The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The word "which" probably doesn't need its own article, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article English relative clauses seems to be sufficient for covering the broader grammatical topic. IagoQnsi (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the word 'that' has a page, I thought that 'which' should too, as they are often confused and they both have complex usage. --TOUtemp (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although, on the other hand, if English relative clauses is sufficient, then you should probably take a look at deleting the that page as well. I agree with you that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but you can't have one and not the other, as they are often confused.--TOUtemp (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to English relative clauses. I think the only way for this to satisfy WP:WORDISSUBJECT is in its relation to other words such as "that" and "who". As such, there should not be article on the individual words, but one article discussing the whole concept.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to English relative clauses - not enough notability to have a separate article per WP:WORDISSUBJECT and hence WP:NOTADICT —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:47, 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 delete. joe decker^talk 00:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss My Ass (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Single release with no assertion of notability and no coverage in reliable sources. No mention in K. Michelle or released on any album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per reasons stated in nomination.*Treker (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is too short. 2602:306:3357:BA0:1C34:C732:DFBD:EFE2 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 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. joe decker^talk 00:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

lacking proper references. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable software. Can't find any good secondary reliable sources on it. It does have 10k-50k downloads on the Google Play store, but that's not a sufficient indicator of notability. -IagoQnsi (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't seem to have had coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. No de facto notability for downloads and does not seem to have passed WP:NSOFT (essay) —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:24, 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 delete. joe decker^talk 00:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Australian association football club of amateurs. Played its first game in December 2015. Do not play in any league listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. No other articles in the article name space link to this article. Fails WP:CLUB since its activities are not national in scope, neither has it received significant coverage in national media. WP:SP by somebody associated with the club. Thuresson (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet GNG. The article includes a number of unsourced and dubious claims, with WP:SYNTH use of sources and some of the sources don't support the claims at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete a low level amateur sporting club. LibStar (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as newly founded, not yet better for notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Club is only a few months old, with teams of amateurs playing in the "Forest Summer Football Competition", a competition that brings up zero results on Google.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:13, 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 delete. joe decker^talk 00:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional article on non-notable game created by an account linked to the developers. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, because it has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/CSD 100% promotional -Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 22:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Created by a user with the same name as the studio who developed the game? What a coincidence... Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS coverage. Refs provided are listings in various app stores, which are not RS sources and do not indicate notability. A search turned up no RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - For the same reason I PROD'ed it: no notability, no reliable sources outside of store listings. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Implicit keep (as a WP:DEPROD) by Kvng with the rationale: "Evidence of notability: [1], [2], [3]. ~Kvng (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)"

