< 18 March	20 March >

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

The result was delete. Deleting both. MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French Kiss (Estelle Desanges album)[edit]

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

Unsourced articles about 2 nonnotable albums since created in 2007. Zero improvement or suggestion of notability nearly 9 years later. Only ghits found are online music retailers and wiki-mirror sites. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Debut album by famous French artist and erotic performer, Estelle Desanges. Hektor (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) It has no sources. I could not find coverage regarding these albums. 2) These are not albums BY Estelle Desanges; they are compilation albums in which she may have had a hand in selecting the songs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Nothing found that would justify an article. --Michig (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per above. Insert CleverPhrase Here 11:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply not yet anything suggesting a solidly independent article, currently questionable thus unlikely keepable. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 25 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 and redirect to Senran Kagura. Sandstein 12:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Senran Kagura characters[edit]

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

This unsourced list of characters is not independently notable from the main series, as shown through its available secondary sources. Alone, it lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It could be deleted or redirected to a character section in its parent series article. czar 21:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar 21:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 21:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel this comment from User:TheFarix summarizes the situation nicely, which I shall copy-paste here for convenience:

Character lists are accepted spin-outs of their parent article. Their notability is tied to the notability of their parent article, the work of fiction. There is plenty of past precedent that character lists, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Digimon Adventure characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kodomo no Jikan characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jormungand characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rozen Maiden characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Initial D characters and teams, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Haré+Guu characters. The rare cases where character lists were not kept is because it was duplicated by another list, merged into a related list, or whose parent article was not notable.

Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to check those links—they are choice selections of mostly low-traffic AfDs brigaded by the same group of editors repeating the same tautological argument about precedent with no substantive argument for bypassing the general notability guideline. All our extant guidelines (incl. common outcomes and notability for fiction) require lists of fictional elements to have a source- and content-based reason for splitting. The list in question doesn't cite a single source so it's hard to argue that it couldn't be covered more summarily in its parent. czar 01:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Each character list has its own soul in my opinion, this being said I feel that this one would benefit from a dose of WP:TNT. Yes Farix pointed out other examples but those were in better shape. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite being a franchise, it needs some WP:TNT for lack of sourcing, and doesn't have the individual titles that focus on specific characters as notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Senran Kagura. I agree with the TNT comments and more concise descriptions can fit into the main article. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The king of the sun (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Senran Kagura. The article is a huge mess and it would probably be easier to TNT it, but the content should probably go somewhere. What could be done is to remove the cruft and simply add whatever is left to the parent article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as any basic information is imaginably better at the series' article and is questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect as there are perhaps no serious needs for deletion and this is acceptable, likely sufficient consensus to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show Me What You Got (Bratz song)[edit]

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

Non-notable release by the Bratz franchise. Attempts to redirect have been reverted with no attempt to improve the article; probably because it can't be as the song is not discussed in any reliable sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just like all the other Bratz songs should be. None of them are notable at all and total fancruft.*Treker (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all Bratz song articles, such as this one, to Bratz discography. The dolls are notable (unfortunately) but (thankfully) none of these songs have garnered independent notability on their own. As for the albums, maybe some of them have given that the charted on the Top Kid Audio chart (also unfortunately). editorEهեইдအ😎 23:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bratz discography. IMO the case od arrested development who is creating all these articles & reverting conversion to redirects should be blocked for didruptive editing.TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tpad Limited[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Promotional page created by SPA. Nothing notable found. Rayman60 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, there's nothing substantial that I can find on this company. GAB^Hello! 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing particularly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a tough one, obviously, and may have broader implications. Having read the VP article linked to which confirmed that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a guideline, not a policy, I am closing this as delete since a. the deleters claim that the subject does not pass the GNG b. the keepers do not argue that the subject passes GNG. I fully expect this to show up at DRV, and can only urge that voters in AfDs provide more helpful and more complete justifications for their votes. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Shepherd English School[edit]

