Literature" and "A Concise History of the Armenian People". Having been noted in such ways is an obvious demonstration of WP notability. Agricola44 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Global[edit]

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

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

Non-notable business that has hosted 2 events. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH anf WP:EVENT with only 16 and 21 entrants. Previous AfD had 3 deletes and one keep, Legacypac (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Has been up for deletion one time before. Sources indicates that the pageant is notable in Asia. Has been hosted twice, and it does not matter if it has been hosted twice or 50 times if the pageant is notable. per sources I am !voting keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Winners of contests at the national level are generally kept per our long-standing consensus. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep likely and I would've closed as such as this seems keepable and also improvable if needed, likely not of deletion importance. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 30 January 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. Michig (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Million Years Ago (song)[edit]

Million Years Ago (song) (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:NSONGS, without any independent third party notability its just a bunch of chart information which are easily available at Adele discography. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Quite clearly not notable at all. No prose. All very well people saying that not every article needs to be GA standard in terms of prose, but at the same time, there actually needs to be something to read. If people feel that passionately, be bold and improve it yourself.  — Calvin999 11:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of course. The song is notable. It has charted in at least a dozen countries. Yes, the article needs to be expanded, but that is not a reason to delete it. Let's keep the article so people can expand it over time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no such thing as a song being notable. The article needs to be notable. The article being so short with next to no valuable or interesting prose is a reason to list it for deletion. No one will expand this over time.  — Calvin999 17:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? Yes, there is such a thing as a song being notable. This song is notable, and should therefore have a Wikipedia article. Just because the article is short doesn't mean it can't be kept and expanded, nor is there a reason to assume that no one will ever be willing to make improvements. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please elucidate upon how this song is notable, using the notability guidelines.  — Calvin999 17:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. I'm sure you are familiar with Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs, which says songs are notable if they "have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". Yes, it also says, "coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability", but this is not a problem for "Million Years Ago":

Yes, I realize some of these sources are repetitive, but publications around the world have discussed this song. Here are some other sources that could be used:

• http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2015/nov/19/adele-what-shes-singing-about-on-25
• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/arts/music/adele-25-album-interview.html?_r=0
• http://time.com/4155801/adele-story/
• http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/11/adele-25-review-slow-introspective-intensely-human/416811/
• http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/adele-inside-her-private-life-and-triumphant-return-20151103

Keep in mind the song has charted in multiple nations. Between the composition details, chart success, and live performances, there is certainly enough to justify an article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And so why are these not in the article? They aren't much use otherwise. Catch my drift? Charting does not automatically invoke notability, by the way. It's not as if the song hit number-one or is certified, either. Instead of arguing and pasting a load of URLs here, why don't you be WP:BOLD and get on with trying to save this article and improve it right now? Otherwise, this article will be deleted. You would earn my respect if you actually actioned what you are saying instead of just talking about it.  — Calvin999 17:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't the sources in the article? Because someone hasn't added them yet. That doesn't mean the song is non-notable and so the article should be deleted, sorry. I understand that charting doesn't automatically mean notability, hence why I posted a number of articles above. And no offense, but I don't edit Wikipedia for your respect. I may get around to expanding this article, but I am making no promises at this time. Again, just because I am not willing to stop everything and expand this article per your demand does not mean this song is not notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And probably never would, at least not all of them. You keep saying it's notable and should stay, but not willing to do something about it and commit to actually improving it. In the time :that we have been going back and forth, you could have considerably expanded it by now.  — Calvin999 18:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. But my time has instead been wasted defending the deletion of a notable song. It seems you are punishing me and the article for not being willing to personally expand it at this very moment. Wikipedia is a longterm project, a work in progress. There are major improvements that can be made to this article. I hope other editors will agree that the song is notable and the article should be kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is nominated for deletion right now, and there's no time like the present to save it from being deleted, or least try to. AfD is not a long term process. The notability lies in the sourcing. At the moment, there is no notability.  — Calvin999 18:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. AB you create stub class articles and then cry foul when someone redirects and nominates for deletion. Its getting annoying now, if you are so bothered about articles, why can't you just expand them in your sandbox and then move them into mainspace? That's what I always do and god forbid none of which I created have ever been nominated. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mischaracterize me. I did not create this stub. I created the original redirect. I am not crying foul. I am simply expressing my opinion which is that this song is notable and worthy of its own Wikipedia article. Nothing more. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only one source gives any quality amount independent of coverage, and charts (or lack thereof) are NOT an automatic indicator notability. One good source alone simply isn't enough to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As evidenced above, there are plenty of sources to integrate into the article. And no one has said the song is notable only because of its charting success. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily meets both WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Charting in 13 countries thus far; dozens of full articles on the song itself (including full articles in non-English publications). Here is just a sample of the voluminous coverage the song has received thus far (I'm hatting it so it doesn't overwhelm this page):