2, freyashawkgames.blogspot.com, is a personal blog and thus not RS. feedyourchickens.com has a 'play the game now' link which suggests it is not entirely independent, has anonymous authorship (piece is by 'gamer'), and no editorial policy, thus not RS. apppicker.com is borderline; even if it were a solid source, 1 ref is not sufficient to establish notability, and the other two fall well short of the reliable source policies.Dialectric (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely. None of those links come even close to meeting the criteria at WP:SOURCES AusLondonder (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 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. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 20:41, 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 delete. joe decker^talk 00:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: not notable yet, too soon. Quis separabit? 22:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable, fails WP:ENTERTAINER -- hasn't played any significant roles. -IagoQnsi (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not yet better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 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. joe decker^talk 00:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: as non-notable ACTOR. Quis separabit? 22:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is some modest filmography on him, article just needs more expansion and sources Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 22:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best as unless there are some considerably better improvements, none of this is satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has appeared in notable productions, but I would argue not in significant roles, so does not meet WP:NACTOR. ProgrammingGeek is correct that it needs more sources (it cites none), but searches of the usual Google types, Highbeam, and EBSCO found nothing more than cast lists, membership in a high school performace center's hall of fame, and a middle earth fan site interview. This is not the "written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers" called for in WP:ANYBIO. Nor is it the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources needed to meet WP:BASIC. He may become notable as his career progresses, but is not a suitable topic for a stand alone encyclopedia article at this time. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 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) 00:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable User:WoodElf 04:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:: utterly non-notable, as per nom. Quis separabit? 22:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Blatantly non-notable. Actually, I'd advocate for a speedy delete, because I don't see even a credible claim of significance. -IagoQnsi (talk) 23:28, 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 delete.  Sandstein  10:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Punjab, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article contains 17KB of unsourced content, which is largely a travel guide of sorts. While tourism in Punjab, India may be a topic which can be documented in an encyclopedic fashion, I was unable to find a salvageable diff from the page history of this particular article. I am of the mind that this should be deleted with no objection to a new article created in its place, based upon reliable, published sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Or we can rename it to List of tourist attractions in Punjab, India and keep a plain list of blue-links. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  We have got Category:Visitor attractions in Punjab, India. Salvageable content (if any) from this article can be transwikied to wikivoyage:Punjab (India). This topic is a valid (about Tourism as an industry in Punjab), but it's probably best to start over. utcursch | talk 18:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Honestly I can imagine this article existing more naturally as a category rather than a list article. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm uncertain whether articles of this nature are ever going to be encyclopedic, because the nature of the topic means that is has a permanent tendency to sound like a travel guide. Even if it is a worthwhile topic, however, WP:TNT applies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:32, 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. czar 00:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable trial lawyer. Refs are all court cases and press releases. —Chowbok ☠ 18:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Found one or two RS news pieces independent of the subject mentioning him either in connection with his cancer or his insurance work, but not enough to provide "significant coverage" and meet GNG to justify his own article. TheBlinkster (talk) 16:51, 10 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) 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. S. Rajah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC with no detailed secondary sources, just a liberation.fr article which appears to only mention Rajah in passing. McGeddon (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails basic WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails all notability guidelines - WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO etc.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:29, 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) 00:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G&Y Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a notable magazine. A search for sources shows mostly false positives. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - apparently a one-post blog. Fails WP:MADEUP. (Note: there's apparently another magazine of the same name for LGBT young people, which gets some overlapping search hits.) Blythwood (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Like Blythwood says, it looks like some random blog that only got a single post. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:17, 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 redirect to Peyton Manning. joe decker^talk 00:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Her only claim to fame is being married to Peyton Manning, which is not sufficient to justify having her own article. Being a minority owner in an NBA team is also not sufficient to establish notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If a consensus that she isn't independently notable is the outcome, the page should be redirected to Peyton Manning, not deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Blythwood (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Not notable except for being married to a now - retired star. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 01:17, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 04:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 21:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I filled in his filmography and it looks like he's played major roles in at least two notable TV series, Doogie Howser, M.D and Party of Five. I'll see what I can find source-wise, but those should be enough for him to pass NACTOR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I found quite a few sources for various roles he's played throughout the years. He's best known for his Doogie Howser role, but the guy appears to be fairly well known as a whole. I think that part of the issue with finding sources is that much of his coverage was before there was a huge push to put everything on the Internet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as had prominent roles in two tv series and in films, Reliable Sources have been added to the article such as CNN, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune.Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable actor. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malé B. Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: Vanity page for non-notable. Quis separabit? 21:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear notable.*Treker (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, it's just a vanity page with the standard facebook and twitter links and not really acceptable, external sources. --GeoTrinity (talk) 22:40, 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 delete. Can be userfied if somebody wants to work on it once more sources exist.  Sandstein  10:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article was previously deleted as a result of unambiguous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nisabdham. The creator of the article then re-created it, and I deleted it under speedy deletion criterion G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). The creator of the article then posted to my talk page to point out that the article now had references which were not there at the time of the deletion discussion, so I restored it, but moved it to draft space to give him or her a chance to improve it. He or she has now posted it back as an article again, and it has been nominated for speedy deletion under criterion G4 again. However, there are considerably more references than there were at the time of the previous deletion discussion, and since the deletion was largely due to lack of references, that makes a significant difference to what was discussed, and I do not think it qualifies for G4. I have therefore declined the speedy deletion. However, I do not think that the new references establish notability, so I am bringing it here to be discussed again. Most of the references are simply announcements that the people who are making the film have released a "teaser", in many cases actually providing the "teaser" to view. Many of the references are sites which do not appear to be significant reliable sources. None of them is substantial coverage in a reliable independent source. Multiple copies of what to all intents and purposes is the same reference, that one being publicity material released by the company producing the film, do not establish notability. Nor do the few other references provided. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:NFF, same rationale as the last AfD. MichaelQSchmidt thoroughly documented a search for sources in the last AfD as well. To the extent that there are "new sources", they're all evidently links to the film's teaser trailer. I see no indication that the release of that trailer makes the production any more notable than it was a month ago, let alone to the point that it would pass NFF. To the extent that the new sources are the teaser trailer or reports that the teaser trailer has been released, I would argue that they fail the "independent" and "multiple sources" prongs of GNG as well.—/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)\[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Send temporarily to draft space until this now completed film gets a touch more coverage. A good point to understand is that it is getting more coverage now than at last AFD, and not all are about the teaser. It's quite close now to meeting WP:NFF. IE: Times of IndiaDeccan Chronicle Article and refs could definitely benefit from cleanup as we wait. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Both "The Times of India" and "The Deccan Chronicle" are about one actor and not the film. The remaining refs all appear to be press releases and trailer teasers and nothing else. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:54, 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) 00:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Supranational 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another non-notable edition of the deleted Miss Supranational series. Sources given are unreliable. An independent search for reliable sources gets one hit outside the usual pageant blogs. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, the main article Miss Supranational was deleted 5 times already as recorded.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT this article Not notable pageant. SALT the article otherwise it will be back....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 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 Userfied. Moving an unsuitable article to mainspace in order to take it to AfD was highly disruptive. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Moving an article into mainspace that is known to be unsuitable is highly disruptive. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm not sure this individual passes the notability standards. This was moved here following the closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp. Of the sources, only this one seems the closest to an independent reliable source. According to the article, the band was picked up by Fat Cat Records, not the individual and the band seems to have four releases from that label. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy to User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp, where it was located until it was moved to mainspace in bad faith. This page is a userspace draft that was moved to mainspace by Legacypac after they nominated it for deletion at MfD and the discussion was closed as keep. The explicit purpose of this move was to get the page deleted at AfD, where there are more rigorous standards than MfD. The constitutes a bureaucratic end-run around MfD and a bad-faith move-- it is inappropriate to move a page to mainspace that one believes would fail AfD, especially for the purpose of getting it deleted. This tactic of Legacypac's has been discussed and roundly condemned at the userpage policy talk page and ANI. The appropriate response is to reverse the move, not to reward the behavior. Also, since this is the second deletion discussion for this page in recent weeks, it seems appropriate to ping SmokeyJoe, who participated in the first, and Acresant1123, the creator or the page. A2soup (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A2soup refuses to test notability at MfD, and now attacks me instead of testing notability at AfD when someone else AfDs the page. No valid reason given to userfy back to stale draft. Userspace is for developing articles, not indefinitely storing non-notable articles. The inactive creator has already been notified, and has not participated, so no need to ping them again. which brings me too:

