< 13 March	15 March >

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

The result was no consensus. Slight lean to delete, but opinion remains divided as regards notability. Sandstein 19:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Reed[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a photojournalist, referenced entirely to primary sources without a shred of reliable source coverage shown. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where any creative professional is entitled to an article just because she exists -- the article must explicitly make a claim of notability that satisfies WP:CREATIVE, and must be sourced to media coverage about her, to gain inclusion. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if she can be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete The article lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)~~ 18:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ~~per the~~if the The Progressive and Library Journal sources found and added by Megalibrarygirl are enough to pass GNG. (I don't have access.) The others are not independent. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Edited: 19:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found sources in databases. Please check out what I've added. Also, there are these links on EBSCO which I don't have full text access: [1], [2] Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has coverage in multiple RS over time. Also, the O.O McIntyre Professorship is a named professorship at the University of Missouri. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The McIntyre Professorship is not an endowed professorship of the type considered notable by WP:PROF (something given as recognition for scholarly accomplishments in excess of the average full professor). Rather, it is an annual local award for teaching excellence [3]. We don't usually consider local teaching awards good enough for notability. I have not yet formulated an opinion about whether Reed might be notable for some other reason, but I don't think this award is an adequate reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and I agree with DavidE here. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources given are primary or local. Citations minimal. Does not pass GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete perhaps and draft and userfy if needed as unless this can be changed and considered notable, this is currently seeming questionable for the applicable notability. Asking DGG for education analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I comment that anybody can userfy. All one needs to do is go into edit source, copy the source into a text processor and paste it into one's sandbox. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think that's the ideal method. A page move is better. Normally that doesn't take an admin either. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several awards, but all are relatively unknown/obscure. This person appears to be a fairly average professor. Agricola44 (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep although a weak keep, as per above sources, also sources here and here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep WP:PROF as applied here would expect her to be judged primarily as a photographer, using WP:CREATIVE. I don't see any substnatial criticlawork on her or any work in museums. One book with a few reviews (in about 200 libraries) is a little sparse for WP:AUTHOR. On the otherhand, shje is a full professor at a very high quality professional school, and I trust their judgment more than our own. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given recent events at that institution, maybe we should not be so trusting of their judgment on faculty ;-) Agricola44 (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wheel Burrow[edit]

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

An unsourced article about an individual vehicle, with absolutely nothing to distinguish it from hundreds of thousands of others. An attempt to merge it into MeerKAT was immediately (and correctly) rejected, and redirecting it there wouldn't make sense as it there's no mention of it there (nor should there be). —Cryptic 23:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently not notable enough to be included in MeerKAT then certainly not notable enough for a stand-alone article. ~Kvng (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey it is cute though and nice for it that it has its own page.... :) --do ncr am 02:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a barely context article that is best deleteted or userfied and drafted until it satisfies the encyclopedia criteria. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A procedural close. The page is used for performing tests using tools such as Huggle and Twinkle, which issue a user notice on a user's page. Presumably the test worked on this occasion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sandbox for user warnings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

blah blah blah Jmatazzoni (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Carmack[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.*Treker (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this satisfies the applicable notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It looks like Mr. Carter has received coverage in The Boston Globe, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and UPROXX, among other sources. It also looks like he performed at Coachella in 2016. I think this just barely passes WP:GNG, though this is certainly a close case. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Andino[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable as either a kickboxer (WP:KICK) or mixed martial artist (WP:NMMA). This article appears to be a bit of a walled garden among several other non-notable kick boxers. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and doesn't meet the notability standards for either kickboxers or MMA fighters.Mdtemp (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another MMA or kickboxing vanity article, (written by the same group of users), which fails to meet WP:NKICK, WP:NMMA or any other notability standard. X4n6 (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NKICK, WP:NMMA. Just another plug for Sherman Bergman, whom he traded KOs with, and whom this sock farm is trying to promote on Wikipedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bazj (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bahiga Hafez[edit]

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

Article is improperly sourced, and does not establish notability, if you are going to submit an article for review at AfC, don't just move it to the namespace anyway. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator as inadequately sourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment . I have cleaned up the article and added a few more sources. This may help. --TheDomain (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 1) AfD is not the venue to request clean-ups, 2) notability easily established through Google Book search and searching Arabic name. See articles like [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and many more. --Soman (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Largely fixed now. Request withdrawn. Insert CleverPhrase Here 11:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close as being at the wrong venue. Redirect pages should be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3GPP Long Term Evolution[edit]

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

Unofficial and uncommon name. --> WP:COMMONNAME Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A potentially useful redirect, and the original name of the target article. WP:COMMONNAME is not a justification for deleting a redirect.Meters (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, inappropriate venue List this redirect, as well as this one, at WP:RFD.

But then, keep - redirects are cheap, and the term is in use. Tigraan (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close as being the wrong venue. Redirect pages should be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3GPP Long-Term Evolution[edit]

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

Unofficial and uncommon name. --> WP:COMMONNAME Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep An alternate spelling of the original title of the target article. WP:COMMONNAME is not a valid justification for deleting a redirect. Meters (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This other AfD is extremely similar and both could be discussed there. Tigraan (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long-Term Evolution Time-Division Duplex[edit]

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

Unofficial and uncommon name. --> WP:COMMONNAME Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a redirect resulting from Nightwalker-87's recent merge of the content of this article into the target LTE (telecommunication). The original needs to be kept to prevent breaking existing links, to maintain the edit history (which was not merged), and because it is likely a useful redirect on its own merits. Note that this is the 4th recent AFD or speedy from this editor on similar topics that I have had to contest. Meters (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see and agree on the point that the edit history is an important point here. Please note also that "this user" has constructively contributed in more than 4000 edits compared to a few recent AFDs or SD requests he decided to bundle during his structuring and maintenance work on mobile technologies which can in some parts be viewed here. Please stay with WP:AGF. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no AGF issue. I did assume good faith, and I made no comment on intent. I was merely pointing out that there were a number of very questionable AFDs so that reviewers could watch for more. As it turned out I was correct, and there were more. Meters (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree that this should not be deleted please withdraw your AFD. 17:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do so soon. Thx for the note. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted It's also worth noting I had also considered speedying as G3 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lino Brigman[edit]

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

I suspect this is a hoax. The Internet has never heard of a serial killer named Lino Brigman (or of anyone with that name). The single source is a book that WorldCat has never heard about which is very strange since it was supposedly published by Random House. (Google also has 0 hits for the author of the book). Pichpich (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with you. I also searched by subject, author, and alleged book title on Random House (no such author or title for them), Amazon.com (nothing), the internet (nothing) and Find A Grave. And if you look at the author name on that supposed book, I think it is a wink at the hoax. Sujokei. Su...joke...i ? — Maile (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, the account might be a sockpuppet of User:Iwritegoodarticles whose sole contribution is another potential hoax. Pichpich (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article referenced is: Along the Sun.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete For the reasons given. Invalid sources lead to suspicion of hoax articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created by editor with no other contributions (except for activity that points towards the account being a sock), this article relies upon single source which cannot be found by simple search. WP:HOAX seems most plausible explanation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notifying DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 00:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem conceivable that there would not be easy to find sources. . DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete WP:SNOWBALL, this totally incompetent hoax; it's not funny, not at all plausible. What's the matter with kids today? Used to be they could write a funny hoax.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment - I may have overstepped my bounds, but I just deleted this article as a blatant hoax. No sources found, nothing online, no blogs, no news, no books. Nothing. Editor created another hoax article, I have blocked as NOTHERE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Insufficient participation. No prejudice against speedy renomination. -Scottywong | gossip _ 21:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Evolution-Data Optimized service providers[edit]

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

Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep, cleanup and improve – Which of the seven points of WP:NOTDIR does this supposedly fail? The article actually passes all seven points of WP:DIRECTORY. Furthermore, it clearly passes WP:LISTPURP. It's a useful navigational aid with a discriminate topic focus. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTDIR #0: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed". The scope of this article essentially extends it to every vendor of wireless broadband in the world, which is hardly a smaller scope than the deleted List of Internet service providers. The only practical solution here is the category system: keeping this would be mindless busywork. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You make some points here that are valid. Unfortunately, the nomination for deletion is not particularly correct. I've modified my !vote above (added "leaning"). Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - For comparison, here's an example of an article that (in my opinion) actually fails WP:DIRECTORY: List of United Parcel Service hubs. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2012 (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 Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reserve diabetes in 30 days[edit]

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

This reads like an advertisement. Also, Earwig tool shows possible copyvio. It was tagged with CSD, and the author removed it. At the same time I inserted this XFD, the CSD removal was reverted. The CSD tag has once again been removed, and the XFD tag has been removed. — Maile (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Earwig tool results — Maile (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete nonsense advertising.*Treker (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as undisguised, blatant advertising. GAB^Hello! 21:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of former sovereign states by length of coastline[edit]

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

Unsourced single item "list" duplicative of List of countries by length of coastline. DrKay (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a poorly made unnecessary article.*Treker (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated on PROD nomination, Unsourced "list" with just one complete entry. Bazj (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Article creator moved text to Draft:True Sadness and redirected mainspace page to The Avett Brothers. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 20:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True Sadness[edit]

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

Non-notable recording. Essentially WP:CRYSTAL. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming to point out that it was a case of WP:TOOSOON when I discovered that the creator moved it to draft space leaving a redirect. Nomination is withdrawn. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. Merging and other editorial concerns can be addressed on the article talk pages. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, and because the topic is better covered by a larger scoped article, such as Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, which duplicates this content. This article came first, so there are WP:CWW implications here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major even in 2016 Presidental election. Notability validated by massive coverage, including ongoing Monday morning quarterback analysis by pretty much ever political pundit in the country (not to mention newspaper coverage in Antarctica and on the North Pole.) National political polls have already come out evaluating the impact on the Republican primary electorate. WP:NOTNEWS is meant to exclude article on routine, local and minor news events. WP:SNOWBALL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this has already been discussed here. Too early to discuss again. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that having both this article and Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, seems gratuitous, and the early creation of the Chicago article may have fell afoul of the guideline not to "rush to create articles" (WP:BREAKING). But a few points: 1) Despite comments to this effect in the AfD for Protests of the Donald Trump campaign, there doesn't actually seem to be too much overlap in the real content of the two articles, and there does on the contrary seem to be enough material for a detailed run-through of the Chicago event, which would be a distraction on the wider page. 2) The Chicago protest does also seem to be individually notable above and beyond the wider theme of protests in the Donald Trump campaign. WP:EVENTCRIT states, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". The Chicago protests were covered internationally (e.g.: BBC; Swissinfo; Asahi Shinbun), and have also been the subject of specific continued re-analysis ("In Defense of Trump's Chicago Protesters" from today; "Liberal protesters didn't stop Donald Trump in Chicago. They helped him.", likewise today). —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both this article and the Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 for the above stated reasons. Buffaboy ^talk 20:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, this has received significant coverage. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Technically, the subject of the article has been widely covered, but a single article covering all of the past and future protests will keep the information in the proper context (Trump's campaign). I would probably have a different view if (God forbid) someone were seriously hurt or if it escalated beyond pushing and shoving.- Mr X 20:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mr. X and my own statements on the previous merge discussion, which are basically exactly the same as above.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, because this material is notable, but maybe not notable by itself. epicgenius (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia's licensing frowns on copying content from one article page to create the backbone for another article. Direct copying , which it was for Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, should not be done. 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest was more spontaneous. Before we start advocating for the changes suggested here, lets be sure that we are building on a solid platform, one that wasn't built without adherence to Wikipedia's page history functionality which would list all edits made to a page and all the users who made those changes. Let's not save the one with a copyright issue. Merging into Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 inspite of this diff makes more sense as long as the history problem is resolved somehow. Any suggestion? Buster Seven Talk 23:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to think that we should KEEP this as a separate article, because the event has sufficient notability in its own right.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a major event in the national press. My mother texted me from Memphis to see if I was O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh. True, this protest/rally cancellation has been covered as a major national event.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - the other article Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 is currently mostly a repeat of this content, but it may be fleshed out more. If merged, a split may then be justified. -- Callinus (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Notable enough to stand alone. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps a misunderstanding of WP:NOTNEWS? This was not a routine news announcement. I think the nominator has confused an article based entirely on news sources as a reason for deletion. Anyway, there are numerous reliable sources for this event. A merge discussion with the wider protest article should probably be treated separately. Considering that this is larger than the so-called "main article", I don't think a merge request would be successful at the moment anyway. Jolly Ω Janner 07:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As those black guys said at the rally, "we gon' be alright" Ellomate _{(questions? talk/consult my lawyer)} 13:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:EVENTCRIT. Only likely to fade into the larger article if many more protests are on this scale, but that is crystal-ball gazing at this point.--Carwil (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MUH (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable music group for EN Wikipedia. Group formed from winning on a Japanese variety show Akiba na Renchu (which doesn't have an article here) where they covered anime songs, but none of their albums or singles have charted. No posted references to source the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failure to chart on Oricon, failure to cite sources meeting criteria for WP:RS, failure to have any post-breakup careers for individuals except for Akie Harada's AV career (maybe). Fancruft. Jun Kayama 20:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better and none of this is currently convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. None of their releases charted on a major chart. None of their members went on to have notable solo careers. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to nothing found by other editors, there are also no sources present on other global Wikipedia pages other than blogs/official sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With a definite "keep" slant, putting a consensus for deletion out of reach, even if some "keep" opinions appear rather perfunctory. Sandstein 19:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Fay[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist, based entirely on primary sources with no evidence shown of the reliable source coverage it takes to pass WP:CREATIVE. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where any artist is entitled to an article just because she exists -- but this is basically just a résumé, sourced entirely to directly affiliated organizations rather than media coverage, and is neither substantive enough nor sourced enough to make her suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This independent source from a highly respectable authority testifies to the subject's notability.--Ipigott (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Artists Representation is not an independent source or a highly respectable authority — it's a public relations organization for artists of which she's a board member, and thus is a directly affiliated primary source. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is not listed as a board member here.--Ipigott (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A direct quote from the article you claimed as an independent source in the original comment: "As a member of the board of CARFAC Saskatchewan, [Fay] played a key role on the CARFAC SASK Mentorship Program Development Committee." She may not be a member of the organization's national board, but she is a member of one of its regional chapter boards. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not. She is not mentioned as board member here [9]. Regards. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the quote I pulled out at you again. Whether she is currently a board member, or isn't now but has been in the past, is a moot point — either way, it's still an organization with which she's directly affiliated, not an independent third party. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the same you can say about Academy of Motion Pictures and Nobel Committees. They are organisation, in which motion pictures professionals and academics are members and thus choose between themselves. Why do you decline the same rights for artists? As Ipigott wrote she is not board member, so there is no conflict of interests. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all motion picture professionals are automatically members of the Academy, and not all scientists/academics are automatically members of the Nobel committee — both of those prizes are judged by members of those organizations, but can be (and more often than not are) presented to people who are not. And at any rate, the notability or non-notability of an award is not judged by the composition of the judging board or the composition of the nominees' pool, but by the degree to which the media do or don't treat that award as newsworthy — both the Academy Awards and the Nobel Prize are things that the media extensively cover as news stories. But the only source shown for this award is a press release on the awarding organization's own website rather than a news article — which means that it hasn't been demonstrated as an award that can make its winners notable for winning it, because news coverage of it, in media independent of itself, has not been shown. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Ipigott, that this [10] makes her passing WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've just also looked at google and added some exhibitions of her, held in public galleries. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An artist's exhibitions in galleries do not get them over WP:CREATIVE if the sourcing for those exhibitions is the primary source webpages of the galleries where the exhibitions were held — it requires third party media coverage writing about those exhibitions. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bearcat. Definitely not, but as I said about what get her to pass WP:CREATIVE is [11]. Specifically, it's "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.". She was not just mentioned there. We won an awards. The exhibition links are just pointing to the fact she exhibits in public galleries, which is supportive fact. Regards. Arthistorian1977 (talk)