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

Article about a school with no indication of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This school has been in the spotlights in India, see for example here. As off yet around one (negative) event. If more verifiable, independent sources are brought forward, I may reconsider my opinion. Based upon the information that I had in front of me, the school fails WP:N and WP:1E applies. The sole newsworthy event, BTW, is not mentioned in the very basic article. Otherwise I could find the school only in regular listings. gidonb (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more than that it is one of the good cbse school in karaikal with strength of 1200 students.lots of educational ideas are made in the school. you can't tell a school worst by just watching a teacher's activity. she did it because all the class students had payed the annual day fees except this class students.it is the mistake of the teacher not the school's. kind request not to delete the article made by a student of that same school.talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly why we have the one event rule! Otherwise we'd go dig up that one incident and it would be all over the article because that is all there is right now. Please wait until there is broader coverage of your school, probably this will take years, if it will happen at all, then you can create this article again (assuming it will now get deleted). We would still list the incident, but it wouldn't be the only independent, verifiable information. gidonb (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not being proposed for deletion because it isn't a "good school", but because it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, Wiki tamil 100. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! gidonb (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the long-established consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I have also conducted a cleanup. AusLondonder (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing our attention to this essay! For now I'm going to stick with the GNG, as it is an actual guideline. However, if more verifiable, independent sources will be found (not around that one event) I will change to keep. gidonb (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's called precedent and consensus. The "event" is irrelevant and not addressed in the article. AusLondonder (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we are in disagreement about the weight that should be given to the statements in this particular essay. That's OK. In general I'm an inclusionist but here I do not see sufficient evidence that the school is notable. I remain willing to adjust my opinion if more evidence becomes available. gidonb (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Schools_and_notability inregards to SCHOOTOUTCOMES so per that (and per my comment there aswell) I'm reopening and relisting the AFD, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Davey2010. To briefly summarise the issue (though please do read and engage with the discussion, all), WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay that summarises typical outcomes, and not a guideline or policy. As such, to cite it alone as a reason for deletion is circular reasoning. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are exceptions to SCHOOLOUTCOMES ... Cases where a fairly exhaustive search for sources has been made, and none can be found. The fact that most schools are notable doesn't mean that every school is automatically notable. OUTCOMES simply means that we can start off with an assumption that a school is likely to be notable... However, assumptions can turn out to be wrong in specific cases. perhaps this is one of those exceptions? Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The only independent coverage of the school I've been able to find is this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - SCHOOLOUTCOMES has never been an automatic keep. Each kept school has to pass WP:V (i.e., have RS proof it exists and is a secondary or higher school). I have !voted delete (and the school get deleted) when a school fails WP:V. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I recognise that, VMS Mosaic, but users are treating it as if it were a guideline, not a summary of typical outcomes. Arguing for a keep solely because an essay says most similar articles are kept is circular reasoning. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see the essay as a statement of long standing consensus and nothing to do with circular reasoning. I assume you propose changing that long standing consensus thru this AfD? Consensus can change over time. Has it? VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not that I seek to challenge the consensus, so much as test it and see if it's based on anything other than a reading of SCHOOLOUTCOMES as if it were policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Schools require notability just as much as any other organizations do, and this one pretty clearly doesn't have it. We may presume notability in the case of schools, but that presumption is and should be rebuttable. Here it is in my view rebutted, so deletion is the policy-based result. DES ^(talk) 02:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the broader issue Personally in have never agreed with, or supported, the nearly automatic grant of notability to schools that is associated with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I recall when this was being applied to elementary (primary) schools as well, before the tide retreated. I can cite AfDs from some years ago where such schools were kept largely on the argument that "all schools are notable", and which were later deleted when the fashion had changed a bit. I think this sort of categorical notability does Wikipedia a disservice, and is not very logical. I would change any consensus that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES may represent. DES ^(talk) 02:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An essay with pseudostatistical generalizations about past events is not a prescription for future decisions such that we bypass all of the other policies and guidelines. If there's really a long-standing consensus to keep them all no matter what the circumstances, it needs to be in an SNG. Long-standing consensus is not that schools get a free pass; it's that most schools have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject sufficient to satisfy our notability criteria. There is, however, long-standing practice of citing WP:OUTCOMES at AfD as though it were an SNG, essentially resting arguments on "other stuff exists" (an "other stuff exists" argument that continuously feeds itself). As this does not appear to have been subject to that coverage, it should not be kept just because it's a school. Happy to change my !vote if someone has more luck with sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to misunderstand AfD. AfD works by consensus. WP:OUTCOMES illustrates that consensus. Therefore referring to it to show that consensus exists is perfectly valid and only tends to be criticised by those who are miffed that the consensus exists because they disagree with it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to misunderstand AfD. AfD works by consensus. Mindlessly pointing to an a generalization of past examples as the scripture on which to base future decisions -- and which has repeatedly failed to receive sufficient consensus to become anything more than an essay -- is not part of the consensus-finding process. It's circular reasoning. The purpose of AfD is not to perpetuate the mean of what has happened here in the past; it's to use judgment to evaluate a subject according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:OUTCOMES, again, is an essay and neither policy nor guideline. Consensus is not supplanted by a record of past events that has failed to achieve consensus to become a general rule despite people treating it as a general rule. When you argue that something should be kept because other things like it are kept and make no attempt to justify your position with policies and guidelines, it's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, plain and simple. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it is not circular reasoning. Nor is it an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. It is simply shorthand for: a consensus already exists so why are you bothering us with yet another AfD on a secondary school? Oh, and I should point out that the word "mindlessly" could be interpreted as a personal attack. I should avoid using such words if I was you. Nobody here is mindless, least of all me (and it was me to whom you were replying). Just because I don't agree with you does not make me mindless. Please desist from using language like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Noting that something is generally done a particular way does not equate to consensus for doing things in that way in all instances moving forward. If a consensus actually existed for what should be done, rather than observations about what has been done, it would've successfully been incorporated into or turned into a guideline. And it has not. So no, consensus does not exist for mindlessly !voting keep for any school. "Mindlessly" obviously is not a personal attack as it refers to an argument, not a person. The people who mindlessly argue to keep schools are often people who in other scenarios give well reasoned critical arguments. But the argument here is "mindless" because it's a kneejerk reaction. (1) See it's a school article, (2) Point to WP:OUTCOMES, (3) Object to anyone asking for more. There's no judgment or critical evaluation of the subject, no interpretation of policies or guidelines relevant to deletion -- just pointing to statistics that have failed to achieve sufficient consensus to become a guideline as though they are prescriptive rather than descriptive. Sometimes a mindless reaction is fine. If someone nominated John Lennon or Tokyo, no careful application of policies and guidelines would be required there either. The SNGs work that way too, in some ways. The difference is, there's no guideline on which your argument is based. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) While it is true that I have long disagreed with the "all schools are notable" mantra (more recently "all high schools are notable"), i have also disagree with the use made of the various sections of WP:OUTCOMES. Without having received the level of consensus needed to become guidelines, they are in effect treated as if they were guidelines. Often these repeated outcomes were established in a series of AfDs with limited participation, frequently with the same small group of editors weighing in. Such a small group should not be able to establish a precedent that effectively governs future actions across the project. Even if these OUTCOME essays represented a wide consensus (which I feel that they do not) consensus can change and so merely quoting or linking to OUTCOMES is not and should not be dispositive of the specific issue about a particular article. If a sufficient consensus exists to elevate these to guidelines, demonstrate that with a proper RfC, and mark them as such. See the recent policy discussion on this issue. DES ^(talk) 15:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You cannot possibly argue that a consensus is invalid because only a limited number of editors participate in AfD discussions. That would effectively mean that no consensuses ever exist on Wikipedia, since every discussion involves only a limited number of editors. This argument is generally one used by those who disagree with the consensus. "I don't agree with it so it can't be a consensus". Yes, consensus can change, but in the case of secondary school articles it clearly has not done, since the majority of those who contribute to school AfDs obviously agree with it. A few dissenting voices occasionally does not mean a consensus has changed, even though those who oppose the consensus tend to "shout louder". -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - My concern is that some of those people who contribute to school AfDs are basing their support for inclusion solely based on the fact that they've read that secondary school articles are usually kept, rather than on consideration of the merits of inclusion, which is what consensus should be based on. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        That's purely an assumption on your part. Given my knowledge of the contribution record of the editors who cite it (most of whom are regular contributors to school AfDs), I think I can safely say that almost all of them know what they're talking about and are using it as shorthand as I have said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps, but I think the closing summary here offers some evidence of this. Cordless Larry (talk)
Keep This is a secondary school. It didn't used to meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, since it had no references and thus was not verified, but I have added a couple of sources and it is now verified. It is unfortunate that this debate was linked to from a discussion elsewhere about SCHOOLOUTCOMES, so that since the reopening of the discussion multiple people who dislike the guideline have come here to !vote "delete" as a protest against the guideline, rather than an actual evaluation of the school. (In effect this was a kind of canvassing; what would the response be if this discussion was highlighted at WikiProject Schools instead?) This discussion has become an argument about the guideline rather than a fair evaluation of the school itself, which like virtually all secondary schools IS notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't address the accusation of canvassing here - please report me if you feel that that is what I did. Can I point out that at the top of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it clearly states "This essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline", and yet that is exactly how you refer to it. That was precisely the point of my post at WP:VPP - people are treating a common outcomes essay as a notability guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @MelanieN: It's a fair complaint re: canvassing, but I do object to two things in your comment. First, rather than an actual evaluation of the school. That's the problem. Most schools are notable. This one is not. I did look for sources. Second, meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Verifiability is not a requirement of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as though WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has an inclusion criteria which trumps policies/guidelines and requires only verifiability. Verifiability is a bare minimum standard for all content on Wikipedia. What that essay says is (after linking to notability guidelines) "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." In other words, the "most" observation regarding the past has an exception in those that are not verifiable. (I should certainly hope so.) But it doesn't say that if it's verifiable, then you're golden. It just means that it is now within the class of schools for which most have been kept in the past. The take-away from that shouldn't be "all verifiable schools get a free pass". It should be "you should save yourself and others some trouble by being really super sure there aren't sources before nominating -- because you're probably wrong". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aim Higher Africa[edit]