• Delete since no one has come up with any evidence this person passes WP:GNG. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't think User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp passed GNG, why did you move the draft to mainspace? It seems inappropriate to clutter the encyclopedia by creating articles that you know don't pass GNG. The fact that I and others at MfD refuse to delete based on notability concerns (which is the consensus position) does not justify intentionally creating non-notable articles. The reasoning for userfication is that the draft was moved inappropriately for the purpose of subverting the proper deletion process, so AfD is the wrong venue - this page is properly a userspace draft and needs to be deleted or kept as a userspace draft. A2soup (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't think it passes GNG and it should be deleted then? If you want to keep it, you must think it suitable for the project. Otherwise it is a NOTAWEBHOST violation. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy or Draftify - Does not meet general notability guidelines as it is but should be kept to allow references to satisfy GNG. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. Moving to draft or userspace would be an exercise in futility given this individual is not notable, and moreover would violate WP:NOTWEBHOST. AfD does not need to and should not carry out futile tasks, and absolutely should not violate WP:NOT. Every single one of this individual's 141 ghits is not significant coverage or not independent coverage. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:37, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mia-Sophie Wellenbrink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable actress, Can't find anything except this and this, and TV wise she's only been in 1 movie and 7 tv shows all of which don't appear to be notable, Both cites on her Dutch wiki article are both dead, Fails NACTOR & GNG, If anyone can find anything I'd be more than happy to withdraw. –Davey2010^Talk 19:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as entirely questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. My media sweeps did not find much of anything to suggest notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:34, 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 as WP:A7. I can find nothing to suggest that this is anything other than a short lived website that someone came up with one day. It's not part of any official group and there's zero coverage of this outside of a few odds and ends published by the website itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm unable to find any evdence of this "institute"'s existence, let alone notability. Googling for "Interigence" turns up mostly misspellings or alterations of intelligence, and even the the supposed links to the organization's Web site in the article are dead. The logo in the article is (as the article states) a reworking of a DeviantArt logo created for a fictional organization involved in the monitoring of the aliens among us. If not a hoax, the article's topic fails the GNG. Deor (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It shows up with the Wayback Machine, but that doesn't mean that it isn't potentially a hoax. I'm finding nothing for this website otherwise, so it seems to be decidedly non-notable if it is/was legit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I found an iCNN account, which kind of makes me feel that this is just something that someone came up with one day. There's nothing in the article to suggest that it's a notable website, so I'm likely just going to speedy delete this via A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 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) 00:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is synthesis. A Canadian senator, Luc Letellier de St-Just in 1867 gave his party affiliation as "Nationalist Liberal." In 1920 a Canadian MP, Fleming Blanchard McCurdy gave his affiliation as "Nationalist Liberal" when he ran for parliament. We do not know why either man used this description or whether McCurdy was aware that it had been used before. There was no "National Liberal Party." Letellier was leader of the Liberal Party caucus in the Senate, while McCurdy was a cabinet minister in the National Liberal and Conservative Party government. I note that National liberal and Nationalist liberalism both redirect to National liberalism. There is also a separate article for the Spanish Nationalist Liberal Party. TFD (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There was never a "Nationalist Liberal Party" per se — this is a label that has been used by only two politicians in Canadian history, both of whom as noted participated in established political party caucuses despite having used a distinctive label on the ballot. So there's no need for a standalone article about it — the context for its use can simply be addressed directly in their existing biographies, without needing a third article about it as a separate thing in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's nothing suggest independent notability for its own article, would also need better information and sources. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - absent any research on the topic, Nationalist Liberal was not a registered party, and does not seem to be noteworthy enough for its own article. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:40, 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. joe decker^talk 00:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3 (Suburban Kids with Biblical Names album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced. Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The band have their own Wikipedia page and this should definitely Redirect to that. This has nothing to suggest the album is noteworthy in a world of several billion other albums. Without a single review or citation it is certainly not worthy (as it stands) of its own entry. Pupsbunch (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retracting my Redirect Per reasons stated in nomination.*Treker (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I searched quickly and I didn't feel like I found anything much. In highsign I may have been wrong since other people seem to have found reliable sources. Apologies.*Treker (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Upon the most basic effort of source searching - typing the name into Google, within like less than a minute I found dedicated coverage from reliable sources like AllMusic and Exclaim. WP:ALBUM/SOURCES are clear that these sources have a consensus for being reliable. One of the songs from the album, "Rent a Wreck", was used in a 2007 Prius Car commercial and its lyrics were cited by PopMatters as a standout part Swedish Pop music here in discussing their appearance on a Labrador Records 10 year retrospective compilation release. If a little bit of digging found out this much, I'm sure there's plenty more out there, if that's not enough to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm rather confused, there was a source present in the article prior to the nomination, and its still there. And it's AllMusic, a reliable source per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, that covers it in good detail. I'm concerned how three people now have stated "unsourced" as their deletion reason. How closely are we investigating here? Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Rathfelder for further explanation on his nomination, and

• Treker and Pupsbunch for clarification about their stances. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a referenceRathfelder (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How did you miss this? The article is small, how did you go about nominating an article on the basis of being "unsourced" without checking for a reference section? Really, you're supposed to be following through on WP:BEFORE, but at a bare minimum you need to actually be reading the article you're nominating for deletion. I'm also very puzzled as to what you feel is particularly "promotional" about it as well. (Note: the article looked like this when it was nominated for deletion.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Not to pile on but the AllMusic source alone would lean towards notability. Add the comments from Sergecross with regards to songs on the album and this is a no-brainer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've rewritten and expanded the article out of stub status using reliable sources. Please look over its current state rather than just looking at this rather misleading deletion nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy with the improved article.Rathfelder (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page has improved significantly. When I looked at it previously it was just a track listing. Pupsbunch (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think everyone, in various ways, including the nominator, have removed their opposition. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Sergecross73 and RickinBaltimore. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:09, 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 delete. Noting that CSD G5 applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is the same as WP:Articles for deletion/John Galea. PLease also see the huge archive at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johngalea24. Worst case of persistent article recreation and sockpuppetry I've ever come across, lasting years. The link given (to the artist's own website) said he charted at #24 in the 'Commercial Pop Chart'. Not a national chart, unclear what this chart is at all. I've repeatedly asked the sockpuppet to use AfC if they think he is now notable, but continues to try to just sneak in a creation under multiple different versions (over 20) of the name John Galea, e.g. John P. Galea, John Galeaa. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Wgolf, Yunshui and DESiegel. Boleyn (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparently this artist has never been mentioned in British dailies The Daily Mail or The Guardian, at least not in their web editions. Also, article was created by User:Zamnamedia who may or may not be associated with artist's record company "Zamna Records". Thuresson (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creator left message on my talk page identifying herself as a member of Galea's management team. This is also following the pattern of previous issues - my AfD template was removed by 82.132.237.173. Now back on. Page has had to be semi-protected. Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on procedure The issue was (and is) notability, so the presence of additional cited sources compared to the version previously deleted means this is not a G4 speedy. I have now removed a G4 tag twice. Reapplying such a tag after a reviewing admin has declined the speedy (as noted on the article talk page) is generally considered a poor idea. I am not offering an opnion on the merits of deletion by this discussion, only on speedy deletion as G4. DES ^(talk) 23:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• DESiegel, if you look at the edit history, you'll see that IP 82.132.237.173 re-added the speedy tag, almost certainly accidently and the IP (same as creator?) was actually trying to remove the link to the AfD, leading to page protection. Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The creator and its latest socks have now been blocked, after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johngalea24. As the creator has now been established as yet another sock of banned user, User:Johngalea24, the article is eligible for G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user (Johngalea24) in violation of ban or block. Boleyn (talk) 22:45, 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. Has been completely rewritten yesterday; please renominate if still deemed problematic.  Sandstein  10:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outpatient clinic (hospital department) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

Polyclinic (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From what I know, the etymology section (= basically all) of this article seems to be absolute nonsense, and is not at all supported by the given sources.

According to the article, "policlinic" is a more correct English word that just happens not to be used, while "polyclinic" (with a "y") is not given as the more widespread (or even mainstream) spelling variant, but as a mere homophone (meaning it would be etymologically unrelated, which is bollocks). Secondly, the article goes as far as declaring the English-language polyclinic a "false friend" of foreign-language polyclinics, which is bollocks, too.

While institutional settings, legal definitions and common usage obviously vary between countries and languages, a "polyclinic" basically is another name for a multi-discipline outpatient establishment (or health care center) that may or may not be attached to a hospital. See for example the Polyclinics in England article.