The award she won is one that's presented by CANFAR to one of its own members, and sourced only to CANFAR's own press release about it on CANFAR's own website, rather than to any reliable sourcing which demonstrates that it's an award which the media consider newsworthy. Which means it's an award that we could mention in an article that had already satisfied WP:CREATIVE in other ways — but it's not an award that can give her a CREATIVE pass in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine simply having your work exhibited in any public gallery is a sufficient sign that a person is "an important figure." That would mean pretty much any student artist would qualify. Clearly the standard is higher than that. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ipigott and Arthistorian1977 Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that CARFAC promo article is definitely not enough to establish notability, in my opinion. CARFAC is an advocacy group, not an independent third party source. If that's the only article that covers her, I cannot see how she can meet the notability guidelines. I personally cannot find any reliable coverage of her, and it doesn't look like anyone else here has either, so far. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More citations have been added as well as examples of her work.--Chittah (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While technically it's true that more "citations" have been added, they're all still primary and/or directory sources — there still hasn't been a single reliable source, of the type that can actually support encyclopedic notability because it represents substantive coverage about her in media, added at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan NAC and ArtSask are secondary sources - one sponsored by the Ministry of Education and Heritage Canada, the other an organization with a mandate to provide access to biographical information about artists in the province for educational purposes.--Chittah (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan NAC and ArtSask are both membership organizations to which artists submit their own self-written biographical profiles to the member directories. They do not represent third party coverage about her in media. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Sask provides information for educational purposes - it's not posted verbatim from the artist - they have editors who review the content as it's intended for research in schools. The video interviews are obviously primary sources, but those haven't been cited here. what about the media sources? Leader-Post, Galleries West, etc. --Chittah (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to look at Regina Leader-Post sourcing, if there were any in the article to look at.... Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are poorly argued, in particular insofar as they are based on the supposed importance of this person: per the essay WP:SOLDIER, only flag-rank officers are presumed notable by virtue of their position, and there's no indication that this guy was Da'esh's equivalent of a general officer. Sandstein 19:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Khattab al-Kurdi[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

The real name, birthday and background of person cannot be confirmed from any reliable source. The person wasn't important person. He was one of the units commander. There is hundreds of like him in ISIS. He wasn't senior commander, assault commander or one of the leaders of ISIS. Ferakp (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ferakp; lack of sourcing in news outlets indicates substantial failure to fulfill WP:GNG. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge notable that a Kurd is fighting against his own people. Information sparse on ISIS commanders. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because you dont like seeing Kurds being a member of ISIS doesn't mean you go deleting wiki pages, stop pushing your agenda. There are several news articles on Kurds joining ISIS. Several sources are mentioning this:
Small number of Kurds reportedly fighting alongside IS in Kobane: officials^[1]
Not All Kurds Are Fighting Against the Islamic State — Some Are Joining It ^[2]
The traitors helping ISIS wipe out their own people: How ethnic Kurds are using their knowledge of Kobane to coordinate Islamists' city siege ^[3]
Kurds help Islamic militants in battle for Koban ^[4]

--Liesbeth98 (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was an important commander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow4dark (talk • contribs) 01:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fairly low level commander. While the circumstances of his death were mentioned in some reliable sources, he does not appear to have had any reliable coverage up to that point. Therefore, I believe WP:BIO1E is applicable, which means he fails WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I placed template Not a ballot as it appears that there was a least one attempt to canvass by a user here. Safiel (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ First, I tried to find reliable sources so I can improve this article. However, I found out that Abu Khattab is not even his real name. Arabic and Sorani news use different names in their news. According to some reliable sources, it's even unclear what was his position in ISIS but they believe his was just commander of his own unit. It is known that he had his own small unit (~30 fighters) but as I said there are hundreds of units like his units and hundreds of commanders like him. We really don't know his real name, birth details, position, how old he was, name and size of his unit. Even Western sources use different names and details when they mention him. We can't even verify his real name from any reliable sources so I would go with delete. Ferakp (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

— Duplicate vote: Ferakp (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. This militant is only made known to us because of a single reportage surrounding Kurds joining ISIS. In that news item, he was merely given as an example of such a defector. It's very difficult for me to say that he's notable enough to deserve stand alone article. Neither his position in ISIS nor his news coverage is enough in this case. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Majority of editors agreed about deletion of article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedej (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Non-adminstrative closure.--JayJasper (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016[edit]

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

We have a WP:FORK issue. This article was created with the edit summary "A start", but by the end of the creator's initial contributions, as you can see here, the article was a clear duplication of content from 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest and Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Violence and expulsions at rallies. This does not appear to be in line with WP:CWW, despite this edit with the edit summary "from campaign article", without a link to said campaign article. I thought about nominating this for speedy deletion via A10, but am instead seeking a discussion of how to handle this. If either this or the Chicago article are to exist, it should be only one article, and the Chicago article history should be preserved. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too much overlap. Buffaboy ^talk 18:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article titles confused me. The fact that there has been an increasing number of notable incidents on a lesser scale of the Chicago one shows they deserve their own article. Buffaboy ^talk 20:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Article was started as an attack on Donald Trump and his supporters. (Creator is proud of this fact [12]). However, while it may have started as a POV fork and was certainly created with malicious intent to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for a political attack, the protests at Trump rallies have been going on for months and are a significant part of the 2016 Presidential election. Coverage of the protests that appeared pre-Chicago rally suffices to establish notability. And while I think that the editorw who creeated this article merits an topic ban, I maintain that we should asses the notability of this topic independently f the editor's partisan motivation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Muboshgu: I thought we were in accord about how best to handle this. I think this article should be kept and 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest deleted and redirected to it. WP:CWW can be addressed after the fact by placing a template:Copied on the talk page, as I mentioned here.- Mr X 19:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I misinterpreted how you suggested we handle this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important subtopic that can contain detailed information not suitable for Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Material in main article, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 should be summarized. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Topic is still in news cycle, with more protests expected. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable subject, but it still needs tons of improvement. I don't recommend to delete articles solely on the basis of it being of too much overlap. However, if applicable, merge Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Violence and expulsions at rallies into this article and remove duplicated content that is present at 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest, with a summary of that event per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I want to withdraw this one, as MrX is right on the approach. I should've nom'd the other article. This mess is confusing me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu, MrX, and Klubalj:, others interested, Given that article creator WP:CWW and quite openly used Wikipedia to create a highly POV attack article, should he receive some sort of warning or topic ban?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I think not. I think it was an honest mistake or a question of not being aware of the policy/guideline. AGF. Buster Seven Talk 22:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Obsidian Chamber[edit]

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

The book is not released, and the article doesn't assert the book's significance. Ethanlu121 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Publications-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Additionally, this topic does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable soured, and therefore fails WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now until there's enough for better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. by Graeme Bartlett, CSD A2: Article in a foreign language which exists on another project. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majlis Ta'lim Darul Murtadza[edit]

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

Appears not to be in English, no citations. Dschslava (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A2 speedy delete; already present at ms-wiki. You should have first tagged this with ((notenglish)) and listed this at WP:PNT, before PRODding or AfDing, unless there is a reason for speedy deletion. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hasib Ashrafi[edit]

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

Unable to find sources using the English name or the given Persian translation that appear to meet WP:BASIC, but additional sources would be, of course, welcome. joe decker ^talk 06:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unless non-English coverage can be found, there's nothing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Unless sources could be found in another language, this subject does not meet GNG.

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) 19:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4Player Network[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 13:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 13:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an award-winning podcast, having won the "Gaming" category three times and the "Peoples choice" category once, and I have added a citation to the article to that effect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Award-winning" has no bearing on the general notability guideline. If "award-winning" is an indicator of its influence, it should not be hard to find in-depth secondary sources on the subject. czar 15:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CZAR. Also most of the current sources are links to 4PlayerNetwork's websites, social media, and broadcast venues and are not independent sources. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches actually found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Toronto[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the cited sources don't even mention Joe Toronto, while others merely briefly mention him, as for example including his name in a list of credits. Nor do searches for information about him produce evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Fails WP:BIO Posted on article talk page :- 'someone had made edits to this page. This is Joe Toronto. Please delete this page'. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMDb shows him with a total of 5 acting credits, most of which are bit parts. His producing history are mostly shorts that don't seem to have garnered any awards. His upcoming jobs include Line producer. None of this is notable. Does fail WP:BIO. — Maile (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a snowball close as keep. This is only going to end one way. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yolandi Visser[edit]

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

Borderline notability based on teasing things out of sources that are primarily about something else, and the subject appears to want the article removed. We would normally accede to a request to remove where the subject is not slam-dunk notable, and I think that is the case here, any notability is certainly not conferred by membership of Die Antwoord, but the part in Chappie may eventually result in the significant independent coverage that is currently lacking in the cited sources. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topic appears to meet the GNG. Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE the request for deletion only applies to "non-public" figures, so I don't think her request matters here (a performer is a public figure in general AFAIK) even if it is her requesting the deletion (which I don't think we know, it could be a troll). I think I'm pretty firmly in the keep side for now but I'll come back and look at deletion arguments later in case I'm missing something. Hobit (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, also meets WP:MUSICBIO#6. Hobit (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think GNG are met. There are enough reliable secondary sources out there that covers her music. Granted, it may not be a 'slam-dunk notable' but I think there is certainly enough out there to warrant an article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, really. Seems to be a notable public figure with plenty of discussion in sources. — Earwig ^talk 17:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely seems notable to me.*Treker (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable. I think you're missing a few things. A guy with an obvious COI comes in to "fix" the article for his friend. People try to give him advice (some things can be improved) he gets blocked because of his username, comes back with better user name, guts article, makes a ton of edits, people still try to work with him, he makes threats and demands. This is a typical 'an article about you is not necessarily a good thing' case only apparently they haven't yet read the policies in depth. There WERE more references/citations, but they were removed by heavy-handed editing on his part. So what the references say at this point might not show a complete picture. Centerone (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is clear.BMK (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Die Antwoord actually because I would've closed this as a seemingly keep but there's nothing suggesting solid independent notability so it seems she may be best known for the group itself. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also known for Chappie and was in two other notable bands. Don't see how we get a redirect here: she's got more than enough coverage, though mostly in the context of the one group. Hobit (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Decidedly notable for more than one reason and is a public figure. Meets GNG. And echoing events and agreeing with comments above by Centerone. Fylbecatulous talk 11:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be honest, I had not heard of her until I came across this AFD discussion. However, it does appear that she has received a variety of coverage in reliable sources. See, e.g.. this article in The Guardian. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding courtesy corrected url for above link to The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2015/mar/13/die-antwoord-rapper-yolandi-redefining-pink , thanks Fylbecatulous talk 19:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course keep. Highly notable within certain genres. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Die Antwoord - Subject is notable, and meets WP:NOTE, however, sources are minimal referring to her as the primary subject. 38.97.88.20 (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the requirements of WP:GNG, and appears to meet WP:ENT as well. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. Well known singer. SatansFeminist (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Ese Oruru[edit]