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

~~Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)~~ Keep per sources provided by NA. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing obviously better. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Aim Higher Africa lifts autism centre in Ghana". The Guardian. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Juanita Sallah. "AIM Higher Africa secures learning tablets for Ghanaian pupils". StarrFM.
^ "Forbes Africa, Aim Higher Africa to Launch Technology Panel for Social Media Week Lagos". Wix News.
^ "Aim higher Africa & Forbes Africa join forces to empower Youngreneurs". GhanaWeb.
^ "Aim Higher Africa pioneers assistive technology in Bole Autism Centre". GhanaWeb.

Keep as a number of reliable sources have been found as detailed above so that WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and no recommendation for deletion (Speedy Keep Criteria No. 1). (Non-admin closure) Rebb ing 07:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Tapes From Africa[edit]

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

~~Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)~~ Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created the article stub. I am not affiliated with the subject. The organization/record label written about has many articles about it, including citations in the entry from The Wire, a famous and influential British music magazine distributed from England, and The Guardian, a major international Newspaper. Yellow Swans (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited: I've added releases, list of artists on the label, links to those artists' Wikipedia pages, and made clear reference sources to articles and interviews with The Guardian, The Village Voice, KCET, KPCC, Resident Advisor, and more. All of this should help with notability. Yellow Swans (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough good coverage to demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep perhaps as this may be enough to keep for now. SwisterTwister talk 22:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jeff Weiss (4 February 2015). "Awesome Tapes From Africa Catalogs a Continent's Worth of Great Music". L.A. Weekly.
^ "A Decade of Music: Awesome Tapes from Africa". KCET.
^ Caspar Llewellyn Smith. "Awesome Tapes … the hunt for Africa's lost treasure trove of music". The Guardian.
^ Southern California Public Radio. "The Frame". Southern California Public Radio.
^ "Awesome Tapes From Africa Head to Jakarta". Jakarta Globe.
^ "The Sudans on cassette: Awesome Tapes from Africa's collection". The Guardian.

Keep as reliable sources coverage has been presented as detailed above, so that WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 27 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 List of Autobots#Transformers: Universe. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magna Stampede[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots#Transformers: Universe. Very few hits on Google. A few hits on Google Books, which seem to be novels. Overall, I don't see any evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:21, 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 redirect to List of female Transformers#Beast Era. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roulette (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of female Transformers#Beast Era. This is another one that's difficult to research because of the generic name. My aggressive filtering may have caused me to miss out on relevant hits, but I was tired of wading through mountains of unrelated gambling websites. I don't see significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Results seem to be mostly fan sites and such. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:21, 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 redirect to List of Autobots#Communications. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raindance (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots#Communications. There's this top 25 list and a few price guides on Google Books, but that seems to be about it, except for the usual fan sites and wikis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:21, 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 redirect to List of Autobots#Miscellaneous. Redirect is always preferred over deletion and the Keep !vote was basically a Merge .... So consensus is to redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quickswitch[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots#Miscellaneous. This one sounds like it would get a bit of coverage based on the description (six modes, only one to be described as the offspring of another), but I don't see significant coverage in independent sources. Results are the usual price guides, fan sites, and wikis. The description of the Unofficial Guide here on Google Books indicates that it's another price guide. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list mentioned above is just a list of names. A redirect wouldn't be of much help to a user. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Might want to merge this with the identical character Sixknight, who is better known in Asia. Evan1975 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the article should be kept, you're going to need to provide some evidence that the subject has some real-world significance. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:22, 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 at best for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katarina Kekovic[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 08:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: There's an open (Edit: but dead) discussion that covers notability of national-level Pageant Winners at Wikipedia Talk:Notability (people)#Pageant winners and notability. Without a bright-line policy for how such winners whose notability is limited to National Winner + Miss Universe contestant (technically WP:BLP2E and not WP:CRYSTAL) are to be treated, piecemeal AFD nominations end up with inconsistent results based on who happens to vote and to close. My (weak) preference for such cases would be for a standard redirect to the year's Miss Universe competition, plus a selective merge of content to the National Competition as required. Previous precedent, however, has largely been to Keep, and almost all Miss Universe entrants have an article (eg: see Miss Universe 2015, Miss Universe 2012). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 10:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous precedent is to keep articles that are sourced conform WP:RS and that are written by reliable editors (as you know, there are loads of sockpuppets, metpuppets and promotors around). To say that the previous precedent is plain "keep", is wildly off the mark. The Banner talk 01:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I have to agree with the user above. Overall consensus has been to keep pageant delegates articles. Being a representative for a nation at one of the Big4 pageants is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hmm... it's the runner up of Miss Montenegro who is entered in the Miss Universe competition. There are RS (eg: This story from Vijesti -- yes, mostly Primary) to establish that she's runner up, and that the runner up is sent to MU. Still a weak keep until consensus changes. If kept, the page should be moved to Katarina Keković. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:34, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Aghdashloo[edit]