With the etymology section being beyond remedy, the single remaining lead sentence doesn't give a substantially different definition of the term than Clinic does. Neither does the disambiguation page give a single meaning of "polyclinic" that fundamentally diverges from Clinic#Large outpatient clinics ("polyclinics") so its mere existence is quite confusing and more misleading than helpful. --PanchoS (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PanchoS (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is really a dictionary article. Not really encyclopaedic content, nor much prospect of finding any. And the etymology is rubbish. Polyclinic is the UK is used - if at all - to denote something not attached to a hospital.Rathfelder (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely need an article on the outpatient department of hospitals. This is an increasingly important part of hospitals and there are WP articles on this topic in many other languages. Just because this article so far only presents the definition of the term (and an explanation for non-native speakers why/that this is not called a polyclinic or policlinic in English) is no reason to delete it. If we delete it, we'll soon be back to the confusion that reigned before I moved the article to this unambiguous name. A non-native speaker will again soon start a new article called "polyclinic" or "policlinic" on either hospital outpatient departments or independent outpatient clinics and then someone else will soon start writing about the other topic in the same article.

Do you feel that the layout change I did just now helps?

The criticism voiced above about the explanation for non-native speakers and about the explanation of the differences between UK and US usage of the terms polyclinic/policlinic is unfair and very discouraging. It's very rare on Wikipedia that someone makes such a big effort to provide sources for information about UK/US differences and especially for information about etymology. Please show which piece of information you feel is not supported by a source instead of summarily dismissing all of this information as nonsense and rubbish, especially without a single fact or argument or source to back up such a strong claim. --Espoo (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Espoo: Please show which piece of information you feel is not supported by a source → None of this article is supported by any of the given sources. The single, etymologically specific source given clearly explains that policlinic and polyclinic are just different spellings of the same word, though attributed to the distinct-but-related Ancient Greek words πολύς (lit. "many") resp. πόλις (lit. "community of many" or "city").
While one or the other spelling may be prevalent in different English varieties due to different linguistic traditions, and while this may (or may not) coincide with different institutional forms of outpatient care, no way it can be inferred that the different spellings had distinct meanings per se to the point of being mere homophones.
There simply is no fundamental difference between outpatient establishments cohabited with an inpatient general hospital and those that are not. Regardless of whether this is the usual term for this specific type of establishment in a given country or not, both are correctly referred to as pol(i/y)clinics. --PanchoS (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These are very different discussions - I don't think the dab should be thrown in here. Boleyn (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. In case we discuss that elsewhere, please transfer this comment: There's also a very clear need for the disambig page. It's simply incorrect to claim Neither does the disambiguation page give a single meaning of "polyclinic" that fundamentally diverges from Clinic#Large outpatient clinics ("polyclinics"). If you feel it's confusing and more misleading than helpful, please help to improve it. It clearly explains 4 distinct uses of the term. Use 3 is one example of use 2, but it's completely normal to have such an extra bullet point on disambig pages. Are you happier now with the changed layout? --Espoo (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete/redirect to clinic - this is really just a tendentious, dubiously sourced etymology that fails to justify why this should be a separate article to 'clinic'. The citations are in all but two cases deadlinks and all of them are etymologies rather than specialist dictionaries for the medical profession or guides to hospital working practices. The only link that really goes to anything is to Merriam-Webster, and even that doesn't cite any sources to show that people use the terms it says they use either. The content that is on here fails WP:OR. Blythwood (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, with a side-order of WP:TROUT for User:Espoo - and the nominator also deserves a small portion of trout for inadequate WP:BEFORE on the article's history. Until just over a year ago, the article was called Polyclinic, primarily describing a type of medical facility most commonly found in some non-English speaking countries but not making this latter point clear. At this point, User:Espoo moved the article to its present title, added an etymology section, merged most of the remaining contents to Clinic#Large outpatient clinics, leaving the article essentially as the nominator found it. We therefore need to preserve the article history up to February 2015, whatever else happens. For User:Espoo's benefit, I will add: if you move an article from one title to another and then find yourself moving almost all the pre-existing content to another article - you should probably have created an article under the new title instead. Also, don't leave the effectively new article sitting around for over a year as just a WP:DICDEF and an etymology section not directly related to the new title - it is effectively inviting deletion. Having said that, the topic may justify a standalone article separate from Clinic - User:Espoo seems to have started trying to write it since the discussion above but it still needs more work (and reliable sources). PWilkinson (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge and redirect - it makes sense to me as it stands at the moment, but it does seem to be a British English phrase. However, as a comparison I do note that Accident and Emergency (a British English phrase) redirects to Emergency department which has a section on the UK concept. Shritwod (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge later if needed as I certainly see no needs for deletion since this is an article for an acceptable subject. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep &ndsh; If this article could be changed so it reflects the info from its sources, I think it is good to go. CLCStudent (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject of this article is clearly notable, but I didn't think much of the content so I have almost completely rewritten the article, and I hope it now meets with your approval. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:18, 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 delete.  Sandstein  10:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmagic (rapper) aka EjayBlackmagic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. We usually don't use Wikipedia as sources Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources exist outside of Wikipedia - all through the article. Additional examples ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}

Awards: ^{[7] [8]}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjsmart (talk • contribs) 22:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as everything that is listed is still questionable for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• An artist winning a national award is notability and applies in this case. See The_Headies

Also meets criteria for being the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. As well as being placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

Also check and you will find other sources e.g. ^{[9] [10] [11] [12]} Blackmagic ^{[13] [14] [15]} Blackmagic - Repete ^{[16] [17]} Twitter verified ^[18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjsmart (talk • contribs) 14:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment I have stricken a Keep vote from Tjsmart as only one vote per user is allowed within an AfD. Nordic Dragon 13:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't voted yet, so shall do now. The main article relies too heavily on sources such as iTunes and Twitter, along with two I haven't heard of and appears to be riddled with viruses... (notjustok.com...??? tooxclusive.com???) As a result, notability cannot be asserted. Delete. Nordic Dragon 13:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The sites you refer to might be full of ads perhaps, but viruses? They are some of the leading "street" sources of artist updates in the country and are only a few of the sites provided.

Additional verifiable sources of information are provided that include National Nigerian publications. For example, Vanguardngr.com is a national publication in Nigeria. Pulse.ng for example is owned by Ringier Axel Springer which is hardly a non-verifiable organization. It would be safe to say reviewers outside the country would be unable to know all credible sources of information for Nigeria so kindly review all listed sources if need be, not just a few.