-- Softlavender (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• But the sources are not in the article at present. You can't presume notability based on what could be added. Also, charting does not automatically mean it is notable.  — Calvin999 21:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See below. And again, no one is suggesting that charting alone is enough to establish notability. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources provided show clear indication meets WP:GNG.Blethering Scot 20:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the sources are not in the article at present. You can't presume notability based on what could be added.  — Calvin999 21:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, per WP:AfD, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the point of posting this when I nominated it prior to you finding sources is? My point still stands, even if you were to add these, that's not a guarantee that the article will suddenly become notable. And as you're not willing to add them anytime soon.  — Calvin999 22:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you mean the article needs to be notable? We are determining whether or not the song is notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you haven't got enough third party content to attribute to the song, then the article is not notable.  — Calvin999 22:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999, inclusion on Wikipedia is based on notability, not on what the current state of the Wikipedia article is. You misunderstand WP:AfD and the deletion process. Softlavender (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC); edited 22:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't. It's not notable. End of.  — Calvin999 22:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly. This song far exceeds the requirements of WP:GNG, as evidenced by the long list of news articles about this song linked above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per above arguments by Another Believer, Softlavender, Jonesey95 and Blethering Scot. --MaranoFan (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think there's a strong argument for notability between the sources presented, charting in so many different countries, and nationwide televised performances of the song. Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 25 January 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 that we do not usually merge unsourced content. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Miss Global Beauty Queen[edit]

2005 Miss Global Beauty Queen (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, no sources conform WP:RS. The few pieces of information can be merged with Miss Global Beauty Queen. The Banner talk 07:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 08:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 08:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 08:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete not notable minor event. Few participants. Legacypac (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are no sources cited in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Global Beauty Queen and keep the edit history. -Zanhe (talk) 06:35, 30 January 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. pure promotion of his CV DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Arora[edit]

Deepak Arora (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 an SPA which doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or one of the common exceptions such as CEOs - this individual listed as "Joint Managing Director". Brianhe (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable manager of a non-notable business. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cullen. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing editor: User:Incentive1/sandbox is virtually the same content. - Brianhe (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 08:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 08:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as quite obviously not a better notable article now. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 25 January 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) 01:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ETA RAM[edit]

ETA RAM (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)

ETA-RAM fails the WP:Notability policy. The article claims that ETA-RAM is a novel random-access memory, and makes several vague and dubious claims concerning its novelty, none of which cite sources considered to be reliable per WP:RS. The references and external links provided by the article are identical and broken. A Google web search for ETA-RAM site:etasemi.com does not even return any results for this technology. The Eta Semiconductor site lists on high-frequency power converters and radio-frequency receivers as the only products and technologies of this company. It could be possible that ETA RAM was discontinued (which casts doubt on its claimed merits), but the Wayback Machine does not have any archived pages from etasemi.com because the site is excluded by a robots.txt file. A Google Web search for ETA-RAM -Wikipedia returns no relevant (that is, results that are not copies of this article) results in the first 100 results. A Google Books and Scholar search for ETA-RAM "ETA Semiconductor" returns no exact (or relevant) results for former, and no results for the latter. A Google Scholar search for author:"Eta Semiconductor returns 16 US patents. Of these 16 patents, 8 pertain to power converters, 4 to capacitors, and 4 to transistors. A quick read of their abstracts, and a search of these results, does not suggest that these patents describe technologies whose application is computer memory, nor have these patents been cited by any relevant item that would suggest that the described technologies were in any way notable. Search for the ETA-RAM keyword and Eta Semiconductor in author affiliations at the IEEE Xplore Digital Library returned no results. A search of EE Times site for ETA-RAM and Eta Semiconductor returned no results. If ETA-RAM was such a novel and groundbreaking technology, one would expect that there be results on Google Web, Books, and Scholar. ETA-RAM would be presented at IEEE conferences or in IEEE journals. The EE Times would have covered ETA-RAM and Eta Semiconductor. AZ1199 (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is at best a poorly researched article, at worst a hoax (perhaps why the author blanked it in 2014). A few books by one publisher like this appear which appear with this term, but they seem to have lifted text from Wikipedia's Computer memory article. Brianhe (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lacks third party sources to back its claim of novelty and fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:11, 31 January 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. The article's subject is found to have been covered significantly by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, and is therefore notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Kao Se Tseien[edit]