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

~~A clear case of WP:BLP1E. Nothing seemed to be notable about this low profile person outside this event~~.Subject of the article fails WP:NEVENT. Established editors need not be reminded that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article is not about Ese Oruru herself, but her unlawful abduction which has made nationwide impact with reactions from Nigerian leaders, and has been covered by several reliable media sources, some of which are included in the article. Please see WP:EVENTCRITERIA for more information. Stanleytux (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are the article creator. I don't expect you to say "Delete". That being said, I don't see how this is different from every other kidnapping cases reported on a daily basis. Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's terrible, but it is not "a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance", so doesn't meet WP:EVENT. I agree that WP:BLP1E does not apply, because the article is about neither the victim nor the perp, but the event. But in that case, WP:EVENT applies. In any case, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, as noted. ubiquity (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this Kidnapping incident attracted huge media attention, with several Nigerian leaders, public figures, Nigerians on social media, youth groups reacting to it, is enough historical significance. Note that it is not all kidnapping cases that draw the attention of Governors, Senators, Human Rights activists, youth groups, and others. There was even a social media campaign #FreeEse etc plus the article has passed WP:GNG. The story appeared on foreign news media like Newsweek (article) and the BBC (article). This is the second most popular child abduction case in Nigeria after Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping. Stanleytux (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This case is unlikely to be a catalyst for something else of lasting significance. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. That's not the case here. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, enacted by the 109th United States Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006. In the case of Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping, 276 female students were kidnapped about a year ago, with no chance of survival and up till now, the kidnapping case is still generating media coverages. How on earth will you compare a kidnapping case involving about 300 students with several deaths recorded and the kidnapping of a single person with no death recorded. Wikipedia is not news. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and suggest that User:Wikicology reconsider this nomination. Even the simplest news google search on her name, here: [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ese+Oruru%22&ie=utEse Oruru has become a sort of poster child for the kidnapping, forced, conversion, and forced marriage of very young non-Muslim girls. I urge User:Stanleytux and others to expand the article, but I see no reason at all why there should be any question about the fact that this kidnapping is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many events like this receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that when I iVote in an Islamism-related AFD, Auslander and ParsleyMan follow me to the page. like houndogs on a scent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is relevant to this AfD. If you feel Auslander and ParsleyMan keeps following you on Islamic-related discussion page, you can raised this at WP:ANI. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The involvement of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi in the wedding puts this into the unquestionable KEEP category.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The involvement of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi has nothing to do with WP:NEVENT or any of our policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that the forcible marriage of a 14-year-old kidnapped bride took place in his compound drew national press attention to this kidnapping,forced conversion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per a simple google news search.BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Simple google search" is not sufficient for WP:NEVENT. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BabaQ presumably meant that the simple search turned up a massive amount of intense and in-depth coverage; certainly my searches did. Please WP:AGF, editors do use this sort of shorthand at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Simple google search" is not sufficient for WP:NEVENT. this is a simple google search. Is this enough to meet WP:NEVENT to you? If yes, try to create an article for the event and let see if it will be kept. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing BabaQ simply clicked news, producing [13].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best known to them. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note that it's still in the headlines [14].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have fairly long-lasting impact evidenced by ongoing coverage and so WP:EVENT is met IMO. Hobit (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ShoMiz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Team doesn't meet WP:GNG. They only teamed for a couple of months, and no significant coverage other than WP:ROUTINE match results. Can be covered in individuals' articles. Nikki♥311 03:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well sourced, it doesn't matter how long they teamed and during those four months (not a couple) they accomplished a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my nomination, it is sourced with WP:ROUTINE match results. None of the sources cited are "significant coverage in reliable third party sources". Nikki♥311 12:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ WWE's tag division has been incredibly week for the past decade or so, it's not uncommon for the to pair up two guys and for them to push them until they run out of steam. The rule of thumb that I consider when discussing notability is whether or not the team won any titles and whether or not they ever got an official team name... obviously this isn't always accurate, but it usually is. 3MB (professional wrestling), Tons of Funk and Team Rhodes Scholars had names but never experienced any success, they clearly fail GNG. Kofi Kingston and R-Truth were WWE Tag Team Champions and PWI tag team of the year but had no official team name and were clearly two guys grouped together and experienced success only because the tag roster was so thin at the time. Air Boom (which was cited in the original ShoMiz deletion discussion) would probably get my keep vote because they had a name and WWE tried to push them as an actual team, complete with a reign with the belts, before Evan Borne's wellness violations put an end to that. ShoMiz was thrown together so that DX and the Hart Dynasty could have someone to feud with. They barely have an official name because it's a portmanteau. Yea, they won the belts, but they're closer to Kofi Kingston and R-Truth than they are to Air Boom. There's nothing in this article that isn't in their individual articles.LM2000 (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - like Isarra said in the previous nomination, well-covered, won an apparently somewhat important thingy, and while WP:N doesn't entirely apply to this sort of thing there's probably enough here to merit keeping especially on account of the winningness. If anyone searches for 'showmiz' they'll probably be wanting this instead of an article on one or the other of the guys regardless.

But Kofi Kingston and R-Truth won two important things and they fail GNG. Also, there's not much reliable coverage out there beyond WP:ROUTINE match results. It's been six years since these guys were together, it's fair to say they didn't stand the test of time either.LM2000 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nomination. MPJ-US 00:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It wasn't great (and the name was terrible), but it was close enough to something. Plus, I sort of believe in double jeopardy rules for articles. Unless there's a significantly new case against it or a glaring miscarriage of justice in the old nom, it had its day in court. And now it has a weak delete vote. The weakness means it sort of mattered. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ShoMiz was covered in a book:
1. Shields, Brian (2014). 30 Years of WrestleMania. London: Penguin Books. p. 183. ISBN 1465434208. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The book notes:
  The Miz and John Morrison were a successful tag team, winning both the WWE Tag Team Championship and World Tag Team Championship. The duo eventually split and The Miz found additional tag team gold by partnering with the World's Largest Athlete, Big Show. John Morrison and R-Truth looked to claim the tag championship for themselves. They'd had some non-title success against ShoMiz leading in to WrestleMania XXVI, so they felt confident that they could strike gold at the Showcase of the Immortals.
  The former partners started the match against each other. Morrison and R-Truth isolated The Miz from his partner, punishing the Awesome One with quick tags and aerial maneuvers. Morrison was set to end the match by delivering Starship Pain to a prone Miz, but Show pulled his partner out of the ring. The champions took control of the match when Big Show tagged in and used his massive size and strength against the challengers, including slamming R-Truth against the ring post. With Morrison and Miz battling inside the ring, Show made a blind tag of his partner that Morrison did not see. Morrison went to spring off the ropes, but instead received a Knockout Punch from the World's Largest Athlete. Show pinned Morrison, allowing ShoMiz to retain their championship.
Significant coverage in a book strongly indicates the subject has enduring notability. The book and the sources in the article allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for people to evaluate the source recently added -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yep, the source helps put it over the line for GNG. This book coverage trumps length of time, quality of name, etc. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment struck delete vote, now Neutral.LM2000 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OneSubsea[edit]

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

~~Zero reliable sources; pure advert tone. —swpb^T 13:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)~~ Changing my position to keep; article has been significantly improved since start of AfD. —swpb^T 13:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As it currently stands, the page is unverifiable with self-published sources. I was initially leaning towards deleting the page but after a quick google search, the subject appears somewhat notable. Meatsgains (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and Draft and Userfy if needed because my searches only found expected coverage and this is still questionable for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company is among largest subsea players in oil industry along with Subsea7, FMC technologies and GE oil and Gas. It is notable enough as compared to similar topics in wikipedia. The initial version of the article was too short to cover the subject, but the current form seems acceptable.Sattar91 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turban effect[edit]

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

I agree with the ((notability)) tag here. This is essentially an article on a specific journal article. It got some brief attention in popular press, but so do many studies. Perhaps this could be addressed at Islamophobia, if not WP:UNDUE. --BDD (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ - contents with Islamophobia. WP:NAD, but if Wikipedia were a dictionary, what is in this article is too narrowly focused and framed as part of a series on Islamophobia. Most of the links in the above "Find sources" lead to mentions of the "turban effect" as a fashion statement. Other religions besides Muslims wear turbans. Sikhs and many others non-Muslims in India wear turbans. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Changing my vote per WP:NAD and WP:NOTNEWS — Maile (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a single academic paper mentioned in passing as "news." This is not a newspaper. This is not a particularly notable study, certainly one that is debatable as the article notes. This is worth deleting. If it becomes something that is covered in a book of similar studies, an article might be appropriate with a paragraph devoted to this study. In isolation, it is just one of thousands of papers that are published every year. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , same arguement as Jason from nyc --Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five Nights at Candy's (video game series)[edit]

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

Not notable. The article does not have sufficient sources to support its notability. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an article that doesn't prove notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Promo article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, non-notable fan game rip off. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hapur Junction railway station[edit]

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

Non-notable railway station; only reference is a fansite. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actual rail station (see WP:RAILOUTCOMES) serving a city of over a quarter million people plus its surrounding populus. Such a station in the US or UK would never even be considered for AfD. Might this be a case of WP:BIAS? --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, A little good faith would probably not be amiss here. Bad argument in any case. Articles with similar (crap) sourcing are commonly before AfD. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notability requirements stipulate the existence of sources, not what's currently in the article. It's impossible for a major station to exist without extensive government reports, surveys, traffic and environmental studies, not to mention its importance to the city and region it serves. Question; Why was this article nominated for deletion within 9 minutes of its creation?[15] --Oakshade (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's keep things WP:CIVIL. If, as Oakshade says above the station is real and serves a significant number of people, it ought not to be difficult to find WP:RS which give notability, notwithstanding of the lack of sources currently on the page. JMWt (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a fairly clear-cut case that meets the criteria in the essay (not policy) at WP:STATION#Stations. The article has enough sources as it stands now and although the second paragraph appears unreferenced, the info there is easily recoverable from the source in the first sentence. Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long consensus that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade. Nordic Dragon 09:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

María Concepción of the Nativity and the Perpetual Help of Mary[edit]

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

Consider also, about the order (or proposed order):

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

About a Catholic nun. There are three refs in the article, one by the subject and two that don't mention the subject. There are two external links, one to an unreliable site and one that doesn't mention the subject. There are refs out there, but most are to social media or unreliable sites. There are short mentions in a couple of books. Suggest page be redirected to Franciscan Minims of the Perpetual Help of Mary with some material merged in there. The author is a member of the order and is not a native English speaker, but they do mean well. Bgwhite (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the article is a work in progress that has been up less than 24 hours -- there are many wiki articles with less [accurate] source data and references; since most references regarding the subject are in Spanish they are not helpful to English users of wiki who want information on this subject; the article has many references to other wiki articles and definitions; the subject has not yet been the object of English biographies; an autobiographical source is often more accurate than a "commentary" from someone who has no direct contact with the subject, the history, or the facts. To ensure this article is ACCURATE and well resourced and cross referenced will take time; it is a work in progress and there is nothing better available worldwide or I would reference it. Startarrant (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and delete article on the order (was Keep). It's reasonable to let editor working on it to proceed. The biography/autobiography that is off-cited is fine as a source for non-controversial facts. No info is disputed, right? The editor has less than 500 edits; give some room. However the editor should make an effort in future to try to establish notability more clearly using multiple sources. --do ncr am 03:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I've been dealing with the editor for over a year. They didn't have any resources a year ago about the person or the order except the person's book. They still don't have any. Put it into draft space, but it doesn't meet article criteria. Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? I believe you, but there is no Talk page and so no record of any discussion about it. I see this article was created 22 February 2016, perhaps it is a new version of something created a year ago that was deleted? Also I see a note by you in editor's Talk page history a year ago, but no mention of this topic. A link to past discussion would help here. --do ncr am 02:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found and linked to prior discussion below. I changed my view to "delete" as there seem to be no acceptable-for-Wikipedia sources available to say anything at all about the nun or the order. It even is remotely possible that the order does not exist, that if one of us goes to its supposed location in Mexico that we would find there is nothing there. Assuming there really was such a nun and order, it will be frustrating for the contributor to hear, but there's not even enough evidence available to rule out the possibility that this is an elaborate hoax. I googled "order of atonement Franciscan". There now exist multiple copies of the Wikipedia article on other sites. There's some detail at avalon44.tripod.com about an order being created, then disbanded, then recreated, ("Messages from heaven to the messenger in Mexico / 1969-1979 / Volume I" ), but that is at best a copy of a primary and internal source that could be used for non-controversial facts if there were already other independent sources establishing Wikipedia-notability. It is not an independent source. There is some video I cannot access at avalon44.tripod.com.