Some sources listed here again. ^{[1] [2] [3]} Blackmagic - Repete ^{[4] [5]}

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:17, 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. This close is without prejudice against a speedy renomination. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

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

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

The given topic does not warrant its own article on a Encyclopedia (WP:N). It is neither disputed nor denied – not even by the Armenian side – that a massacre in Khojaly took place. Therefore there is no need for a "recognition"-article, since there is no denial of it. There is no need for an article on a Encyclopedia listing how each year 1 or 2 US States commemorate the non-denied death of 200+ people during a conflict. Non-notable topic. Markus2685 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I indeed did have a bit of trouble finding disagreers, but Armenians seems to be the most likely disagreers. I were able to find this webpage: 1, which is to serve as just an example of opposition existing. Maybe the editors who edit the subject matter happen to have a bit of a lopsided viewpoint and thus don't list the opposition views, so they aren't visible here. But they do seem to exist outside of Wikipedia. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing two different topics. The first topic is this "recognition"-article about depicting a recognition of an event – a massacre – which is not denied at all. Even the president of Armenia declared in an interview with Thomas De Waal that a massacre took place. The second topic – which you are mentioning – is the labeling of Khojaly massacre as "Genocide", which Azerbaidjanis try to do, although there is not a single reliable third-party source using the term "genocide" to describe the death of 200+ people. If you look carefully you will see that the headline of the link you posted reads "The Khojaly Genocide Fabrication". Markus2685 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe the best option would be then to rename the article as Khojaly Massacre controversy or something like that and have both sides' points be presented. There does seem to be great disagreement about what exactly took place and why. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The disagreement is already depicted in the main article Khojaly massacre by describing the positions of both parties in detail. Therefore your suggestion would basically result in just a copy of the main article "Khojaly massacre". Markus2685 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some few mentions but it seems like both sides' arguments have grown up to take quite a lot of space. The article itself should be fairly matter-of-fact from the perspective of third party sources and then summarize the two sides' views. This controversy article could then explain their stances further... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think we need another article on the massacre itself. There are actually no two side's views. International organizations such as HRW and Memorial which investigated the massacre concur with the Azerbaijani side with regard to the perpetrators, and so do many Armenian sources, including the current Armenian president. The conspiracy theorists are pretty marginal, and I see no point in changing the topic of this article. I think the article in question should remain, as it was split from the main article in order to save space there and keep it focused on the topic. Grandmaster 23:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why did you change the recognitions to "commemoration": 2? The sources talk about recognition. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Recognition" is misleading and just wrong. The sources that you mean are only Azerbaidjani partisan sources using the term "recognition" as part of their agenda trying to give the impression, that this is an event denied by Armenia. The original resolutions are using the term "commemoration": "A Resolution commemorating the 21st anniversary of the Khojaly Tragedy" Markus2685 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A RESOLUTION Recognizing the 21st anniversary of the Khojaly Massacre and honoring the life and memory of the victims of this horrific tragedy. Grandmaster 00:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Allthough the majority of the original resolutions use the heading "Resolution commemorating…" 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc all sentences were written with "recognizing" by purpose, following the Azerbaidjani agenda of a misleading and manipulative wording as "recognizing Khojaly genocide" – which can be found on all partisan Azerbaidjani sources which are heavily and mainly used for this artcile Markus2685 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There are those that talk about recognition. Regardless of what you think about them, it is a fact. Grandmaster 21:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean, with what I think about them. I didn't say anything about my thoughts. I just stated facts based on original wording of the majority of the original resolutions, and not what partisan Azerbaidjani sources – that are mainly used for this article – fabricated from them (changing "commemorate" to "recognize" or changing "massacre" to "genocide" – and this is the point. Markus2685 (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I provided above a link to the resolution which talks about recognition. No one says that all of them mention recognition, some talk about recognition, others of commemoration. Anyway, this is irrelevant to this AFD. Each resolution in the text should be summarized according to its actual wording. Grandmaster 22:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Recognition" does not mean recognising that 200+ people died. It means recognising that this massacre was committed by Armenian troops; an act which Armenia has been vehemently denying since 1992. Six sovereign UN member states and 15 US states whose parliaments have voted in favour of recognising and condemning Armenia's involvement in this act of violence is more than "1 or 2 states commemorating" the death of the people. Parishan (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: Even the president of Armenia declared in an interview with Thomas De Waal that a massacre took place by Armenians, which can be read in the main article "Khojaly massacre". Your accusation is therefore just wrong. There is no denial, and thus no need for a "recognition"-article. Markus2685 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it were not denied, you would not have all this. Parishan (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that it is a non notable topic. I don't see any reason for a recognition article when there is no official denial of this massacre. Hayterak (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC) — Hayterak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. This article was split from Khojaly massacre in order to save space and avoid the recognition section there growing way too large. I think the topic warrants a separate article. Otherwise, all this info will reemerge in the main article, and I think the main article should be more focused on the massacre itself. Grandmaster 23:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article shows the recognition of the events in different levels and ensures that this type of war crimes/genocides/massacres do not happen again. Regards, Konullu (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC) (topic banned user)[reply]