Nicholas Kao Se Tseien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find evidence that this is a notable person. At best, this is someone who could have been (unsourced of course) the oldest Catholic priest in modern times (whatever "modern times" means) and the oldest ever person to have had a cataract operation (if that's really worth keep tracking of). Of the sources provided, one is a WP:ROUTINE obituary, the other was the GRG's excel spreadsheet of verified supercentenarian from which we should infer that his lack of listing means that he would have been somewhere on these things and three links which all seem dead links now. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found an archived version of the Standard article here - it is Guinness who claims the oldest Catholic priest and oldest person to have a cataract operation so that helps. Still it's not clear to me that he's notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what about being the oldest Catholic priest to get a cataract operation? Surely that's notable??? EEng 15:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 00:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 00:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to wherever, if there is a wherever. Minor coverage. EEng 15:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw his picture and immediately decided to adopt him! Ill try to find more material on him over the next week so please don't delete.Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In his latter years, there had been much biographical coverage of him. They come from various news sources in various places where he worked - 2003, Taiwanese religious source, 2005 The Standard, Hong Kong - and obituaries from major non-religious news outlets in Hong Kong: RTHK, Apple Daily. I think these add up to a WP:GNG pass with "persistent coverage" in multiple independent sources. Deryck C. 21:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep The article says Guinness World Records verified that he was the oldest person to ever have cataract surgery and was the oldest priest in modern times. If that is so and they haven't stripped him of such titles, then it means they verified his birth date. If that is the case, he is one of the verified oldest men ever (and should therefore be included on that page, by the way). But if they disavowed his validation for those titles, then my vote is a delete. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and support including him in oldest people lists as there are not enough Chinese there due to bias by GRG editors. We even have a photo! Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I had my doubts as to his notability, but the consensus seems to be to keep, so I will not dissent. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of notability. Just about all of the sources, both in the article and at this discussion, are local. And they point to very little in the way of notable achievements. Here's a machine translation of the substantive portion of the brief article in the Taiwan source:

A priest who does not charge, how can such a big business, but on Notre Dame as his background. Effectiveness of evangelization is staggering: in his missionary career, took 50 young church members follow the call, successful young men, as a priest five successful about 20 nuns, really admire.

Author lives in only two nuns who have led successful, aided the ten young men and women on the road to call, it's hard. His amazing health and old age, with "seven" as his motto: first, don't smoke. Second, does not drink alcohol. Third, not angry. Four, do not worry. Five, not eating too much. Six, in constant motion. Seven, continuous prayer.

That's pretty much all that can be said about the subject -- he lived a long time and inspired about 50 guys to become priests. As for the Guiness record for being the oldest priest in modern times, I checked their site and couldn't find corroboration of it. However, the Vatican source tells us that he was (in February 2007) the oldest living priest. That same source tells us that the oldest priest in modern times was Alvaro Fernandez, who died in 1998. Fernandez doesn't have an article here, and neither should the subject. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, the Guinness World Records website is not a complete searchable database of every record they've ever recognised. The comparison with Alvaro Fernandez amounts to Wikipedia:Other stuff which isn't a good argument in AfD. Deryck C. 21:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Deryck Chan (talk · contribs)'s excellent research. The major newspaper The Standard provided substantial biographical material about the subject.

  Mitchell, Justin (2005-10-08). "Priest confesses secrets of longevity". The Standard. Archived from the original on 2012-07-16. Retrieved 2016-01-31.

  The article notes:

  At 108 years, the person who may be Hong Kong's oldest, a priest named Nicholas Kao Se Tseien, recommends having faith, doing exercise and caring for cats as ways to live longer.