I suppose there probably is an order but we don't have usable sources to say anything about them, and it seems unlikely the contributor will provide any soon. So, oddly, it is wp:too soon for Wikipedia to cover the order and the nun; if/when she is canonized (if that what has been pending for decades?) there can be articles. A copy of the current article should be emailed to the contributor (and they or anyone else could request and get a copy anytime, too) and the article can be moved to draft space to allow them to try to develop it with sources ( but a draft will itself be deleted after a period of time...six months I think...if it is not edited. do ncr am 16:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [This is to be the one "vote" by editor startarrant] (Keep) prior discussion-- exi[s]ts mostly in the "view history" or bg's talk pages somewhere unless my replies from Jan-Feb 2015 were deleted by bg on his talk page ("over a year ago" bwhite suggested that the biographical material about the foundress of the mfPS have its own separate wiki article rather than have that information included in the wiki page on the Order she founded / and its 3 foundations in Mexico (bg also set up a "monitum" on that wiki page in Feb 2015 but no one else over the past year took issue with the page or editor); in reviewing other wiki articles I saw bg was right; bgwhite can be very helpful as he has considerable experience and spends much time with wiki but it takes a saint-load of patience to learn exactly what he is getting at especially with those of us with less wiki editing experience since his mode of operation is to delete first; all-in-all bg's ultimately constructive criticisms have always IMPROVED the content (for universal readership), references and technical functionality of the article(s); but I'm not a pro (like bg) and it is hard when you spend time doing your best to assure accuracy, factual references, first hand eye witness, and so forth -- on a person from another country/language who has only been dead since 1979. Even Mother Teresa herself (and her wiki pages) have had all sorts of problems with edit-warring, ongoing "commentary" vs. fact; so accurate quotes and autobiographical material / diaries, etc are always excellent resource materials to start with. "Show me the text." There are other internet sites on these subjects that exclude factual data, accurate quotes, and autobiographical data preferring "original work", personal interpretation, commentary.
- Technical, content and resource recommendations are VERY welcome -- I repeat that I may have disagreed initially but every criticism, when I thought it through, has IMPROVED the content -- however, it took me a year to find time to incorporate bgwhite's biography division and immediately bg posts a "delete" and then suggests (above) reincorporating the items bg deleted a year ago from the page on the Order/Foundation suggesting to me at that time that they belonged in a separate wiki page biography article!!! ??? !!! (I do appreciated bg's REDIRECT suggestion correcting my attempt to "RELAY" (ergo making a too-mini article that flagged a bot delete) as I could not remember how wiki accomplished the needed process technically) Startarrant (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous guidance to editor from editor Bgwhite (the AFD nominator) is archived at User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 41#A barnstar for you!. Ping @Bgwhite:. do ncr am 15:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- I would have thought that the founder of a religious order was notable. However this depends on how important the order is. Unfortunately neither this article, nor that on the order give any detail on that. Some orders may be quite ephemeral, dying out (or merging) when the founder retires or dies. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~(Keep)~~[duplicate] notable but small & struggling -- the point of the article is to present accurate information from 1914 to the present. The Order and its members are still under papal review and development. Such matters often take centuries where the Church is concerned. I suppose that if the Church suppresses the Order then wiki can either delete the page (!) or add a note that the Order was either finally approved, left as is, or suppressed a second time.
- Also, unlike Blessed Mother Teresa (the editor also knew and worked with Bl Mother Teresa) Mother Maria Concepcion is not even a candidate for Canonization at this time (Mother Maria Concepction died in 1979 while Blessed Mother Teresa died in 2005 and may be canonized in 2016. They were born within 4 years of each other).
  - The Church is very slow in cases where (like St Teresa of Avila; St Joan of Arc) the person has "visions" or "locutions" with Christ or other canonized Saints. Bl Mother Teresa kept absolute silence on any such matters which were extremely rare and only revealed by her spiritual directors long after Bl Mother Teresa's death. That was not the case with this Mexican woman who had exceptional supernatural conversations, formation and direction from her childhood. Add to it the Mexican Masonic relationship in her own family during a violent anti-Church political era in Mexico and the Church is still clearly taking the very long view of this notable matter. The point is NOT to have an edit war. Just the facts. Startarrant (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is that relevant? Joan of Arc died in 1431 and was canonised in 1920! It sometimes takes a long time for the RC Church to recognise its saints. And some have, let's say, better publicity machines than others... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~: Updated: Delete Both Apparently self-published autobiography is not a reliable source. I've been unable to find any independent sources about this group. It's associated with the SSPX, so it's not exactly "still under papal review and development."--Jahaza (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [~~Keep~~] wiki article is objective and references facts while webpages belonging to specific groups avoid certain facts (historic and other). The wiki article indicates the founder/foundress had no association with the SSpx or any other marginal groups rejecting papal authority, and the wiki article and autobiography (referenced) indicate why her autobiography, the primitive rule of St Francis of Assisi, her correspondence, the Spanish/English magazine Estrella that she edited and which had worldwide readership/subscriptions, etc are never referenced by SSpx groups: as for example -- the 5th Vow of Obedience to the Pope, papal approval required, relationship with / visits to Pope Paul VI, the focus on Atonement to end schisms within the Church, accepting dissolution by a Mexican bishop rather than allowing the Order to deviate from what Christ had specifically defined/dictated to her, etc). The wiki article states that since the death of the founder/foundress "Secular institutes (some in union with the Holy See but others not) have developed." Startarrant (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your "Keep" here to "Comment". "Vote" just once but comment freely. Is there no newspaper mention of this person ever? Do you not have any news clippings? Old ones pre-Internet are okay. If not, perhaps you could explain please. If this is all a secret to the public except for one book that is not widely available, then maybe there is no need and no possibility for an encyclopedia article. --do ncr am 15:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She founded a religious order. I think that's enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp:, the problem with that argument is that she attempted to found a religious order (strictly speaking congregation or institute, not order[16], but it hasn't been established, but merely recognized as what were then called Pious Unions and since 1983 Associations of the faithful. Establishing an actual religious congregation might make one notable, especially if it was of pontifical rite, but establishing an association of the faithful is unlikely to do so. Furthermore, we still have no independent sources for verifiability of the woman or her "order".--Jahaza (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AFD was just relisted. I would grab the opportunity to formally add the order's article to the AFD, but it was not the nominator's original intention to delete it, and it is late and it would be a bit of a bother to update all the notices. However there has been some substantial discussion since some "votes" and now participants could also comment regarding the other article. It may be too late for a consensus to emerge to do anything about the order article, but perhaps some comments will show whether a separate AFD for it is warranted? Anyhow I suggest participants could return and confirm or change their initial vote, plus comment/vote on the order article. Pinging all participants: @Bgwhite, Jahaza, Necrothesp, Peterkingiron, and Startarrant:. Ideally, "Votes" would be to: "Keep both", "Delete nun page but Keep order page", or "Delete both". --do ncr am 21:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both article on Mother Maria into the religious order. Her article currently lacks independent, reliable sources to prove notability for its own article. I was inclined to suggest merging Mother Maria into the article on the pious union, but there are not any independent reliable sources supporting that article either.-- danntm ^T _C 02:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles, important notable religious topics , likely to be localised offline RS rather than internet spam. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles. Although they may be notable, there aren't enough reliable, independent sources in the article, or on the internet to prove their notability, or to establish a better article. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is based on appearances in reliable and independent sources. In the case of this particular nun and her order, there really isn't enough that's been brought to the table to demonstrate that she meets the criteria. The article can be undeleted easily enough if someone can actually find some of the offline sources that the "Keep" votes here are cheerfully asserting should exist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Blancarte, Roberto (2012). Historia de la iglesia católica en México (1929-1982) [History of the Catholic Church in Mexico (1929-1982)] (in Spanish). Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica. p. 400. ISBN 6071612012. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The book notes:
  Por el contrario, en la vecina diócesis de Tacámbaro, desde principios de la década de los años setenta, comenzó a adquirir renombre un culto popular alrededor de unas supuestas apariciones en el poblado de Puruarán. Al parecer, en el origen del desarrollo de este culto se encuentra mezclada la participación de una antigua religiosa llamada María Concepción Zúñiga o Mary Conzuló. Proveniente de Zamora, donde había tenido una casa de religiosas, en 1964 llegó a Chilapa y pidió formar una pía unión en compañía de otras mujeres. Allí, con el apoyo del obispo local, de reconocida filiación conservadora, comenzó a editar una revista titulada Estrella.[161] Posteriormente, en 1968, abandonaría la diócesis para establecerse con sus "Mínimas Franciscanas del Perpetuo Socorro" en la Villa de Guadalupe. Ya desde 1971 la mencionada revista había llamado la atención de la curia del arzobispado, pues la señorita María Concepción Zúñiga (Mary Conzuló) difundía unos "Mensajes de Jesucristo" que según ella recibía del mismo Jesucristo. El arzobispo primado, cardenal Miguel Darío Miranda, le prohibió publicar la revista y se negó a aceptarla a ella y a su "Obra" en el arzobispado de México.[162] Seguaramente debido a las anteriores presiones, después de algunos años decidió trasladarse a Puruarán. Allí, alrededor de un culto reciente relativo a unas supuestas apariciones de la Virgen en una ermita, Mary Conzuló su posición de manera notable, gracias al apoyo del párroco integrista del lugar, Nabor Cárdenas. Dichas apariciones fueron tempranamente declaradas falsas por el obispo del Tacámbaro, José Abraham Martínez, las que describió como "fruto de mentes que padecen alucinaciones y anhelos de cosas sobrenaturales".[163] Además, el obispo declaró que el principal propagador de este engaño era el párroco del lugar, a quien se le había amonestado en repetidas veces: [quote]
  Here is the translation from Google Translate:
  By contrast, in the neighboring diocese of Tacambaro, since the early seventies, he began to gain kudos as a popular cult around some alleged apparitions in the town of Puruarán. Apparently the origin of the development of this cult is mixed participation of an ancient religious called Maria Concepcion Zuniga or Mary Conzuló. From Zamora, where he had a nunnery in 1964 he reached Chilapa and asked to form a pious union in the company of other women. There, with the support of the local bishop, recognized conservative affiliation, he began editing a magazine called Star . [161] Later in 1968, would leave the diocese to settle down with his "Franciscan Minimum of Perpetual Help" in the Villa de Guadalupe. Since 1971 that magazine had called the attention of the curia of the archbishopric, as Miss Maria Concepcion Zuniga (Mary Conzuló) spread about "Messages of Jesus Christ" which she received from Jesus Christ himself. The archbishop, Cardinal Miguel Dario Miranda, forbade him to publish the magazine and refused to accept her and her "work" in the archbishopric of Mexico. [162] Seguaramente due to the above pressures, after some years decided to move to Puruarán . There, about a recent cult relating to the alleged apparitions of the Virgin in a chapel, Mary Conzuló its position significantly, with the support of fundamentalist parish priest, Nabor Cardenas. Such occurrences were earlier declared are false by the bishop of Tacambaro, José Abraham Martinez, which he described as "fruit of minds suffering from hallucinations and dreams of supernatural things." [163] In addition, the bishop declared that the principal propagator of this deception was the parish priest, who had cautioned him repeatedly:
  [quote]
2. Laycock, Joseph P. (2014). The Seer of Bayside: Veronica Lueken and the Struggle to Define Catholicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 109. ISBN 0199379661. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The book notes:
  The Paul VI Conspiracy Theory
  Today, a Google search for the words "Paul VI" and "impostor" reveals dozens of websites, many of them created by Baysider groups, which claim that the true Paul VI was regularly drugged by communists, Freemasons, Satanists, or other conspirators and replaced by an impostor created by means of plastic surgery. Some conspiracy theorists support this claim with photographs from different points in Paul VI's career and sonograms comparing the voice of Paul VI with that of the alleged impostor. To skeptics, this evidence is not compelling and the pope simply appears to be aging over time. For believers, the merit of this theory is not really derived from empirical evidence but a network of Marian seers all of whom have received revelations of a papal impostor.
  The original provenance of the theory is unknown and it is impossible to say if it began with a single seer and was borrowed by others, or if multiple seers arrived at this claim independently. The earliest iteration of this theory I have found comes from a Mexican nun named Maria Concepcion Zuniga Lopez. Lopez received messages from heaven that were published and attributed to her pseudonym "Portavoz." On January 21, 1970, Portavoz delivered a message from Jesus announcing, "Paul VI suffers! Do not leave him alone in his prison. Go in search of him, take him to a safe place where he can speak freely." In 1975, Clemente Dominguez Gomez, a seer in Palmar de Troy, Spain, declared that the man claiming to be Paul VI was an impostor and that the true pope was imprisoned. A few months later Lueken outlined a similar conspiracy theory in a locution given before her followers. ...
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow María Concepción Zúñiga López to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give people time to evaluate the sources found by Cunard -- RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election[edit]