• Again. It shows the commemoration (this is the original wording of the resolution headers) and not the "recognition" (because there is no denial of it!) of these events. Furthermore your comment "this type of war crimes/genocides/massacres" exposes the real intent of this article. Misleading and manipulating the readership. Markus2685 (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that it is a non notable topic. Terrey Hills (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Terrey Hills (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete No denial of this massacre, therefore no need for a recognition-article of its own. Furthermore the complete article is sourced with biased Azerbaidjani sources.Sysfu (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Sysfu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete heavily based on aserbaidjani partisan sources. Clearly following an agendaSamsun25 (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Samsun25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment What's up with all the SPAs popping up? If someone thinks that those votes will count, he is wrong. Grandmaster 21:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you. I am surprised as well. However, only the strength of the arguments presented counts. So basically it does not matter if these accounts just popped up, since its their argument that counts. And well, their content is correct. Markus2685 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any denial either, no topic for having an article of its own. Sarah Rauscher (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Sarah Rauscher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Only partisan aserbaidjani sources in use, no objective point of view. Albert Einstein 321 (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Albert Einstein 321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are a lot of reliable sources about recognition and commemoration of the massacre by different states and organisation. If we describe all of that in Khojaly massacre artile it will take a lot of space there. That is why the separate article is suitable. --Interfase (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect -- I am not saying that the massacre was not a terrible event, but it was a single event; accordingly there should be a single article on the massacre. I appreciate that the main article is getting rather long. My country (UK) has thousands of memorials to WWI and WWII. However, WP does not have an article (or even a paragraph) on every memorial. The coverage in the massacre article of recognition and memorials is as much as we need. The rest is going beyond the encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of good sources. list is needed.BabbaQ (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-encyclopedic. an attempt to copy the Armenian Genocide recognition article, which is highly relevant. nobody denies this massacre, what "recognition" is this article about ? --Երևանցի ^talk 20:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, and that's exactly the point. This article is trying to paint a false picture of reality, namely that the Khojaly massacre is a masscre denied by Armenia. Which is obviously nonsense. This article has a manipulative purpose, as you said correctly trying to copy the uncomparable and relevant Armenian Genocide recognition article (very likely as part of an Azerbaijani agenda). Markus2685 (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is pretty much just a list of resolutions passed by various states, governments and international organizations. If there are NPOV issues, they could be sorted, but that's not a reason to delete the whole article. Merging this whole list into the main article would consume too much space there. Grandmaster 22:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So just to sum it up: You want to create an article on its own, on a Encyclopedia, for the "recognition" of a massacre which is neither disputed nor denied that it took place, filling an encyclopedic article with listings of how mainly single US states commerorated this death of 200-600 people. I highly doubt that this needs an article of its own. And still because of the manipulative wording whis was used by purpose there is the suspicion of the articles real purpose trying to mislead the readership. Markus2685 (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to create anything, the article already exists. The denialist position exists in Armenia, there are conspiracy theorists there who try to blame the massacre on Azerbaijanis themselves. But leaving all that aside, as I explained above, the main purpose of this article is to save space in the main article by splitting all commemoration and recognition resolutions into a separate article. There's nothing unusual about it, it is a normal practice here, and NPOV issues, if any, could be addressed without deleting the article. Grandmaster 19:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment concerning user Grandmasters last note: The point is, we are discussing the issue, whether this article or better said the content itself needs to be in a Encyclopedia at all, either as a article on its own or part of another article. So your argument, that you are repeatedly stating (namely, to save space in the other article), does not have to do anything with all the deletion arguments and doubts stated above (misleading, manipulative, notability etc.). By the way, there is a big difference between an existing denial of a massacre as such (which this article suggests but which de facto just does not exist) or the questioning of who is responsible for it (and even this was clearly stated by the Armenian president, plus there are not only these "conspiracy" voices in Armenia, but also in other countries, even in Azerbaidjan, but this is not the topic here so we should not discuss about this in this AFD). Markus2685 (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment raises many questions. Why exactly recognition or commemoration resolution by an independent country or a US state is not notable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article? And which wording exactly you believe is "manipulative" and "misleading"? And why any such wording, if it actually exists, cannot be fixed without deleting the whole article? If you have problems with the word "recognition", as I understood from your comments above, then I see nothing wrong with this particular word, as it is actually used in some resolutions. We just need to make sure that the summaries are in line with the actual wording of each resolution. Grandmaster 22:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as POV fork. Merge content back into main article on massacre.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as questionable for its own article, unlikely needed separately. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the main article--it would make more sense there, and would be where anyone would expect to find it. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am also willing to a merge. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into main article as per DGG. Not enough for its own article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into main article. Neither side seems to deny the massacre, so there is no need to have a separate page for the recognition of it (and I can't find sources that speak to the recognition of it, contra what actually happened). That said, it is worth noting on the main article, so I think it being merged there is the best outcome. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything worth saving back to Khojaly Massacre. I'm not seeing what encyclopedic value there is in a laundry list of every single elected official anywhere who has ever discussed the issue; it's pretty much indiscriminate information. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:37, 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 speedy delete. by Peacemaker67: Recreation of an article that was speedily deleted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Pilot (Fancy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Part of a WP:Walled garden of Caillou Pettis-related articles that includes Caillou Pettis, Aaron Bennett, The Pilot (Fancy Boys), itself a recreation of the twice speedy deleted Fancy Boys. Caillou Pettis is this kid. He is not (yet) notable and I'm going to try to have the SPA blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caillou Pettis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 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 delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unreferenced. Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per ((Db-g11)). Beagel (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Promotional, unreferenced, and sourceless apart from the company. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:19, 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 per nominator's withdrawl in the face of easy article improvements Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The issue of notability. It has no primary sources. Nairspecht (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Request withdrawn in the light of evidence. Please remove the NfD tag. Nairspecht (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article says it is an "upcoming" film. So it's far too early to have a Wikipedia page, if it's not even released and lacks either reviews or press coverage. The only citation is Facebook. To my mind this is a strong Delete without prejudice of recreation if the film makes a significant impact on its release and gains notability in secondary sources. Pupsbunch (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. What next? Nairspecht (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What is "next" is WP:BEFORE and looking for sources before deciding a poor article is somehow non-notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. But the article itself does not have these sources listed. The creator can be notified, perhaps. Thanks for WP:BEFORE. Nairspecht (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome Nairspecht. Check out WP:DEL#REASONS and study the guide WP:NEXIST to learn that (as worrisome as it is for some and as ridiculous as it seems) articles actually do not have to BE themselves sourced, just so long as the content itself is verifiable through searches. That's what BEFORE is all about... and notifying the creator and/or tagging the article to get concerns addressed is usually the best way to begin improvements. Better for the project to encourage addressing instances through regular editing, rather than requesting a flat out deletion for being not yet done. Not a trout, just advice. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Every day you learn new things. Will check these out. Thanks, MichaelQSchmidt. Cheers, Nairspecht (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

& WP:INDAFD: "Hallelooya" "Sudhi Anna" "Narain" "Meghna Raj"

• Keep this stub per it being a completed film slated for release in less than two weeks and actually having coverage to meet WP:NF: New Indian Express (1), New Indian Express (2), Deccan Chrnicle, The Hindu, and more. The author needs to better understand how to write and source his work as article definitely needs work, yes... but addressable issues are rarely reason for the deletion of arguable notable topics., specially as notability is found through sources and not their being used as citations. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update for Pupsbunch and Nairspecht and anyone else: What was in good faith though mistakenly sent to AFD had style issues, BUT those issues were not valid deletion rationales and were actually quite easy easy to address through regular editing. IE: what was sent to AFD and what was corrected afterwards. So here's the situation in a nutshell... the film is to release at the end of March... a mere matter of days. If it were already released, the massive amount of availble coverage (used or not) would have the topic be notable enough for an article. Since it is days from release, we may instead look to WP:NFF (paragraph 3) to see that that same level of production coverage for a completed-yet-unreleased film, has the topic merit an article. Well guys? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:40, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Luís Figo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable list – fails WP:GNG for insufficient significant coverage, and also fails precedent that lists of international goals are automatically notable only for footballers who are/were their country's top scorer; when Figo retired, he was still only the second-highest scorer for Portugal.