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

The character does not pass GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. I tried to trim the article but I think it is's too soon to have a separate article for her. Mhhossein (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per rationale by @Mhhossein (nominator); likely just too soon. Quis separabit? 19:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think she is not known enough for English language speakers . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, current article and its sources are not convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 25 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 National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur#Festivities. MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nimbus (technical festival)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. it is full of cruft and of no interest to people outside the institute. It is not even worth a redirect as an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as of today. Salvageable content can be merged to National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, but I don't see much content of encyclopedic value -- most of it is unsourced, and belongs on a college website, not Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 20:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Vipinhari || talk 05:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur#Festivities. I agree that there's nothing here worth merging. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and this could be closed as such as it seems best known through that but this festival itself is still questionable for its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur § Festivities. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 26 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Mentel[edit]

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

No evidence this footballer meets WP:GNG or has played in a fully pro league. References appear little more than routine coverage. C 679 16:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 16:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C 679 16:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finger Eleven[edit]

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

Three sentences from the LA Weekly discussing how bad this band is are the only evidence provided of real world notability. A series of links to the band's own website, a succession of twitter comments, and group of Facebook links do not constitute independent, reliable, secondary, non-trivial sourcing. I think this article needs more than that bad LA Weekly review to actually warrant a standalone article. KDS4444^Talk 16:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Did you search for sources? At all? A bio at Allmusic isn't hard to find, nor is this list of chart placings. Nor were these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. There has even been a guitar tab book published based on one of their albums. --Michig (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)—[reply]
Keep. I'm very confused by this RfD... Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Band has multiple chart hit songs and albums and sources about the band are prevalent. Not sure what nominator was looking at when deciding to take this to AfD. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly WP:BEFORE not done; band has Top 40 hits and usually just the one clinches all notability; the Juno win seals it. Nate • (chatter) 02:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meet WP:NBAND. Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in the sources cited in Michig's comment above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:31, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devil (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

All of the references given here (yes, all of them, and there are a lot) are WP:Primary sources which track the appearance of D&D devils in various monster manuals and compendia and game modules and bestiaries— they do not include analysis or discussion of the D&D devil monster in secondary literature. This is a common problem with articles on D&D creatures— unless the creature has been discussed in at least a few secondary places, the creature itself will not qualify as notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. KDS4444^Talk 15:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability here is measured by whether or not the subject has been covered in reliable independent sources, not the current state of the article. --Michig (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This stuff belongs on the D&D Wikia. Perhaps some info could be moved to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons (I don't know which it would belong to), but an article of this depth with no claim of notability is basically a character data sheet. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the current state of the article isn't the best, there are independent sources covering this topic. I've just added one before commenting here, and am in the process of finding more. The devil-type creatures in D&D were the primary focus of much of the religious panic related to the game back in the 1980s. Approaching the subject from that angle, there is plenty of analytical coverage of the concept. The detailed publication history and lists of all the variants could certainly be compressed and trimmed, but there is a core concept that is notable. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source that discusses the controversy and devils in quite a bit of detail: The Role-Playing Society: Essays on the Cultural Influence of RPGs "The Satanic Panic and Dungeons & Dragons: A Twenty-five Year Retrospective" ISBN 9780786498833 —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of all the possible D&D articles, this one will have the most cultural commentary. In addition to the independent RS'ed commentary Torchiest has found above, the entire class of Devils was taken out of AD&D second edition, presumably in response to the censorship attempts against the first edition. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens and Torchiest. BOZ (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of this content belongs at Wikia, but it should be possible to write a policy-compliant article on this topic. Like others have said, Devils in AD&D were a pretty big deal in the press. Also, Google Books returns some promising leads, such as this in The Role-Playing Society: Essays on the Cultural Influence of RPGs. I agree that this article needs cleanup, not deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of refs from 3rd party and outside publications. The articles needs editing, but an AFD is not an editing tag. Web Warlock (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens and Torchiest. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Needs work, not deletion. Grayfell (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only arguments to keep were from a WP:SPA and an IP, who have been the major editors of this article, but make no policy-based arguments here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gurl (Amy Brett song)[edit]

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

There's a claim of notability, (hence I'm not slappind a speedy on it) but can find nothing to confirm any notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NSONG as there are simply no independent sources that establish notability. GAB^Hello! 20:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources which establish notability in the updated version. Jerrycoal (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added sources. Jerrycoal (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources present which establish the song's independent notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, can't this just be speedied per ((Db-a9))? No article on the artist and this article "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful page featuring accurate information on a Britney Spears unreleased demo which achieved success in it's own right by the original artist. Jump Smokers are also notable producers. 92.31.210.73 (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is entirely questionable especially given there's apparently no article for Amy herself. Delete for now entirely at best, SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 25 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 is convincing enough (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Sheila Fox[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Especially old news. TheLongTone (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Something that still makes the BBC over sixty years after it happened is not an ordinary news story.:I will further note that I ASKED AN ADMIN BEFORE CREATING IT and they said it was OK. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Benjamin Austin: - I'm not actually an admin. I have rollback, reviewer and autopatrolled rights, but I am not that high up!--GouramiWatcher^Talk 23:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what appears on the news is of trivial and ephemeral interest.TheLongTone (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I further not that despite there being two BBC refs they are both to the same story. This is a routine cold case investigation; the police do like to close files.TheLongTone (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability, the thing is basically a headline. Civilian crime during WWII is an interesting subject, I will give you that. And contrary to popular belief, admins aren't automatically bestowed with infallible opinions on notability, nor is their endorsement a free pass. ~~jk admins i luv u pls don't ban me~~ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