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

Pure speculation. There is not yet a leadership election, and "Next" is an unencyclopaedic title. Possibly should be speedied. Stephenb (Talk) 12:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "Next" is used for the Conservative Party leadership election and it is on the same basis. I would also argue that this is not speculation because of the nature of the leader. Corbyn is someone who is opposed by the majority of his party in Parliament and many of them have publicly made clear that he should not lead. Also, the level of briefings to the press, articles (from people within the Labour Party) and polling make this something akin to a political inevitability as opposed to speculation. --Cindy's Cafe (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nominator) Please let me see your Crystal ball. As for the Conservative article, that exists because Cameron has said that he is standing down and therefore there are legitimate reasons for having an article, there being plenty of reliable sources that such an event will occur. Stephenb (Talk) 17:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know when Cameron will stand down. These decisions can easily be reversed. Corbyn will be challenged and this is not reliant on speculation but from a number of sources (including members of the shadow cabinet).--Cindy's Cafe (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Complete speculation that fails WP:CRYSTAL and largely fails WP:RS. No doubt it will happen sooner rather than later, particularly as Corbyn is unpopular among the PLP, but let's wait till then before starting an article about it. This is Paul (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is about the nature of the Labour Party. It might be worth mentioning the various interpretation of the rules in regards to a challenge for the leadership of the Labour. Joe Haines option, whether Corbyn will get on the ballot or whether he will automatically qualify. This could be mentioned.--Cindy's Cafe (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone's head starting to hurt? This is Paul (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. WP:CRYSTAL (which has already been mentioned) states: "expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". The Tory election is almost certainly happening as Cameron has announced his intentions. In Labour's case, an election will presumably happen at some point, but the article is about a speculative challenge to Corbyn's leadership and this is, fairly unequivocally, not presently "almost certain to take place". Wait until it's announced. I don't understand the nom's point about "next", though: "next" is a common usage for articles about upcoming elections. —Nizolan ^(talk) 02:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? An election will almost certainly happen in future (unless you think Corbyn will stay as Labour leader forever). Cameron has announced his intention to step down, though events may change (for eg. Blair's resignation). This is exactly the same because Labour moderates have made clear their intention to challenge Corbyn before the next general election and that would trigger an election. It would also be a notable event. So therefore this page should be safe from deletion. --Cindy's Cafe (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an election will happen in the future; no, the election described in this article is not almost certain to happen in the future. —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've just contradicted yourself. You can't say an election will happen in the future and an election may not happen in the future. Either way, there is an article about the next Tory leadership election because Cameron has signalled intent to resign. There should be an article about the next Labour leadership election because Labour MPs have signalled intent to challenge Corbyn and it is a very big issue in current politics.--Cindy's Cafe (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think what @Nizolan: probably meant was that the scenario described in this article is not certain. Yes, at some point Corbyn will cease to lead the Labour Party, thus triggering a leadership election, but that won't necessarily be because of a challenge to his leadership. He may go on to fight the next election, lose and fall on his sword, so to speak. Or Labour may fare badly in the polls before then, requiring him to feel he should resign. We don't know the future and we shouldn't speculate with articles like this. This is Paul (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. And in any case, the assertion that "Labour MPs have signalled intent to challenge Corbyn" is flatly false. The article cites two sources to claim that people have signalled such an intention and neither one actually demonstrates this ([17], [18]; note as well that the second article is from October last year and currently Simon Danczuk is not even a Labour member!). —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I just wasn't aware of that. I was just thinking that, in paper encyclopaedias at least, "Next" wouldn't occur in the title of any article, since people might be reading it after the event occurred. You probably wouldn't get it on here, either, for other things like "Next US President" or "Next Start Trek Film" or whatever - usually there's some defining qualifier that makes the title less 'present'. I guess politics might be an exception..? Anyway, seemed uncommon to me! Stephenb (Talk) 10:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too speculative per nom and above. Not keen on Conservative Party version in advance of large-scale media discussion, but at least that leader has stated he will not stand by 2020. Rwendland (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kind of interesting, but it belongs in a political blog or news site and not an encyclopaedia. Shritwod (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cogora[edit]

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

A largely promotional article without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guideline. Some of the "references" don't even mention Cogora, & those that do either only briefly mention it or are not independent sources, or both. The article was tagged for the need for sources to establish notability shortly after it was created in 2013, but the situation is no better now. Also, the creation and the substantial majority of the editing have been from single purpose editors with clear signs of conflict of interest, and despite efforts to reduce promotional content, it has persisted in being largely promotional in character.

A PROD was removed with an edit summary which said "significant coverage in cited sources. need to also search under former name 'Campden Health'". I have checked every one of the cited sources, and yes I did look for "Campden Health" as well as "Cogora". Those sources are as follows*

Six pages not mentioning either "Cogora", "Campden Health", or any other form of the name of the company. They may or may not be useful citations for related facts mentioned in the article, but they are certainly not evidence of notability of Cogora.
An article which is not about Cogora/Campden Health, but which makes a few quotes from various people, including a one-sentence mention of a view expressed by unnamed employees of Campden Health.
Three pages on Cogora's own web sites 2 (www.cogora.com, www.managementinpractice.com, and www.pulsetoday.co.uk - the last one being a dead link).
An advertising video for a Cogora publication, posted on YouTube.
A clearly promotional page on the website of www.createmarketing.co.uk, about a campaign in a magazine published by Cogora. The name "createmarketing" pretty well says it all, but to make sure I checked the site's own information about itself. Sure enough, it clearly states that its purpose is to provide its "clients" with "brand development, global asset creation, campaign development, content creation, web building and online communications".
Three pages on the website of the Professional Publishers' Association. That is clearly not an independent source, as it exists to promote the interests of its members, but in any case the only mentions of Cogora on two of the pages are inclusions of the company's name in lists of awards the association gives to its members, in one case with a photograph of Cogora employees, and the third page is just a medium for a person described as Cogora's "Manging (sic) Director" to publicise his views. Similarly, a page on the web site of the British Society of Magazine Editors, which merely includes the name of two Cogora employees in a list.
A dead link, which in any case appears to have merely been an announcement that the company was changing its name.
Two press releases on www.prnewswire.co.uk, merely announcing in one case the change of the company's name, and in the other a business deal, together with marketing copy such as the statemnt that the company "has produced inspirational and incisive multi-channel content".
A press release on www.prweek.com announcing a personnel appointment at Cogora.
An announcement on the web site of a company which owned Cogora that it was selling Cogora.
A brief report on the fact that Cogora was buying a magazine.
A personal video made by a nurse and uploaded to YouTube.

I don't see how that can reasonably be regarded that as substantial coverage, and certainly not as substantial coverage in independent sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly none of this satisfies the applicable notability and my searches also found nothing better. Notifying DGG for analysis as I believe he will be interested with this AfD. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I tend to want to keep articles on publishers , even if it means stretching the guidelines a little. IWe do a service to our users by clarifying the nature of what they might want to use as a reference, And in this case at least one of its magazines is probably notable, DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly a promotional article.Rogermx (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional, and without any evidence of notability. DGG may personally like to keep all articles about publishers, but that is just his opinion, totally inconsistent with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and so should be completely ignored by the admin closing this discussion, as consensus should be judged in terms of Wikipedia polices and guidelines. Even DGG admits that what he proposes is "stretching the guidelines a little", which means "acting contrary to the guidelines". The king of the sun (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K (2017 film)[edit]

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

It's an unfilmed movie with no sources confirming that filming has commenced. Ethanlu121 (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." --McGeddon (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. MarnetteD|Talk 13:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pin Pals (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 09:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 09:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be verging on advertising Nordic Dragon 12:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have limited knowledge of Wikipedia but if you guys think you can do a better job at presenting my page as up to the standards of this website, then please feel free edit it at your own accord to achieve this; Wikipedia is a community based website after all :) I feel deleting the page is, on the whole, unnecessary TheDoomedMarine (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG requirements.LM2000 (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now as this seems to be a one-event show and thus is questionable for better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Elbowski[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 09:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 09:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.LM2000 (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable one event. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critical documentary[edit]

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

Is this a case of WP:NOTESSAY or WP:NOTDICTIONARY? This is the only contribution of the creator - sounds like he heard the term and decided it needed an article Gbawden (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline speedy - Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY and probably WP:MADEUP. The author has apparently read the phrase 'a critical documentary' (about a documentary film that was critical of Wal-Mart) and interpreted it as an established phrase. Many documentaries are critical of something. Finding something bad that you want to be more widely publicised is part of the genre. There's no specific genre of 'critical documentaries'. Blythwood (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When my PROD was removed, the excuse was that there were references to be found in Google books, but doing a search there finds largely "crtical" just being used as an adjective describing a documentary, not a separate genre. The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of the Documentary Film has the phrase but once, Creative Documentary: Theory and Practice has it twice... and these are books that show up high on the search results, and would seem the very thing to cover the topic should it be a real genre. Even if it were a genre, this essay is largely word salad, and would have to be nuked down to being nothing more than a definition. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Risk Issues and Crisis Management in Public Relations (page 122) doesn't give a definition of critical documentary at all, it merely uses the phrase. Media and Left mentions "the revival of critical documentary filmmaking", but has nothing else to say on the subject. The article itself is incomprehensible; no amount of copyediting could fix it. Delete per WP:NONSENSEMduvekot (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A7 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Bhojpuri[edit]

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

An article on a recently-launched Wordpress blog, sourced only to its own site and social media pages. Searches, including specifically on Indian newspapers, are finding no reliable 3rd party coverage on this blog. (Note that there is a "Bhojpuri Digital" commercial streaming site, but that appears unconnected.) A CSD A7 was declined so I am bringing this to AfD: fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, my first impression, and possibly Graeme Bartlett's too, was that this is actually a TV news channel, which would make it ineligible for A7. At a closer look I agree with AllyD that it's a blog, clearly within the scope of A7 as web content (or arguably an organization, also covered by A7). Pinging Graeme Bartlett for reconsideration or an explanation why this wouldn't be in the scope of A7. Huon (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I considered this a TV channel. I should take another look to see if it actually broadcasts or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Even the references were dead end links. I saw a similarly named web page, which is only web content, confirming not a real TV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there do appear to be some sources, those do not seem to be enough to meet the communities requirement of notability (at this time). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agilefant[edit]

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

Article was speedied in 2014 and recreated yesterday with the entirety of its content copy/pasted from the two primary sources it cited. Speedy declined, perplexingly, and reworded to be more of an A7 problem than a G12 problem. No credible claim of significance, still just based on primary sources, and fails WP:PRODUCT/WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

I think it's early enough that this is ok, but I'll ping DESiegel, the only user who has weighed in up to this point. I hadn't noticed this separate page. My search for sources didn't find notability for "Agilefant" whether the company or the software. The (software) article, like the company article, is cobbled together bits of copy/pasted or very closely paraphrased sources (i.e. more copyright violations) in addition to failing WP:PRODUCT. I suppose I should modify my original reference to WP:PRODUCT above to point to WP:CORPDEPTH (same page, different section). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I quite agree with the addition, the two articles are basically the same topic, and must stand or fall together. indeed, if they should survive this AfD, i would propose merging them. Moreove, the software article didn't exist when the company article was first nominated, if I read the history correctly. DES ^(talk) 23:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy because this wasn't the kind of blatant copyvio or advertising that warrants speedy deletion. I have added one source to the article in the past few minutes that seems to be independent. . There is also http://www.cloudsoftwareprogram.org/news-events/i/29006/68/a-more-agile-software-development-working-model-with-the-aid-of-agilefant but i'm not sure if that is truly independent. I think that there are more sources out there, and I ask if the nomiunator has done a WP:BEFORE search? DES ^(talk) 01:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article other than the words "Agilefant is a technology company based in Finland" and "Agilefant is known for" was copy/pasted from their website, but I suppose the CSD isn't so important now. But yes, I searched for sources. Some routine coverage, a couple blogs, mention in a couple lists. It's not dire, but it's not notable either. Though indeed, lacking any claim of significance and drawing only from primary sources influenced the nomination. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak~~ keep I have added a couple of additional independent sources, and i think this now passes the bounds for notability. More sources, if found, would only strengthen this. DES ^(talk) 01:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now found and added a 10-page academic (IEEE) conference proceedings article that discusses the software and its use in depth. i think notability is now clearly established. DES ^(talk) 01:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - This, like the Methods and Tools source, is primary.
  - Both authors of the Methods and Tools source are Agilefant developers.
  - The IEEE paper's lead author is one of the developers, too. The paper also shows that the research paper and Agilefant have the same backers. Agilefant gets funding from Tekes and was "developed by the ATMAN research project of Helsinki University of Technology" and the acknowledgements section of the paper says "Thanks to Tekes (the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation) and all the Finnish companies participating in the ATMAN research project for financing the research." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agilefant (Software) to Agilefant. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mean as custard: To clarify, both of these are up for deletion here. Could you explain why Agilefant should be kept such that we would redirect to it? (I'm not seeing reliable sources that are independent of the subject). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added some resources to show notability. BBA2016 (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: BBA2016 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Thanks for adding sources, but literally every single one of these is connected to the subject. To show notability, sources have to be independent of the subject (i.e. not written by employees, developers, etc. let alone the co-founder of the company, Vehaniitty, whose name is on all of them). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check Agilefant (software) site? BBA2016 17:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more ref, e.g. about how the software has been part of university research for more than a decade. Editing in small pieces.. BBA2016 (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the information is convincing enough and the listed sources are also not convincing, with these two examined, there's nothing else for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable; I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 17:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too was unable to find any reliable coverage by secondary sources. There are a few articles, but the authors are all connected to the subject. Elaenia (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About secondary sources: There is a whole article published in Finnish leading business magazine Kauppalehti as a secondary source, URL: http://www.soberit.hut.fi/sprg/projects/atman/publications/other/Tyot%20hallintaan%20ilmaisella%20ohjelmalla.pdf. Another one from TEKES (Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation) intranet about financing the software development. TEKES doesn't give funging some project that doesn't matter. URL: https://extranet.tekes.fi/ibi_apps/WFServlet?IBIF_webapp=/ibi_apps&IBIC_server=EDASERVE&IBIWF_msgviewer=OFF&IBIAPP_app=openraho&IBIF_ex=O_PROJEKTI_RAP1&CLICKED_ON=&YPROJEKTI=11048011&YTARKASTELU=Z&YKIELI=S&YHANKETYYPPI=11&IBIAPP_app=opendata&YMUOTO=HTML. The funding criterias: http://www.tekes.fi/en/funding/research_organisations/new-knowledge-and-business-from-research-ideas/ On XP2015 Agilefant is mentioned as one of the sponsors (Among Nokia, Iittala, Reaktor, Ericsson. URL: http://www.xp2015.org/. VersionOne also mentions Agilefant as one of its integrations: URL: https://www.versionone.com/category/portfolio-and-project-management-connector/. A technology company in Sri Lanka also mentions Agilefant: URL: http://sayanu.com/ BBA2016 (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are either passing mentions or simple government listings, which are probably required under Finnish transparency laws. Being listed as a sponsor of a event (which has lots more sponsors too) or being listed on another company's website because they use the software in question don't really establish notability. Elaenia (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nearly every source listed in the article is self-written (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, the company's website), which, combined with the lack of sources overall, points to this article failing WP:GNG. This warrants the article for deletion on its own, but it's not the only problem; this article is sloppy, promotional, and contains an undue number of irrelevant external links within the text. Delete immediately. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 02:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I couldn't find any reliable sources in the article or on the web which proved it's notability. Since the current sources in the article are primarily unreliable, there's nothing to establish a better article either. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We are going the direction delete, but sources have been around, and I feel that closing just as delete after one week discussion would not be appropriate. May be more folks could jump in and look at the sources during the second week.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment The original creator jhas recently added quitte a bit of contnet, much of wich is over the top and should probably be trimmed out, but the Information Week source looks like an independent RS that discusses the software in some depth. Perhaps it is enough added to the other things listed? DES ^(talk) 23:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like much open source software, there's no marketing department to get products reviewed so that it can meet our WP:GNG criteria. Like most previous delete comments, I couldn't find any sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connected (Musical)[edit]