Also see precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by João Vieira Pinto and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Gonzalo Higuaín. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - top footballer kicks ball into a goal, why would that warrant a list? Donnie Park (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reasons why a list of Figo's goals is anything other than listcruft. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 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 as this seems clear enough not to continue (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Ecuadorian Air Force Arava crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Military air crash, tragic, but not notable on the global/encyclopedic scale. WP:AIRCRASH. Consider adding to Lists of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft Leondz (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete Sad but non-notable military crash add to list of military aircraft accidents!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge into 2016 in aviation. Sad, but in the long run military crashes usually have negligible or no coverage after taking place, with no lasting impact. Even at the time of happening the media coverage is limited compared to civilian crashes. Brandmeister^talk 19:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable as the deadliest involving the IAI Arava. Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Mjroots' compelling argument. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; lack of media coverage does not lack of notability make. DodgerOfZion (talk)
• Keep - a developing story but already clearly notable enough for its own article. Blythwood (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The lack of media coverage in the English-speaking world of a crash that occurs in a Spanish-speaking one is a very poor indicator of notability; ethnocentricity and language barriers should not be mistaken for a sound method of judging notability. And why do so may Wikipedians insist that military crashes are not notable just because military aviation is inherently dangerous or non-commercial? This isn't a lone jet that crashed and killed its pilot; it is a transport aircraft carrying 22 people, all of whom died, and smaller civil crashes are considered notable. Big crashes with double-digit casualties are notable, regardless of who operates the plane. The scale of the disaster is what makes it notable. Mdnavman (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
• Keep - The deadliest aviation disaster in Ecuador in decades is pretty damn notable if you ask me. GWA88 (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mjroots argument - worst accident with this aircraft type. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 11:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mdnavman's argument. If 2016 U.S. Marine helicopter collision is considered notable enough, why is this one different? Sario528 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I concur with your point. I would just add that the U.S. Marine accident in Hawaii involved the destruction of two aircraft, where most accidents involve the destruction of just one. That, and the second largest peacetime, accidental loss of life to the Marine Corps in its history. Both articles are notable and should be maintained. Thanks for your well reasoned argument, Sario528. Juneau Mike (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-- per GWA's argument re: the notability of this accident within Ecuadorean aviation history. Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 16:13, 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 delete. A clear consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I wrote this article about a marginally notable activist known in part for a sex scandal. Several editors commented that it seemed like an attack piece, so I contacted the subject and asked her if she would like the article to be deleted. She said that she would, asserting that "almost all of it is false." Sammy1339 (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - subject is only really notable for a salacious allegation that is non-encyclopaedic, but is arguably newsworthy. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The fact that the article was created only after the allegations took place, and only attempted to establish notability after the event does make it look like an attack page, although given Sammy1339's nomination here and other comments I assume that all the edits were in good faith. For biographical articles such as this I believe that the subject's wishes can be taken into account although I cannot remember the exact policy for this. Shritwod (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For borderline notable people previous discussion have leaned towards giving some weight to the wish of the subject. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Person is mentioned in books on the topic, and also in major UK publications (The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, HuffPo, IBTimes, OxStu, The Times, Washington Post, SkyNews, and a few dozen other fairly reliable sources without using any known for "celebrity gossip." Seems to meet notability as clearly as one might wish. Collect (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLPCRIME states that For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.

I don't think the position of "Wadham College student union's People of Colour and Racial Equality Officer" makes her a "public figure". Were it not for the allegations, I very much doubt Annie Teriba would meet notability requirements. (Admittedly, the notability bar seems to have been lowered recently.) --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mostly negative piece on a very marginal BLP, potentially defamatory. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject has requested deletion.--Auric talk 22:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Teriba is only notable for the one thing, the rape scandal. FWIW, Teriba has issued statements that seem to acknowledge that she took part in non-consensual sex, but this may still have some potential BLP issues. This did gain quite a bit of coverage but not so much that it'd be considered enough to comfortably warrant a keep on that basis alone. It's possible that Teriba might gain more coverage over time, as this is exactly the sort of thing that's likely to get mentioned in academic texts at some point in time, but right now all we can judge it on is the existing coverage. If we had an article on controversy at Oxford then this would probably warrant inclusion there, but we lack that sort of article at this point in time (and crafting that sort of article would need a very careful touch). This could be userfied if anyone wants to do that, but offhand I'd say that this treads a thin line of notability. That Teriba wants the article gone gives it an extra bit of oomph. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For the majority of the reasons noted above, the subject is lacking notability. Eagleash (talk) 23:41, 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 delete.  Sandstein  10:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The sources for this article fall into several broad categories:

• Pages that don't mention the subject: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
• Books, articles, presentations or links to articles and books written by the subject (i.e., not independent sources): [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]
• Little blurb bios/interviews written by groups with which the subject is affiliated or by firms that pay her (again, not independent): [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]
• Pages where her name is listed in passing among lengthy lists of names: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]
• Other random stuff: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]
• Malware: [45]
• Random YouTube videos uploaded by YouTube user "Mariana Bozesan": [46], [47], and another random YouTube: [48]

I would submit that, while there's certainly plenty of mention online about the subject, she blatantly fails the test set by WP:BASIC: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Thus, the article should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is simply troubled overall regarding appearance and tone to where it would be best deleted, also because it's currently not comprehensible for even basic general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's work and notability fall clearly under the guidelines for WP:ACADEMIC and meet the following criteria, of which only at least one must apply for the person to be considered academically notable:

• 1. The subject's work has been cited in multiple books[49], papers and articles[50][51].
• 3. The subject is a full international member of the highly selective and prestigious scholarly society Club of Rome[52] - limited to 100 members globally and having several highly notable members, such as Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker and Klaus Töpfer (former executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme).
• 4. The subject's work has impacted a substantial number of academic institutions including Oxford University[53] and Stanford[54], where she has lectured and published.
• 7. The subject has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity through her work as an investor, as well as in non-academic lectures and talks[55][56].
• Keep as the subject meets substantially more than the required number of criteria for academic notability, not to mention general notability. Academic institutions such as Stanford and Oxford, and their peer-reviewed publishing houses, are clearly regarded as reliable sources. In addition, several more references have been added, including more secondary sources[57], that support the arguments for notability, therefore to keep the article. Tdtess oasis 09:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reply is most unconvincing. Let's go through this point by point:
    • You claim the subject passes criterion 1 ("The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"), but you don't actually bring those sources in any meaningful sense. Simply throwing up a list of links, without showing how her research is cited, is meaningless.
    • The Club of Rome is a think tank, not a scholarly society.
    • Significant impact is not demonstrated by linking two papers the subject has published.
    • Neither giving a TED talk, nor talking for a quarter of an hour to another group of people and having the same group publish this in its minutes is really evidence of "substantial impact outside academia".
  • The main problem with the article is that all the links are part of a self-published, self-referential, conflict-of-interest closed circle. There's nothing truly independent referencing this individual. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Your reply brings up excellent points, and I will elaborate on each of them.
    • The book and paper sources, upon inspection as cited in the actual article, are cited with page number where the subject is referenced. In the case of Spinkart, Karl Peter (2013) on p. 162[58], in the case of Glaenzel, G.; Scheuerle, T. , on pages 1-31[59]. These are independent sources citing the subject for academic and neutral use, which also clears up the legitimate issue of "all" links being "conflict of interest closed-circle".
    • You are correct in stating that the Club of Rome is a think tank. In this case, it is composed of scientists, economists, businessmen, international high civil servants, heads of state and former heads of state.
    • Simply giving a TED-talk usually does not construe "substantial impact". In the case of TEDxMarrakesh, the subject was invited to speak by and spoke before the family of Richard Branson, namely Vanessa Branson[60] and Eve Branson, two highly significant individuals whose invitation clearly shows independent interest in the subject's work. Note: TED-speakers do not receive compensation of any kind, and it is an organisation completely independent of the subject. As are Stanford, Oxford, the International Museum of Women before they appointed her, and so was the Club of Rome until they discovered the subject's work. All the mentioned "closed-circles" are like this. They were independent, until they invited the subject on her own merits.
  • Thank you for vigilantly helping the article get better, and helping us slowly but surely meet more and more criteria. Tdtess oasis 09:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm disinclined to evaluate all of the sources above, because superficially they don't seem to cut it; but I will say that she does not meet WP:PROF in my book, because her works don't seem to have created much of an impact. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Biruitorul's evaluation of the sources seems comprehensive. The article sets off immediate red flags for me, since large numbers of unreliable citations (sometimes simply notes by the article's author) are repeatedly thrown together and synthesized to support claims that aren't explicitly backed by any of them. For example, the article states Bozesan's work addresses ... the economic empowerment of young entrepreneurs, and no less than eight citations are given to support this claim. All of these citations are links to appearances or papers by the article's subject, or in one case simply the statement that Bozesan was a "Former board member of the International Museum of Women", out of which the editor has derived the original conclusion stated in the article. It looks like much of the article is WP:OR on these lines.

As far as WP:ACADEMIC goes, Tdtess oasis cites criteria 1, 3, 4, and 7 in support of the article's notability, but none of them actually seem to apply to the article. The Club of Rome is not a scholarly society and doesn't ipso facto provide notability in any case—there wouldn't need to be a section on its article specifically titled "Notable members" if it did (#3); simply holding a lectureship at Oxford and Stanford is not evidence of "significant impact in the area of higher education" (#4); and a couple of citations, a TED talk, and some conference appearances do not constitute evidence of significant impact (#1, #7). I believe she fails on this count.

The specific guidelines in WP:ACADEMIC aside, the article appears to fail WP:GNG. Although a Google search turns up 3,050 results for Bozesan's name, there is precious little independent coverage of her—the bulk of the results are press releases, institutional profiles, or books, articles, and interviews by her. On the first five pages of results I couldn't find a single independent source. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Czar in another AfD I have learned that there is a name for the phenomenon with the references I cited, WP:BOMBARD, which seems to describe what's happening with this article pretty well ("Overloading an article with dubious and tangential citations"). —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm totally nonplussed with "sources" currently (March 21 2016) in article. My independent news sweeps did not find much other than press releases. I watched 5 minutes of her TEDX talk and it did not seem polished and it said, above the video, "This video was filmed at an independently organized TEDx event and uploaded by the organizer". And, given the length of the current article, I think we're going to have problems here with promotional activity. That pageviews (unofficial test I know but I use it sometimes) are lackluster tends to confirm my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:54, 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 (A7)' Obvious CSD A7. Article states subject is "an Indian Artist and Waiter". Hardly notable, even by the couple of references provided. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article is a biography of a non-notable individual. At first, I thought the claim of notability was that he was the mayor of Sangli-Miraj & Kupwad which would possibly meet notability per WP:POLITICIAN as the mayor of a major municipality. But after deciphering the badly written English, it seems that he is the son of the mayor (or possibly former mayor) Kanchan Kamble. It appears that notability rests on being an artist. As an artist, I can find no significant independent coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability. The awards listing in the article are not significant, and what appears to be the work which he would be best known (MagicTouch (pencil sketch)) for is also not covered, and its article is up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MagicTouch (pencil sketch)). Whpq (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — No reliable sources about this individual can verify the information that allegedly makes him notable. Being the son of a notable person does not inherently lead to notability for the person in question (at least not enough for their own article, but perhaps does for a mention in the notable person's article).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 00:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The one link provided as a reference is to a website where one can by a 45 second product mention in a radio show for Rs 2000 from a RJ Shivaraj. There is nothing in the article that satisfies the requirements for WP:ARTIST. Delete as WP:SPAM Mduvekot (talk) 19:06, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 04:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable sportsperson. To quote the lede: "Janyk appeared for the Canadian team in the slalom event at the 2006 Winter Olympics, where he finished in 17th place. Janyk has yet to win a World Cup race in his professional career, but has finished second on one occasion". Quis separabit? 13:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As an Olympic competitor he's viewed as automatically being notable.Mdtemp (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs referencing improvement, but the Olympics are in the rarefied level of sporting events where the mere fact of being present as a competitor, whether one medalled or not, is enough notability for a keep in and of itself. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Not only did he compete in the Olympics, but he is a medalist at the world championships. Not like we are talking about an obscure athlete from a very small nation that finished last, but someone that had a top 20 finish. RonSigPi (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not exactly a shortage of sources on this one. Plus the nominator suggests that he passes WP:NOLYMPICS even if I hadn't bothered to stick his name into Google - I look forward to the day when users making deletion nominations do the same first - Basement12 (T.C) 22:45, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Calls for WP:TNT. Yes we need an article about surfing in Korea but this needs too much work. Lots of unsubstantiated information "every surfer in Busan knows about it" as well as bio's of individual surfers. Blow it up and start again Gbawden (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not usually a TNT person, but this is quite the case for it. Not even the right article name for English syntax.--Jahaza (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as WP:G1. This is an absolute gibberish page, which even if written in proper english, would not be a useful page for the project. Seems like clear vandalism. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: The subject is, objectively and independently, worthy of an encyclopedia article, but, not being a native (or even non-native) speaker of Korean, I can't tell whether this is just incredibly (almost hilariously) badly translated or a deliberate goof. If it is for real, and a person out there in en.wikipedia-land was able to make it less, um, like this, it would barely cross the line into "weak keep." I'm not holding my breath, though. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as barely comprehensible despite the loads of information, this needs to be restarted with better information and sources. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 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.