she's also mentioned in this book - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lXqIAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT88&dq=%22sheila+fox%22+1944&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUt9LTmc3LAhXoL6YKHdk0B5sQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=%22sheila%20fox%22%201944&f=false Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By some unfortunate stroke of luck it's not allowing me to see the content on that page. To what degree is she mentioned? It appears to be a compendium of murder cases, so I don't feel as though it really lends the case notability. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the problem with such old cases is that abduction and murder of a child now goes straight to the national media as opposed to being reported only locally in the local paper, and only hitting the national media if the case proved unusual, intriguing or horrifying. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was just created and still requires expansion. The deletion nomination was far too hasty.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 15:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has now been significantly expanded.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 17:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to weak Keep. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added more morbid fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination was way too hasty and your comments smack of "because I haven't heard of it, it's not notable!" this is why Wikipedia has more information on Star Wars games than African presidents. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has been improved a lot. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the article may have gained weight but this does not affect the primatry issue; it fails WP:CRIME. No significant ongoing coverage; there is simply some recen coverage because the police dug a hole. As for Paul Benjamin Austin's snarky comment, I fail to see what it has to do with this instance of morbid fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see you try your antics at Beaumont children disappearance and Disappearance of Eloise Worledge Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Case is still making the news 60 years after the fact, clearly long-term notable. Notability established through multiple major news outlets. Scr★pIron^IV 13:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that it's been expanded this seems clearly notable. valereee (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established by sources. Everyking (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability clearly established by at least 2-3 book sources discussing the case and continuing major newspaper coverage up into the 2010s. According to sources this is one of Britain's longest unsolved disappearances. I can't imagine how anyone could think it was not notable or dismiss it as "old news" (once notability was established, it doesn't go away because time passed). TheBlinkster (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article consists only of WP:Primary sources. Wikipedia articles require their subjects to be the focus of WP:Secondary sources in order to establish their actual notability. Unless the D&D centaur has been discussed non-trivially by such sources (not merely appeared in a game module or a monster manual— again, these are primary) I do not believe it will qualify as notable. KDS4444^Talk 15:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As per your other nominations, the fact that the article cites primary sources is not a reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Paizo and "Heroic Worlds" sources are independent, reliable, secondary sources, so the GNG is met. The fact that there are other primary sources referenced in the article doesn't negate that coverage. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:17, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seven mass media[edit]

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

Unsourced original research that reads like an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this appears to be a summary of Mobile as 7th of the Mass Media, a 2008 book by Tomi T Ahonen [10]. This article was originally written by Ahonen himself, or someone else using his name. While it's not forbidden original research in that the content has been published in an external source, the concept doesn't seem to have spread further than the book and the book itself doesn't look particularly notable, so I don't see how we can justify having a standalone article on the idea. Hut 8.5 16:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I never would've thought we'd need a WP:NOT#Cliffnotes. I suppose we can't complain it has no sources, because it's basically just the source abridged. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons enumerated in Hut 8.5's comment above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:35, 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 16:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fey (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article doesn't have WP:SECONDARY SOURCE material— it consists almost exclusively of primary sources (i.e., in publications and game modules where the creature happens to appear), not to places where the creatures are a topic of discussion in and of themselves. It looks like this may be a chronic problem with many of the articles on monsters from the D&D gaming universe which have been added to Wikipedia. These articles require references to reliable independent secondary sources in order to be retained. This one doesn't appear to meet that threshold (it doesn't matter how many times a brownie appears in a story— he isn't notable until someone discusses that fact independent of the appearance). KDS4444^Talk 15:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Citing primary sources is not a reason for deletion. Notability in this case is dependent on the existence of reliable independent sources. Google Books suggests there are plenty ([11]). --Michig (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Google Books is suggesting is that there are lots of independent sources about D&D that mention this character. And while an exclusive reflist of primary sources isn't automatically grounds for deletion, it would seem that all of these sources are not only primary, but from the game literature itself, which is a very big problem, as you cannot derive notability from somethings own source material. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 58 of the sources are from TSR, and 20 are from Wizards of the Coast. Those can be discounted as primary sources, but that leaves 15 other sources to consider. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Torchiest's comments. BOZ (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While individual creature types mentioned within this combined article may not be notable, this article is a merged combination of a large host of individual articles, which has more than adequate combined sourcing to meet GNG. The comments above that refer to this article as if it depicted a single creature type, rather than a set of related creatures, call into question whether those posting such !votes even bothered reading the article, let alone understanding its importance. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Torchiest. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough sources to meet WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:22, 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 redirect to Adam Johnson (footballer)#Reaction. If anyone wants to selectively merge content into the redirect target, it can be done by accessing the redirect history. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 06:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Byrne (chief executive)[edit]