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

Not notable musical for schools, only coverage I found was a suburban newspaper Boneymau (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:GNG - topic of the musical is relevant, but not the musical NealeFamily (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOSOON. The article does cite some coverage but it appears to be local reviews or user-generated content. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until better coverage is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Izes Marshall[edit]

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

As I said at the article talk, I just cannot find enough refs to pass GNG. My apologies if they are out there and I am just not looking hard enough. I am forced to use Bing, so that may be it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had this on my watchlist for a while, and cannot see enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found only one link, not convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeepRecce[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that would meet the notability criteria at WP:CORP. VQuakr (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is more about who setup the corp by and why. The individuals have notability. Kgilmour (talk)

Then the article should exist at Andrew Samsonoff and/or Ken Gilmour. At a glance, though, it doesn't appear that either of those people meet the similar notability guideline at WP:BASIC. VQuakr (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case - you may delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kengilmour (talk • contribs) 16:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: No evidence of notability found. Looks like a promo. Toddst1 (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rostro de México 2016[edit]

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

Crystal ball without sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 13:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no information provided and unable to find third party reliable sources.--Richie Campbell (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon at best, this consensus is clear. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackie Bison Show[edit]

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

As the article itself says, this was a failed TV pilot. There is no evidence that anybody has discussed it since. Nearly no online mention. Not notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found some coverage, but it's not really in-depth. this article from Entertainment Weekly is just a trivial mention, but this article from the Los Angeles Times is a little more substantial, though it still only boils down to a one-sentence review. Also, it got indexed in this book, but it's mostly just a synopsis. Also on Google Books, there's a trivial mention in The Hollywood Reporter that's just barely visible via the snippet view. I'm thinking that this isn't enough to show notability, as these are mostly just plot synopses and announcements. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply not enough for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ceki Gülcü[edit]

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

Author of some SW products. Notability at the edge Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The software in question, namely SLF4J, is the most widely used software library in the java eco-system, which is one of the largest among computer languages.^[1]. Log4j, also by Gülcü, is the 3rd most widely-used software library in Java. Thus, Gülcü authored not one but two of the top-ten most used software in the Java eco-system.

Moreover, Babel the anonymous email system, invented by Gülcü, paved the way for Tor, a valuable anonymous communications tool available to the general public.

Additionally, Ceki Gülcü was already cited by other pages on Wikipedia, i.e. SLF4J and log4j. --Man thinking (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ We Analyzed 30,000 GitHub Projects

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this seems to be enough time for an AfD, this needs familiar attention to see if it satisfies WP:CREATIVE (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mihailo Stošović[edit]

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

The references that this article includes don't appear to lack independence from the subject. Subject does not appear to have attracted the attention of multiple independent reliable sources in Serbian or any other language. The one award claimed was not one on which I was able to determine any significance. Serbian Wikipedia does no better than the English one. The purpose of this article appears to be promotional rather than encyclopedic. KDS4444^Talk 21:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I'm not sure where your "does not appear to have attracted the attention" statement comes from, when the references are full of reports of his exhibitions, and external links contain a number of media appearances. And it does not take much effort to find several [19] [20] [21]. As the arcicle states, he's the chairman of Sculptor Commitee of ULUPUDS [22], and that fact alone is enough earns him an article. No such user (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No such user: I am very interested in being told which of the six criteria for a "WP:speedy keep" you think this discussion qualifies the article for. My concern, however, is that you have not read over those criteria and have no understanding what a vote of "speedy keep" means. That aside, I have again gone over the references given in this article: what I keep finding is that the coverage either lack independence from the subject or includes only trivial mentions of the subject and his work— having his name appear in a list is not enough to qualify him as notable. We need evidence of him having been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and so far (and still) this article does not have these (if you feel differently, please itemize a few and show that they provide non-trivial coverage and that the sources are genuinely WP:independent of the subject and are WP:reliable, yes?). In the mean time, I'd like to suggest you turn your "speedy keep" vote into a regular "keep". Thanks! (also, quickly: articles are not "earned", they are "qualified for"— this isn't a competition!). KDS4444^Talk 13:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather that you, User:KDS4444, do the homework, follow WP:BEFORE, go through the list of 12 references and 13 external links currently in the article, and filter out which ones are NOT evidence of him being the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, which include several media outlets, including Blic, RTV Studio B, Alo!, Moja TV and Prva Srpska Televizija (most YouTube links are of official channels of TVs). No such user (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #1: this appears to be a self-written paragraph, not a news article or other popular coverage of the subject. Ref #2: Is a mention of his name in relation to a competition he judged— it describes the criteria for the submission of works, and other than indicating that the subject is going to judge it, it says nothing at all about him. Ref. #3: looks like it is an autobiography by the subject, failing WP:I. Ref #4 was a blog, apparently (according to its remaining title) written by the subject— the article itself is gone. Ref. #5 looks like it an announcement for an art salon at which the subject will be appearing— it says nothing at all about him. Ref #6 is a youtube clip, and while I grant you that it appears to be from a television channel, my experience has been that youtube references aren't usually worth much for establishing a claim of notability because of problems with reliability and independence (also: WP:YOUTUBE indicates that copyrighted material should not be linked to at all, and this clip is marked as copyright protected). Tell you what, there's the first six of the twenty three justifications you asked for (usually the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim of notability, not the one questioning it, but I am trying to be more than fair here). Is there a reference beyond the sixth that you think makes the case for him? Which one(s) and how? KDS4444^Talk 16:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you four just in my first comment here, along with a strong ground for notability (president of a sculptor section of a national artist society is not a random Joe). There are few in the article already, just need some more analysis. I grant that the article reads like a resume, and is probably written by someone close to the author (how else could somebody got a gallery of sculptures?) But frankly, I'm not too interested to improve it, just stating that it is improvable, and that we're wasting our collective time here on debating deletion rather than cleaning it up. No such user (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notbale to me.*Treker (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Treker:WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:Clearly notable KDS4444^Talk 13:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I don't care that much honestly I just gave my opinion.*Treker (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough references in Serbian, I had to translate with google translator, but they are there, so easily passes WP:CREATIVE from my POV. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Love (No Question)[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album Sensitive Sources from which this single is taken, merging such content as is appropriate (ATD, PRESERVE, R). James500 (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There doesn't need to be a redirect for every non-notable song. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely questionable for the applicable notability for itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ebony Bones. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Muzik (EP)[edit]

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

I prodded the article a few days ago due to notability concerns, and the editor removed the tag. Since then, the article has yet to be improved, and I cannot really find anything that shows notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination; nothing to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge The artist does seem to have some notability, with 2 out of 4 albums having arguably enough notability to have their own pages. Whatever happens to this page probably should happen to Milk_&_Honey,_Pt._1 as well. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 05:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in independent and reliable sources. Not even an EP, but an extended single. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ebony Bones at best. editorEهեইдအ😎 15:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems acceptable at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MasterChef France Junior[edit]

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

No references, offical website redirects to adult version of the series Fuddle (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also cannot find any reliable references (and very few of the other kind, as well). Insufficient support for WP:GNG. I even searched the French Wikipedia in hope of finding an article there which might lead to sources not appearing in various Google searches. Mai non, il n'y en avait pas. Nothing. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hardly anything for even minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group[edit]

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

Apparently no longer active and never been notable Qualitatis (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Bassem Eid, with no objections to the article being kept if further information and reliable sources are provided during this AfD. I am slightly surprised at the nominator's claim that the organisation is "apparently no longer active", as the GNews feed gives a substantial number of hits from within the last month. Almost all of these, however, relate more to the group's founder, Bassem Eid, and so do not give grounds for notability independent of him. Having said that, GNews also provides a scattering of hits from the past fifteen years (most recently about six months ago) that do not mention Eid, and a GBooks search provides a large number of hits, though a large proportion of these are short mentions - so a determined enough editor may be able to find sufficient more substantive sources to justify a standalone article. PWilkinson (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Here: [23] a long article about how he came to found PHRMG. Here: [24] a cluster of recent news articles showing that it is still active. Here [25] a google books search showing the group's impact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps if it can be improved. Familiar attention may also be needed for in-depth searches. SwisterTwister talk 00:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage about the group to show they meet notability. The citations found by E.M.Gregory above are about people connected in some way to the group, and are simply mentions that they belonged to the group, but don't speak about the group itself, for the most part. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:onel5969, You needed to have time (a lot of time) to keep reading that (very long) source [[26]], to the part where he founded this organization. That's what made my jaw drop (the moment when the quit B'Tselem, and the reason why he quit) and made me realize that we have all been looking at the wrong decade. (see my note below)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Far too notable to delete. but Unless someone makes time to build an article, although there is sufficient material in Hebrew, English and some European languages, unless someone makes time to build a short article, it may make sense to combine this with Bassem Eid, the founder/director of this (smallish) NGO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's the scoop. Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group was at its peak of notability and influence in the 1990s. It was covered by all the usual suspects The Guardian, Financial Times, and the rest of the big intl dailies. All I had to do was run a proquest search. There was more, but I added a Washington Post article and I think it now has enough sourcing to be minimally acceptable. However, someone should go back to the old papers and do a serious expand of this ground-breaking, and ABSOLUTELY NOTABLE Palestinian NGO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also p. 147 of Joshua Muravchik's book , Making David into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources and with consideration for things 20 years old not showing up in internet searches. Also notability is not temporary. ~Kvng (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following improvements by User:E.M.Gregory. (Replacing merge vote above.) PWilkinson (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Folklore and Superstition. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Man (Black Stone Cherry song)[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album Folklore and Superstition from which this single is taken, merging such content as is appropriate (ATD, PRESERVE, R). James500 (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Plausible search term, but seems to fail WP:NSONGS, and seems unlikely to change considering its been out for almost 8 years... Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A little more discussion in this AFD than the previous one, but there is still not a rough consensus here. This close permitts speedy renomination, if requested. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irène Major[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating as last nomination did not get any independent views. Aside from the on-going and long-standing COI issues this article has had (and a number of related ones that have since been deleted), there is nothing this person has done of notability, but a number of sub-GNG projects, the sum of which do not IMO exceed the GNG threshold. For example, the crowning glory of their music career was to reach the top 28 in one year's X Factor, which is considerably below what would qualify someone for an article. Rayman60 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GNG states that, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Furthermore, it states that significant coverage means it "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The subject clearly meets this threshold based on the articles cited and many others available. It doesn't matter if "there is nothing this person has done of notability" (which may or may not be true) so long as she has received significant coverage. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 00:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there's some subjectivity in applying some of the terms so I would like to clarify why I think this subject falls considerably short of general notability. She was supposedly a well-known model. There isn't a single reference for this. She was supposedly an actress with a number of roles. Zero entries on imdb here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7789512 The pop career peaked with reaching the final 28 of a pop reality show (and being much derided in the process). There are winners of the Apprentice (who have received significant coverage) who still don't have their own profile page. The only coverage there has been has been very low-level articles in publications like the Sun and Daily Mail about beauty tips, being the wife of someone obscenely rich, and for her use and defence of skin-whitening products. There's absolutely nothing to these articles, it's just someone who has an agent and agrees to speak to the newspapers on certain topics. In the same sense, you could say Noelie Goforth, who appeared on one of the same shows and on Wife Swap, and in the same accompanying article, and has 'significant coverage' elsewhere (Telegraph) for suing Gordon Ramsey for serving her cling film. Technically this is significant coverage from an independent reliable source, but it's not noteworthy. Similarly, Wayne Lineker (as an example from the top of my head) has been featured in many major newspapers at various times for various things and was even a guest star on TOWIE, but again the sum of all these tiny things (legal troubles, famous brother, etc) are not enough to warrant an article, hence no article. Many reality stars get bikini snaps pasted all over the Daily Mail and don't have their own page (as an example, Lydia Bright has 2,792 results on the Daily Mail search page, but doesn't have an article, because the articles are of such insignificance that they do not justify a wiki profile page. How can one person have 2,792 articles on one publication and not be considered significant coverage whereas this person has 7 articles from national press and a couple from local and pass notability/GNG?). So merely being mentioned in the news (especially when it's volunteering yourself for a puff-piece) does not to me come anywhere near meeting the criteria for 'significant coverage.' I really cannot see how this subject gets anywhere near to meeting any of the general specifications, and absolutely fails at any of the specific ones, which considering they're portrayed as a superstar philanthropist, model, actor, singer, presenter etc, you'd think they'd absolutely nail. Rayman60 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this is actually solid enough for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failing WP:ENTERTAINER isn't a reason for deletion per se. If the subject meets WP:GNG, or any other set of guidelines for inclusion, then it should be kept. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 12:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It makes me sad that a user is again pushing the Irene Major page for possible deletion. Irene Major is an entertainment personality that I follow on social media, TV and in press. She is insightful on fashion, deals with difficult issues in TV interviews and also has fun songs and blogs. Also, she is an African female and it is good to see her on Wikipedia. I hope that in time there will be more and more articles on inspiring and impactful contemporary black women on Wikipedia not less. --LucyP007 (talk) 12:58, 03 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her gender and race have absolutely nothing to do with anything, and it's quite offensive to insinuate any link or to even raise this issue. Personal feelings about someone you admire are irrelevant in judging notability, as are insights into fashion and fun songs. Rayman60 (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage does not rise to the level to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Rayman60's assessment in his comment above is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Pradesh train accidents[edit]