  What is official is that Kao, born in Fuzhou, Fujian province, on January 15, 1897, is listed in the Guinness World Records both as the oldest Catholic priest and oldest person to have a cataract operation, which he had in May.

  ...

  A resident at Lantau's Our Lady of Joy Trappist monastery for the last 32 years, Kao's gospel for a long life combines common sense and religious devotion. Eschew tobacco, intoxication, gluttony, anger and rudeness in favor of exercise, humility, charity, goodness, prayer, patience and piety.

  ...

  Kao, one of four brothers, converted to Catholicism at age 18 while attending a Fuzhou school run by Spanish Dominican friars. His Buddhist father, a school teacher, was "very open- minded," Kao recalled with a smile, "and let me do it." Members of his family later followed his example and were baptized as Catholics.

  Though trained as a teacher and studying law at night, Kao decided to become a priest after the sudden death of a dear friend, a Spanish friar.

  In a life that has bridged three centuries, Kao said he is fortunate to have lived through 10 popes and two Chinese emperors and to have voted for Sun Yat Sen as president of China in 1912.

  ...

  When pressed on what "knife accident" he escaped from, he said it was an operation for colon cancer at age 107.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nicholas Kao Se Tseien to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If someone can be on Wikipedia for formerly being the world's smallest/tallest/*insertsuperlativehere* person, so can this man. Provided, of course, that verifiable sources can be found. 8bitW (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purulia Panthers[edit]

Purulia Panthers (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 is about a team in the Bengal Celebrity League (cricket). I can find no significant coverage about this team. The league itself has garnered some attention, but there is no article Wikipedia about the league that could be used as a redirect or merge target. Whpq (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only an amateur outfit in a minor league Seasider91 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not notable. IgnorantArmies (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete general consensus in WP that teams playing in very low level leagues are not notable. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restart at best when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 30 January 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, noting that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debunkify[edit]

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

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

I couldn't verify that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Well, there's [8] in AdWeek and [9] in PRWeek. I'm not sure about the notability, but it got non-local coverage. If it exists, maybe local Ohio sources could be used to flesh it out beyond these sources. The problem is that I'm not really finding much. There's [10] in The Lima News and another hit listed in the article, but I was expecting more. I'm curious what others think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep – Meets WP:GNG on a weak basis. Source examples include: [11], [12], [13], [14]. There's also coverage in college newspapers: [15], [16], but these latter types of sources are not typically used to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I guess there's enough coverage to at least make it debatable, though I think college newspapers would have to be scrutinized before being used as a reliable source. I generally disregard them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination for all comments above. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 24 January 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) 01:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will Coghlan[edit]

Will Coghlan (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)

Founder of non-notable organisations. I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as certainly questionably notable for the applicable notability guidelines, nothing else currently better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:24, 31 January 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 that we do not usually merge content and then delete the page as the history needs to be retained for attribution purposes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss World runners-up and finalists[edit]

List of Miss World runners-up and finalists (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)

Contentfork of the year-articles. No need for a separate article. Fancruft. The Banner talk 23:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 00:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. However, if List of Miss World titleholders cannot fulfill its duties, this list can take its place. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content to the List of Miss World titleholders then Delete.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable. The pageant company does not even publish such a list so it's hard to verify OR for us to publish this fancruft. The first comment is pretty funny Legacypac (talk) 11:39, 28 January 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, there's agreement here that this is not an encyclopedic article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Focus error[edit]

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

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

I'm not sure what to make of this page - it is essentially two dictionary definitions for two different 'focus error's. I can't find that wither are notable. Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or as a second choice, maybe redirect to Optical aberration?). The first sentence is WP:DICDEF, and the second is about a specific camera's hardware malfunctioning, most of which falls under WP:NOTGUIDE and the rest lacks notability. I could see a point for a stub article if there was a classical photography problem of bad focus due to some mechanical reason, with references etc. but that would be a different article than what exists now. Tigraan (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it just seems to be a moan about a problem someone had with their specific camera Samatarou (talk) 03:45, 26 January 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) 01:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ali A Olomi[edit]

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

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

Non-notable. Per AfD precedent, authorship is not coverage, sources must be about the subject, not just written by the subject. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 20:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]