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

A chief executive who came briefly into the news because of her resignation over the Adam Johnson scandal. No other indication of notability; WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. Donnie Park (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have no notability outside of the Adam Johnson event. The only sources mentioning her seem to focus almost entirely on her role in continuing to allow Johnson to play for Sunderland A.F.C., which can be adequately covered in his article.This source says she was "dubbed the new Karren Brady" but she has nowhere near the CV of Karren Brady - indeed it suggests she was promoted way over her head. Incidentally I checked WP:FOOTBALL but could find no guidance on the notability of executives in the professional game.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly agree with the Karren Brady part, Brady had been covered by the media for an extensive period of time since the 1990s and Bryne only got a mention during the fallout of the scandal. Donnie Park (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Former executive officer at one of the richest clubs in the world. Passes WP:GNG also.--Donniediamond (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a long list of executives who have a long career with one company and what is the possibility of them having their own article, barely any otherwise a merge to article unless they have a major awards such as inducted in the industry hall of fame or have been extensively interviewed in business news. Unless she appear regularly on Bloomberg and CNBC as she only came on the media radar suddenly, it's fair that I stand by my decision. Donnie Park (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in depth pre-Johnsongate coverage like this, or this, or this in the BBC or maybe being quoted in the Guardian helps?--Donniediamond (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why weren't these brought forward, otherwise I would not have to nominate this for deletion. Donnie Park (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the article, nor did I nominate the article for deletion, so you are probably asking the wrong guy. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of coverage here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So does some criminals and reality TV stars WP:NOTNEWS. Donnie Park (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are ignoring her extensive pre-Johnson issue coverage. P.S. "criminals and reality TV stars" can have articles on wiki to you know. --Donniediamond (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I did not know about those (this post was posted at the same time as the other). Donnie Park (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As long as the source provided by Donniediamond (talk · contribs) could be used, I propose to close this nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adam Johnson (footballer)#Reaction - I see nothing in the sources provided by Donniediamond that further contributes to the notability of Ms. Byrne or provides any additional information. Being chief executive of a company does not automatically confer notability, nor does resigning from a company due to a scandal. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right being "chief executive of a company does not automatically confer notability" but what does confer notability is when there is significant independent coverage of the person for the role they have, which there is in this case, and much of it pre the Johnson case. --Donniediamond (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Adam Johnson (footballer)#Reaction - Agree with JKudlick. Not really seeing GNG here, some coverage of her appointment as chief exec, but no real detail and a couple of local articles. Any article on her would obviously be heavily leaning on her involvement in the Adam Johnson case, indicating BLP1E to me. However, coverage of her involvement in that case is significant so a merge to the more general topic would be appropriate. Fenix down (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adam Johnson as above, sensible suggestion. Giant Snowman 18:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Adam Johnson (footballer)#Reaction- she fails WP:BLP1E as only really known for the Adam Johnson trial. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adam Johnson and I nearly closed this myself as there's nothing for confirming a better independent notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 06:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John V. Krutilla[edit]

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

Not an article ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources and no establishment of real notability. It' also a confusingly made mess.*Treker (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there was a WP:NOT#OBIT I'd cite it. If what we're seeing in the article is all there is to write, then I can't see this passing any notability standard. Looking in the page history, it was nominated for A7 the day of it's creation, but that nomination was rescinded because he won the Volvo Environment Prize, to which I would contest WP:NOTWHOSWHO Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shambles. Stub and rewrite. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. It is perhaps true that the article in its current form is unsalvageable and should be deleted for that reason (unless somebody completely rewrites it) . However, the subject appears to be notable, both on WP:BIO and WP:PROF grounds. E.g. there were obituaries about his death both in NYT [12], and in Washington Post [13]. There is a bio page about him at Volvo Environment Prize site [14], another obit here [15], public lectures about his impact on environmental economics, like this one here [16]. There is also coverage like this one [17] of something called "Krutilla’s Rule" in environmental economics. There is an entry about Krutilla [18][19] in "The Biographical Dictionary of American Economists" published by the Oxford University Press. I'd say there is enough here to pass both WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple major newspaper obituaries (the kind the newspapers write themselves, not the paid death notice kind) are both a clear pass of WP:GNG and a clear sign of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein's correct citation of newspaper obits (non-paid) = GNG. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems convincingly enough and I nearly closed it myself. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 26 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 Monsters_of_Spelljammer#Neogi. MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neogi[edit]

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

The sources given here are all WP:Primary sources; there doesn't appear to be any discussion of this subject in secondary sources, meaning it may not qualify as bona fide notable. KDS4444^Talk 14:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Monsters of Spelljammer. There's no need for a separate article. Indeed, as noted by the nominator, there isn't much to sustain a separate article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge per NewYorkActuary. BOZ (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monsters of Spelljammer and I nearly closed it myself as this is likely best connected to the series itself instead of having an independently notable article of its own. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 26 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Bodie Begay[edit]

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

Only sources I could find for extraordinary claim of age=119 at death are a press release and a funeral director's obit. E Eng 13:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously not notable. Even if it were, it's a permanent stub. ~ Rob^Talk 15:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Berti118 (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. The "sources" here wouldn't be enough to establish notability even if the claimed age were less incredible. David in DC (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of the type of sourcing that would satisfy the requirements at WP:N. Canadian Paul 04:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as nothing convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW, no use in dragging this out. Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parth Naria[edit]

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

Makes sort-of credible claims of significance, but none are borne out by the provided refs, and I can't find others. —SMALL JIM 11:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 11:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 11:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -looks like all the references are added for the count. Couldn't find any coverage for this person, fails WP:BASIC —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even mentioned in any of the sources given. Although the article does seem to attempt to make claims of significance, it doesn't even come close to articulating them so I wonder if it doesn't qualify for WP:A7 speedy deletion. Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A7 was removed by a suspected sock - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Parth Naria. Bazj (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Narcissistic 14 year old. [20] Bazj (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was made by himself. I should say it was made "by a user with the same name as him", but it's, it's him. Also, only one of the sources links to anything about him, the rest are just homepages of TED and NASA.

Also "He is the recipient of the NASA" that was hilarious holy shit. you guys we can't delete this guy he recieved NASA. he owns NASA now Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only reason this isn't A7 right now is because of the blatant socking. GAB^Hello! 17:58, 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 speedy deleted as a hoax by De728631 (non-admin closure) Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lapring language[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence for the existence of this language. I ran Google searches lapring language nepal and ल्याप्रीङ and came up empty-handed (other than a reference in the Wikipedia article Himshikhar Television, which I am now questioning). Finally, the image this article references, purporting to show text from a language in use 2,000 years ago, seems to be written in fluorescent marker and looks like a captcha with a mix of obstructed modern, Western digits and letters. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I traced the mention in the Himshikhar Television article to the same editor and reverted his replacement of another item with it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It exists in Jhapa district of Nepal. It has been just known by two historians, and it may not have been seen in google. The real inscription is taken by the researchers for more research in laboratory and the pictire posted here is a sample by made by the researchers. The page shouldnt be deleted. You may search #LapringLanguage on Twitter and Lapring Language Pratishthan Nepal on facbook, too. Prediction of existence of the language was mad! earlier by the locals and craeated the page in facebook, but it is proved officially by historians just few days ago! Thitojhapali (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK but wikipedia pages can only be kept if they are supported by pre-existing reliable sources as per the WP:GNG and WP:RS. If anthropologists have studied this language, then where are the research studies? If they haven't published the studies yet, then it is WP:TOOSOON to have a WP page. As far as I can see, there aren't yet RS, so I'm going to !vote delete unless someone can show me something substantial. JMWt (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No citations at all, let alone to reliable evidence that the language existed. Maproom (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that this language exists. Possibly a hoax. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have also listened about the language in todays morning news. The researchers have published their records yesterday at 4:55 PM at Hotel Hayat, Kathmandu in a press conference! Loxboy33 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't qualify the article under the notability guidelines. It has to be published in multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper where events are reported directly. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You may look at Twitter #LapringLanguage and Lapring Language Pratisthan Nepal at facebook. It exist in Real, its our language. So, please don't delete it! Hunulase (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously isn't your language, since it was only just now discovered. Having a page about something on Facebook or a Twitter feed about it isn't a qualification for a Wikipedia article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep It shouldnt been deleted. Sanoasne (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to point out that the last three Keep votes are from accounts that were all created in the last 20 minutes, apparently for that purpose. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thitojhapali. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per their admission here that they're all the same person, I've struck them all out. The original account is allowed to post/vote here, not any of the others. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the national media of Nepal has already published the news about its verification. It exist in real, it shouldnt be deleted. It will also be included in the list of languages in the next census of Nepal.Ibrahimrte (talk)