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

Does not seem to add much value over Category:Railway accidents in Uttar Pradesh. Vectro (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic."--Prisencolin (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just that this particular article in particular isn't adding much vs a category. Vectro (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to List of Indian rail accidents. No need for a specific page on one state. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hey, this isn't comparable to, say, a "List of train wrecks in Rhode Island". Uttar Pradesh is bigger than, well, ANY OTHER SUBDIVISION OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, apparently. And it probably depends far more on train travel and freight than do countries of its size (such as the United States, it is almost as big population-wise as the United States!). Compare this one's 9 collisions and derailments since 2010 to what's in List of rail accidents in New Zealand. That covers, in more detail for each one, 11 incidents since year 2000, but including "10 July 2010, Wellington – Morning passenger services suspended after two trains bring down overhead lines." No disrespecting the importance of a delay of commuters in a country of 4.5 million, but I suspect the number of person-years lost in train delays in U.P. each year are greater than all the person-years awake or asleep in Wellington, yet the U.P. doesn't list mere delays yet. And no disrespecting the 10.5 million pop. corresponding to List of Czech rail accidents, with its 2 accidents listed that killed 4 since 2010, but incidents like 69 killed in U.P. seem more important. How about merging those others into List of rail accidents in the southern hemisphere and List of rail accidents in Europe respectively? :( It is entirely reasonable to have a separate list for each and every Indian state, methinks; the India-wide list covers accidents of faint interest to persons living "hundreds of millions of persons away" (using an odd distance-measure, but my point is U.P. readers probably like a more relevant "local" list. This list has different info than the India-wide list, but I think it would even be fine to have different cuts of exactly the same info. --do ncr am 03:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Railway accidents in Uttar Pradesh. The article would benefit from more sources to verify content that is not covered by the category. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Hart (inventor)[edit]

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

one patent is not evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From the context at this source, the patent is not notable (and Hart does not warrant inclusion at Douche. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jane (Pull Tiger Tail song)[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band Pull Tiger Tail, merging such content as is appropriate (ATD, PRESERVE, R). James500 (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notability. Nothing worth merging. Never a need to have been created in the first place. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect as this is clear enough not to continue this AfD (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promises (Boy Kill Boy song)[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album Stars and the Sea from which this single is taken, merging such content as is appropriate (ATD, PRESERVE, R). James500 (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stars and the Sea. Uncertain about the claims within the article, but not much here to warrant a standalone article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Parnaby[edit]

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

Hasn't managed a full league club or played in the football league Telfordbuck (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not managed a club in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not managed / played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By mind we start (organization)[edit]

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

Semi-promotional article as is, and a Google search turned up absolutely nothing. Only sources provided in the article are the organization's website, its Youtube channel, and a Google maps link showing its location. GAB^Hello! 18:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 13:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Cox[edit]

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

Civil servant with no inherently notable posts hold. The creator seems to have created a lot of articles pertaining to University of Birmingham people, most of which seem to make the grade of notability, but this one i'm not convinced about. Seems more like padding. Uhooep (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Senior civil servant awarded an honorary degree by a major university and with an entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The implicit criticism of the creator seems unnecessary. AusLondonder (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps for now because she seems questionably notable apart from the Olympics groups. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Swister Twister. I thought we were talking about the DJ for a moment, if kept it is worth renaming. Nordic Dragon 12:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my sweeps of British media did not reveal sufficient sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just to confirm, for the benefit of those users without access to the full range of UK sources, Cox does indeed have an entry in Who's Who because of her position as a senior Civil Servant. The award suggests she also passes WP:ANYBIO#1. Graemp (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Who's Who. This is just a civil servant doing their job, there is nothing notable in her work per se. Shritwod (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is Wikipedia and Who's Who is Who's Who. Wikipedia accepts notability based upon measures dictated by sources such as Who's Who. Who's Who does not confer notability on a any "civil servant doing their job" but partly recognises the importance of that job. Also major universities don't give awards like honorary degrees to any "civil servant doing their job". Graemp (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not we accept whether Who's Who is a good source or not, there's still the problem of What exactly did Sarah Cox do? Right now, it reads Sarah Cox is a civil servant. The article needs to show that SC accomplished things, not just was a civil servant, and accomplished things serious enough so that newspaper and TV reporters wanted to write about it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If she passes WP:ANYBIO#1 and this qualification is reliably sourced in the article with an in-line citation, the article does not need to say much more than that she is a senior civil servant. Graemp (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's never been a requirement to show that subjects of articles have achieved anything specific, just that they are notable (for which a Who's Who entry provides good evidence) and that something verifiable can be said about them (which the references in the article demonstrate). Warofdreams talk 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "references" are almost entirely primary sources -- Wordpress, U. Birmingham, Sarah Cox website. I can't verify the Who's Who or ascertain how exclusive it is or what it means.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Krishnan[edit]

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

No sources/references, written like an advert FASTILY 07:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best because my searches found nothing better and the current article is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number of awards received by this individual demonstrate notability. I cannot imagine an American being nominated in similar circumstances. Has received coverage in the English language press in India. Searches need to be conducted in other Indian languages as well. AusLondonder (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the above comment, and the many RS presented, his multiplicity of awards, I think he passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC upon a review of available sources from the custom search above. Some, but not all, are shorter articles, however, WP:BASIC states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", and some of the coverage in the shorter articles is beyond trivial. The article would benefit from copy editing to consolidate information, to format long lists, and to add more sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reward Gateway[edit]

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

Extensively promotional, with all the nonpromotional content being mere notices about firms acquired. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches only found expected coverage, nothing further convincing and the currently listed sources are not closely convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep (although copyedit to our standards - mostly to explain just what they do) This is one of those "invisible" companies that's surprisingly large. No-one goes out in the morning thinking to do some shopping through Reward Gatweway, but a surprising number of people will do. Mostly through their government outsourcing of things like Childcare vouchers (quite a big thing in the UK). After all, it's hard for a quarter billion turnover company to not be notable. 800 pound gorillas leave big footprints. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about doing that, but I think it would need to be rewritten from scratch, in which case the current version should be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Paatekar[edit]

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

non-RS sources. Page created by someone related. Captain Spark (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly YouTube results and other user-generated content websites. Nothing to indicate subject is notable. Elaenia (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, no evidence of notability, and the article was created by what appears to be a relative. Pianoman320 (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Starling[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Another vanity article created and largely edited by SPA socks, which were discovered by Softlavender. Same socks also responsible for Hank Bergman and Sherman Bergman articles, which are also currently nominated. Coverage consists of local newspaper obits, minor local coverage re: subject's time as a charter boat captain and two unconfirmed mentions in Ring Magazine. It appears that all three articles were created to promo subjects who had all been long-time teachers with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. X4n6 (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. X4n6 (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Odd promo/vanity article about a dabbler and so-called "colorful personality" who lacks notability in any area and who fails GNG and other notability standards. Softlavender (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On most all the articles this user (FranciscoFWPerez) has created, instead of doing his own research and providing his own citations, he seems to be copy-pasting the References/Sources list on each individual bio article directly from that person's entry in http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Main_Page. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable as a boxer or anything else.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. Doesn't meet the notability standards for any position. A few local color stories don't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to have had a very interesting life but he fails WP:BOX and WP:GNG sadly.--Donniediamond (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW 'Delete as this clearly needs to be restarted if there are to be any notability signs, even minimally. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by 78.26, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A11 & G3. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Prescott[edit]

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

No claim of nor likelihood of notability, this is a user-invented biography for a character that supposedly appears for just a few seconds in a movie. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the author This article is necessary to inform people on the existence of Francis Prescott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloitus (talk • contribs) 04:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just confusing. Nothing online about this person or cartoon anywhere online. --TheDomain (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep this article is needed to show the world about Francis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivolus (talk • contribs) 04:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Vivolus and Cloitus. You both have created accounts today just to edit this article. Special:Log/Cloitus and Special:Log/Vivolus. I have a feeling you are both the same person. You need to show notability for this article to be notable. There are no references on the article. Also to add ontop of that. What is this edit all about? Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Francis Prescott. Wikipedia isn't a place for WP:DE --TheDomain (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've speedied this as this is just absurd. Blythwood (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not many participants, but this is clearly an OR essay. And the incoherent comments of the creator here can't even be counted as a "keep", making this deletion uncontested. Sandstein 19:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time Illusion[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place to publish original essays –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can You review our page? Why is it up for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RADDB (talk • contribs) 03:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move to clearer title the content of this article seems well written, and not from a particular POV. However, I'm not sure that it is at the right title; I think that "Time as an illusion" is a better fit. It needs a lede that explains what 'Time as an illusion" actually means, and to tie the article together, but deleting it seems a waste of good material, and a quick google search indicates that there is plenty of material here in terms of differing evidence and famous support and opposition to the idea, which can easily support an article [27] Please WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, it could be moved to Draft space until ready for article status, as, at the moment, it currently overlaps quite a bit with other articles. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have changed my mind, after a more thorough reading I came to the conclusion that although a topic could conceivably (and even easily) exist under the title "Time as an illusion", this article is not that article. It is written in a WP:TONE that is inconsistent with wikipedia, and likely cannot be salvaged from its current state. So while I recommend that an article be written about the subject, and while I appreciate RADDB's efforts to improve the article per my suggestions, I think that this current article should be deleted. I would suggest to RADDB to edit elsewhere on wikipedia, and to thoroughly examine other featured articles in order to better understand the concept of encyclopaedic formal tone before having another crack at the topic. The OP is correct, the tone of this article reads much too much like an 'essay'. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We moved the page to "Time as an Illusion" like you requested — Preceding unsigned comment added by RADDB (talk • contribs) 04:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lede was added explaining time as an illusion as requested — Preceding unsigned comment added by RADDB (talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to keep this article up until tuesday at least?RADDB (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's not suspicious at all... Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry its just for a class project tomorrowRADDB (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~The purpose of wikipedia is not for your class project.~~ Request WP:SPEEDY Delete please. Apologies, I spoke brashly, and without good faith. Wikipedia can totally be improved as part of a school project, however, this article requires substantial work, and is not currently ready for userspace. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this information can be relevant for other people. Theres not an article that ties all these concepts together already — Preceding unsigned comment added by RADDB (talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your messages with four of these (~). I understand what you are saying, and I agree to a point (as I have indicated above). Perhaps we can move this conversation over to your talk page to discuss it further. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you for discussing it. I have posted on our talk page and signed this time.RADDB (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly our talk page says it doesn't exist anymore? Can we keep discussing here?RADDB (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry its all good now on our talk pageRADDB (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT FOR REVIEWER; the intentions of RADDB are good, but this article isn't ready for the namespace, I've suggested that they use the articles for creation review process as a way to get the article up to snuff and I've created a new draft of the article for them to work on. As I said, I think this topic has promise, and could eventually make a good article. As for now, I would consider this article to be resolved for now, and recommend speedy deletion of the userspace article. Thanks. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rayshaun Deese[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR; has only a handful of minor roles. Drm310 (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 07:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my analysis showed nothing satisfying the actors notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator, and there are no delete !votes. Per consensus below, no prejudice against renominating each of the articles for deletion in separate discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Key (company) visual novel character lists[edit]