Still waiting for someone to show us all this evidence. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there's evidence of it being covered in reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What do you think is reliable source? The national television of Nepal isnr realiable for you? It exist. Hestuwe (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you embed a copy of your television into the article as evidence? See WP:RS for an explanation of reliable sources on Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. A clear hoax. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to their facebook page [21] and it seems like a hoax to me. I mean, one of the statements above claims it was in the news "yesterday" and yet the facebook page was created a year ago (march 2015)? And in addition, the user had created another Wikipedia page "Himali English Boarding School" which I nominated for speedy. This was the content (obtained from google cache) "The Shining Path Academy, Lakhanpur-4, Jhapa, Nepal is running a non-profit Boarding School named Himali English Boarding School, for the personality development of the children. It is located in child friendly and fresh environment and teaching moral and practical techniques rather than book rotting. The students are also motivated towards social service and well being of the nation. According to a teacher of the school Mr. Keshab Timsina, the students have helped for the victims of Sunkoshi Flood-2071 and Destructive Earthquake-2072 with 1 lakh each. The school is developing like an social organization rather than a boarding school. The important language of Lapring Civilization viz. Lapring Language is taught here for the knowlwdge of the children." The last line is a dead giveaway. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sourcing. Certainly a probable hoax, if not clearly one. Also Note that the accounts of User:Ibrahimrte and User:Hestuwe have also only been created in the last twenty minutes. Adding to SPI. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}
Comment per [22], it is the same person for all the keep votes, so I've struck their comments. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems at least possible to me that there has been a new discovery and that this is news in Nepal. But unless we have reliable sources, we can't have a wikipedia page for it. Maybe in the next days there will indeed be a large number of media sources which report on the story together with published academic studies on the topic. It doesn't even have to be in English to be of use here. Until that happens, we have no way to determine that this is a real thing. Someone seeing a report about it on TV clearly isn't good enough. JMWt (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It is time to end this farce! The alleged "civilization" has nothing to corroborate it. The alleged society has no Google hits. The alleged director seems to have nothing but social networking. The alleged language had nothing in Google Books or News. In 17 alleged years of alleged research they published not one thing that turns up in Google Scholar about it? What were they researching? Publication avoidance strategies? The image suggests that the allegedly recently discovered language also has a written form, like people have been writing an unknown language for years without anybody finding out until now. Or maybe it is just some stuff written with a yellow marker pen (the preferred writing tool of language scholars?), and ineptly photographed in the dark, that may or may not be in any real language at all. This is all just WP:Complete Bollocks isn't it? Add the bad faith editing and there is no reason to give this any more benefit of the doubt. I'm going to tag it for speedy deletion now. If there anything real behind this then somebody else can write something coherent and referenced about it later. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This article is nothing but the ultimate fakeness of true bullshit. Fuck this article and fuck this bullshit. I agree with what DanielRigal says. It's fucking fake. The language does not exist. It was a made-up pile of original research, and the invention of a mad Nepalese George McVandal dude. Zakawer (talk) 14:12, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hater (Internet)[edit]

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

This article addresses an abstract concept, not an actual thing. Why do we have an article about "a person [..] who expresses hatred in public forums"? For the word itself, we have Wiktionary. I am sure that any further explanation of the term could be covered in a section of the Internet troll article. Furthermore, the article has many unreferenced claims and contains substantial original research, aside from the clunky and awkward wording. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) 20:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move - we have plenty of articles on abstract concepts. I'm not sure that awkward and clunky wording should be justification for an article delete. There is some OR in the article, but this is an example of an article that should be improved, perhaps renamed Hater (internet meme), not deleted. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I said aside from that wording, so that wasn't a reason to delete, just a side point. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) 21:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and just needs work. For example, see The Offensive Internet – an entire book from Havard University Press. Andrew D. (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is misinformative, and it's 100% OR. First, the problematic scope. The slang word hater isn't specific to Internet culture; it's just another context in which the word is used. The section "Definition and origin" is entirely about usage outside Internet culture. But okay, the article says it has a different meaning in the Internet context, so I'll play along.

The whole article hinges on the definition in the lead section. It cites Michael Strangelove (2010), who offers this definition: "a person who posts rude and often racist, sexist, homophobic, or obscene messages". Notice that his only necessary and sufficient condition for "hating" is to post "rude" messages. So a hater is someone who posts rude messages. This is not a rigorous definition, and it's also not the definition offered in the article's lead section. The lead section is supposed to be the keystone for the whole article.

"Difference between a troll and a hater" cites one source: a definition of trolling. Any definition of hater in the section is conjecture (complete with weasely language like "normally..." and "many people now consider..."). Not helpful. The section "Cause of a hater's action" strays into murkier waters. This time, the citations are about hate crimes and cyberbullying; how the "hater" fits into all this is left to the imagination of the reader. At worst, the OR in this section implies that a hater is one who commits a hate crime. It also implies that a hater is a sort of cyberbully, but that disagrees with the definition offered in "Definition and origin". (Wait, so are cyberbullies a type of hater, or are haters a type of cyberbully? Damn, maybe we should have thought this through!) Watery implications on a foundation of sand.