– (View AfD · Stats)

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

These lists of characters are not independently notable from their main series, as shown through their available secondary sources. Alone, they lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) They could be deleted or redirected as they are all adequately covered in their parent articles' characters sections (which are all GA-rated). Some of the character lists have been tagged for cleanup for eight years. I consider these painfully straightforward redirect/merge cases, but they can also be deleted. czar 01:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 01:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 01:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge Notability isn't inherited, too many character articles believe that to be the case. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd argue that WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply here as these are not independent subjects, but subarticles split off from their parents to avoid the visual novel pages from becoming too large. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise for Keep The character article Ayu Tsukimiya is incredibly well sourced and it's even a GA. I'm sure the character lists could easily be given their own reception sections. If so, then I'll say Keep alone. If it is not possible then Merge it.Tintor2 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will start with List of Kanon characters which has Ayu Tsukimiya linked to it. Reviewers from Japanator, THEM anime reviews, and Anime News Network give characters reviews along with the series, these reviews include artwork, and relation to the story. The effort has not been made to go through these reviews to see what can be picked up, I already have come up with a source for example with mention of the characters from Little Busters: [28]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for yourself the effort hasn't been made. I did due diligence, now you AGF and do yours. That citation is about the episode, not the characters. You'll need to explain why the characters are independently notable from the series so as to necessitate its own page. czar 02:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that source the reviewer references Kyousuke as being a "nasty" character towards the end of the series, this would count as plot information from a notable outside opinion. Im not trying to put you down here I just wish you could discuss first is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These seem to be part of an aggressive redirecting process of character articles by the nominator. I make no comment on their motives or faith but I feel they are being rather too literal with the guidelines here. Character articles have long been considered acceptable if they are of the ensemble "cast", chances are any reviews of the material will discuss the characters so notability arguments are not as straightforward as suggested. The process should be to discuss if WP:BOLD is objected to, not to take them straight to AFD as this may have further repercussions on hundreds of articles. I'm not happy with the bundling of these articles together, they should be considered on their own merits as i'm willing to bet that some of them are easier to source than others. Ultimately I feel that the discussion over what qualifies a character list as a worthwhile article should be taking place at WP:Anime (and possibly at other wiki projects) and not through the bold mass redirecting or AFD of normally accepted lists articles. Attempt to set a consensus through constructive discussion rather than take it straight to AFD at the first objection. Also, AFD isn't clean up , which is just as much part of the arguement as the debate over notability. SephyTheThird (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia-wide discussion. It isn't for the Anime project alone to determine that character lists without significant coverage apart from the series get a pass on the general notability guideline. I'm happy to de-bundle any of these lists if they're seen as significantly different from the rest, but as of now, I don't see how any would be. czar 02:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the archives I know we have had this song and dance at least once before. Yes consensus can change but I would first check what arguments were raised on past discussions, and how you believe things have changed since then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is part of an effort by WP:VG, but that effort is based around the fact that most of these character list articles are poorly sourced and violating WP:INU in a way that they're so heavily focused on plot summary type info that there's little left once it's removed. I'm not part of these efforts, but most of the time when I'm look into the related nominations, they're warranted, so I wouldn't let these "efforts" confuse the issue - there's serious notability issues here. Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I am fine with providing sources but I agree with Sephy on how this was bundled. Each one of these articles are a separate entity. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fair too, and probably the only way forward for the people in favor of deletion, judging by the comments so far... Sergecross73 msg me 03:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can compromise on redirects for List of Air characters, and List of Clannad characters as they contain little to no references. As for the rest, seeing that they do have some sources to them they would be ideal to expand upon first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character lists are accepted spin-outs of their parent article. Their notability is tied to the notability of their parent article, the work of fiction. There is plenty of past precedent that character lists, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Digimon Adventure characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kodomo no Jikan characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jormungand characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rozen Maiden characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Initial D characters and teams, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Haré+Guu characters. The rare cases where character lists were not kept is because it was duplicated by another list, merged into a related list, or whose parent article was not notable. —Farix (t | c) 02:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's just be clear, these character lists (and others like them) are simply poorly sourced. Even for something like List of Clannad characters which has 30 or so of characters could be cleaned up and well sourced if reviews that discuss these characters were gleamed for such information. Clannad was made into 2 anime series, an anime film, and the original game was just recently released in English by Sekai Project, so there's no way that enough sourced material could not be collected in order to improve that article, even if you had to remove 90% of the plot bloat. That would still leave voice actors, cursory character descriptions, and any reception to those characters that could all be sourced if someone put in the work. And all of that, I believe, could easily be applied to all of the other articles on this AFD because all of them have anime adaptations which will always have reviews that discuss character interactions and reception based on those characters. If these articles are guilty of anything, it's plotbloat, but as the saying goes, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when there is at least some relevant, notability-establishing content that could be added if someone made the effort. Need I remind that Wikipedia does not have a deadline?--十八 03:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Looking at them, I don't think we need plots for every branch of every game/adaptation. The Little Busters page is especially guilty of this, IMO. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 06:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would take me at least a week but I could add a reception section for Little Busters. As I mentioned before I know they talk about character artwork/conception in reviews that can be found both online, and in magazines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything that has a reference needs to be in the article. At some point, it just becomes a list of mentions inside a list of characters. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 15:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that isn't in-universe information would be beneficial as it does add up. When you have different reviewers all commenting on the characters then the coverage expands. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though if the locus of coverage remains at the series or unit level, our coverage should remain at that level too. It's a principle of proportionality. We'd need significant coverage dedicated to the characters to justify a split—otherwise it should fit within its parent. czar 15:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the sources are brief mentions though, it depends on the series. I have come across sources that go into interviews with the character voice actor/actresses involved. Of course "significant coverage" is all in the beholder, I don't think there is a definition here on Wikipedia what counts as enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per TheFarix and Juhachi - I'd personally argue that fictional character lists are subarticles split off from their parents to avoid the video novel pages from becoming too cluttered; thus, they aren't stand-alone articles in the strictest sense and WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't apply. Instead, their notability is tied to the notability of the visual novels themselves. (I will admit this opinion isn't based the strongest on policy, though there are numerous examples of previous such articles being kept to set precedent, hence the 'weak' part of my !vote). Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mass nomination of so many articles is disruptive and doesn't give any of them a fair chance. AFD is not for deciding policy, and the policy has long been to allow spinoff articles for those that get too large. Opencooper (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all these keeps, I'd be very interested in the sources voters are using to substantiate their positions. czar 15:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be better if this nomination gets "snow kept without prejudice towards re-nomination" and then you try nominating one or two of the worst offenders separately. Right now, everyone's commenting more in regards to "lets not set a precedent to support a mass redirect". If nominated separately, I think people would give a more detailed look at the merits of the individual lists, whether it be !voting to delete, or digging up some better sourcing for a stronger "keep" !vote. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the only way forward, though I hope it won't be similarly brigaded. Withdrawn—requesting closure per Serge's comment above. czar 22:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List of characters articles are spun out when the number of characters become too unwieldy for the main article to handle, and also when they cover multiple titles of a franchise that has multiple Wikipedia articles. Just as with List of (manga/anime) volumes and List of (manga/anime) episodes. However, each of these titles should be reviewed and aggressively filtered to list only major and important characters, especially for video game franchises on who is playable and who are the main villains. If after cleanup the list is small enough to merge, then merge it back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added WP:TELEVISION to this discussion as they often deal with television series that have huge lists of characters and whether to spin them off. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of disappearing gun installations[edit]

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

Merely duplicates part of main article, mostly. Anmccaff (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having an inclusive list in Disappearing gun would be too long. In fact it would be better to move most of the entries in the "Significant installations" section to the list. Toddst1 (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nahh, the important ones should be in the main article. This thing seems to have been intended as an inclusive list of DC installations; it would, if completed, have perhaps thousands of entries. Anmccaff (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's clearly fine to split out a list of notable examples of the type, rather than requiring it to be in the main article about the type. Note that wp:CLN applies: if there is a category it is almost always okay or good to have a list (to provide references, to include redlinks, etc.). Note that Category:Disappearing guns exists and is a tad ambiguous, including mostly different gun models that could be mounted in disappearing fashion; shouldn't there be Category:Disappearing gun installations (currently a redlink)? Also, an "installation" at sea was aboard Russian battleship Ekaterina II, which I think is a valid entry so I added it to the list. --do ncr am 01:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Toddst1 above: this is a viable topic for an article, and would work better as a separate article than as part of the main article given it's a fair size. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep it seems at best if the FPL is confirmed for notability (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksa Vidić[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY. He played for Sloboda when they were in the Serbian SuperLiga, but never made an appearance for them. He only earned caps after they were relegated. JTtheOG (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC) * Keep - forgot that the Serbian second tier had been confirmed FPl very recently. Fenix down (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FkpCascais: Given the recent change in FPL-status of the Serbian First League, I'd like your take on this article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Serbian First League became fully-pro this season. Aleksa Vidić plays in one of league's strongest clubs, FK Sloboda Užice. He became senior when Sloboda was still in the Serbian SuperLiga, but he made no league appearance that season and Sloboda was relegated. By now all he has are appearances in the Serbian First League and Sloboda doesn't look like geting promotion this season, so the prospect is him staying at second level another season. Technically, since SFL is fully-professional, and Aleks Vidić has appearances in the two seasons he is playing there, he passes notability, however if there is any agreement to delete players who pass notability only because of second level appearances, then deleting it would be fine. FkpCascais (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems, the article meets WP:NSPORT. 23:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Sputnik (talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 March 2016‎
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY has played in a WP:FPL .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plays in league listed in WP:FPL - though only added (by consensus) after this article was nominated, making this AFD moot. Nfitz (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Meneses[edit]

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

Per WP:NFOOTY Brayan Jaimes (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY has played for Deportivo Cali in the Categoría Primera A a fully Professional league per this this and later continued a rather decent career in lower divisions .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having played in a fully pro league, he clearly meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:FPL as above. Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2-3-1-9[edit]

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

Term with a passing mention in a movie. No coverage in reliable sources or indication that it has lasting significance. Not a useful redirect term to the movie, either. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a two-sentence article about a phrase used in the film Monsters, Inc. which is cited only to "Multiple viewings of the Pixar movie Monsters, Inc." There's nothing here that suggests that this is a topic worthy of an article of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEEEEEEP 2-3-1-9 really holds the key to the meaning of life. 161.113.20.135 (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This phrase is obviously not notable enough to warrant its own pointless article. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about a speedy, but there's not a category it really fits into. —C.Fred (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't the Urban Dictionary per WP:NOTDICMduvekot (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom says, this wouldn't even be useful as a redirect. Google results turn up nothing useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We could probably snow close this since I don't see how it'd end any differently if we waited the full week. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (article improved substantially). (non-admin closure) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Sharif Malekzadeh[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass notability criteria of Wikipedia. The only source of the article is a website that is closely related to (owned by?) the subject. Dalba 03:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have found some links. Unsure if they will help or not though. --TheDomain (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There appears to be fairly notable information about him not included in the article: Iran Rift Deepens With Arrest of President’s Ally research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Mohammed_Sharif_Malekzadeh^{[predatory publisher]} I will add them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination . After seeing the sources mentioned by BoogaLouie and TheDomain, I searched more thoroughly and I could find some other sources in Persian.[29] I've changed my mind, the subject seems notable to me now. Dalba 14:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have added new information and a number of sources. (perhaps he was trying to create a article papering over his earlier embarrassment in politics.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian International Model United Nations[edit]

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

Non Notable. Self promotion. Uncletomwood (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and the collection of sources is a classic example of what an expected article looks like when it's still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article seems like a possible attempt at self promotion with facebook links and youtube videos as references. Author has also inserted this in other articles which I removed here [30]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dudley[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. The only argument for keeping in my view is not positions held or rank as a judge, but that he was quoted by MailOnline, but many people feature in The Mail and we don't keep articles on all of them. Uhooep (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't believe all Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals, however Dudley has an entry in Who's Who which suggests he is particulrly notable. Wikipedia does not put a numerical restriction on how many notable circuit judges it allows. Graemp (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I would've honestly voted delete but it seems Keep may be best, even if I'm not satisfied with the current amount of sources, this may not be an outstanding priority for deletion yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kidification[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NEO. Google searches don't seem to indicate more than the most superficial discussion in secondary sources. While the current content of the article is not slim, the connection of it to the word "kidification" seems to be original research. —Kodiologist (t) 21:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MADEUP. Blythwood (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC. sst✈ 05:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this seems to be made up. At the very least, it's a neologism that hasn't caught on yet. Searching Advertising Age and other marketing/advertising magazines turns up no relevant hits. A Google Books search turns up what looks like unrelated trivial mentions. Advertising to children certainly happens, but I don't think anyone calls it this. This source, which is cited in the article, does not contain the word "kidification" according to Google Books. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly questionable, not yet entirely convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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