The "Incidents" section is a summary of a case of online harassment. By implication, Caroline Criado-Perez is a hater. Let's all add to this section so we can make a Wall of Haters. Totes encyclopedic.

Finally, the article ominously concludes with a "Law" section about the punitive consequences of posting "indecent, obscene or menacing" material if you're a UK citizen. (Presumably, a hater is someone who posts material that is indecent, obscene, and/or menacing. How many possible definitions are we dealing with now?) So if you're not a UK citizen, don't even think about moving to the UK if you're a hater, or it could cost you £5,000. Consider yourself deterred.

Is there encyclopedic material in work like Nussbaum's The Offensive Internet? Certainly. But what encyclopedia article(s) should come from them? I don't know, but it's probably not "Hater (Internet)". —Ringbang (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a bad link there. The stuff about haters on YouTube is at Haters, Spammers, and other Deviants. And there's plenty more sources out there like Hate on the Internet. Andrew D. (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the correction. I read Strangelove's definition and amended my notes above. Certainly there is a lot of source material about online hate speech and online harassment—two different but overlapping topics. With quality source-material like the Sarah Rohlfing essay you linked, editors could write a quality article about "Hate speech on the Internet". And that's just it: Rohlfing's essay is about hate speech and hate crimes, not haters. Trying to work within the confines of the slippery, ambiguous, problematic word hater presents an unnecessary obstacle. Can you think of anything that could be done with "Hater (Internet)" that wouldn't be done better in "Hate speech on the Internet", the "Online harassment" section of Cybercrime (which could be expanded into a full article), Cyberbullying, Mobile harassment, and the related articles? I find it hard to imagine "Hater (Internet)" ever being a good article, but it's much easier to imagine "Hate speech on the Internet" developing into one. —Ringbang (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Changing the title of an article is done by a move, not by deletion. And notice that the page, under its current title, was the subject of two educational assignments in 2014. If you read its talk page, you'll see that the people involved got something out of it and seemed to think the topic had merit. Why should we now make this history inaccessible? Developing it further to improve it is fine but deletion would be a step backwards, no? Andrew D. (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, moving the article doesn't fix the content. This article was probably never a good idea. It started out as a misconception, and cited Strangelove even though that work doesn't support User:Colonel Warden's definition, which is vague and flawed. (That initial OR version of the article is close to what is online now.) Then came the rewrite that the students praised. Suddenly, the article at least defined the word in way that's consistent with its slang use (as in "player hater" and "haters gonna hate"). But guess what? It only cites and paraphrases Urban Dictionary. Not exactly a deep analysis. Certainly this reinforced to my mind that we have some responsibility about what to publish. So, what if someone found a reliable secondary source to replace Urban Dictionary, and amended the definition? Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we'd also need some content that would make it encyclopedic. So all the article needs is a definition based on reliable secondary sources and any content that will make it encyclopedic. In other words, there is no article. But let's assume that we have all that content. Congratulations, we just made a locus for the same nonsense that used to go into Player hater. I believe it's best to delete. Ringbang (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving the article, and taking the internet-hater-related content and sequestering it in a section of its own. This allows the article to develop in clear way, without deleting the article's history, and also accomplishes the goal of a wider, more inclusive, and more useful subject. When this move occurs some of the internet hater stuff might be deemed irrelevant to the new topic, but much of it would stay. Anyone want to put their hand up for this one? Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pretty clearly a WP:POVFORK of internet troll, leveraged from a WP:NEOLOGISM. As noted above, the arguments that attempt to indicate that there is a concept here distinct from that of the troll article are all based on WP:original research built out WP:SYNTHESIS, and not based on any kind of coverage (to say nothing of the kind of significant coverage we would need to justify an article here) within any particular WP:Reliable source. I welcome the authors of this content to contribute some of the content here to the troll article or elsewhere, but this just does not pass muster for policies on independent notability/fork/neologism issues. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is essentially a drawn out dictionary definition, and the concept itself is, as was stated by the nominator, too abstract to be properly presented in an encyclopedia. What constitutes "hatred" in a public forum is based on opinion, not fact, and therefore, the topic cannot be covered without some sort of POV. Additionally, there is some blatant original research in this article (especially in the "Cause of a hater's actions" section), and some of the content is mind bogglingly inept. (e.g. Why is an episode of Cheers from 1989 referenced in an article about an internet term?) All signs point to "delete": if anything, a redirect to Wiktionary may be appropriate. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 16:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically WP:NOT#DICT: but as User:Snow Rise has stated it's pretty much just a WP:POVFORK of content from internet troll. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with rename. For me this article is either A) an altogether bad idea, or B) properly titled Hater (Internet meme). As stated by others, better articles exist to discuss trollish behaviour patterns, but I venture that none of these capture the unique social media stoicism (and repugnance-swallowing, anti-instinctual Zen disengagement) of "haters gonna hate". The meat of the "haters" meme lies in the burgeoning culture of online co-existence with the vile, anonymous detritus which soon seems to pervade every forum. While we don't need another article about haters, we might be well served with an article about how Internet culture is beginning to salve the seemingly inescapable co-existence of the vile alongside the constructive. I'm rarely on the deletion side, and that's my best shot at preserving this, which I admit is somewhat anaemic even by my own anti-deletion slant. — MaxEnt 22:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As User:Snow Rise and others have pointed out, this is a POV fork and defining it as distinct seems to fall within the scope of Original Research. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is a giant mess of SYNTH and OR. It's supposed to be about an internet term, but starts off with a dictionary definition which doesn't mention the internet. It cannot decide if it originated from Will Smith or Bret Hart in 1997, or Cheers in 1988, but were any of them talking about the internet? It doesn't seem very likely from the context provided, but none of it's actually sourced anyway, except that episode 19 of season 6 of Cheers is a thing that exists. How this differs from internet trolls is entirely unsourced, save to a website that defines "troll" (but not "hater" or suggests how such a thing would be different from a troll or even that it exists), and it appears to just be someone's opinion. None of the cyberbullying cites used in the "causes" section discuss "haters", so there's more SYNTH, and it tries to somehow connect the term to hate groups - again, a term which the article itself claims started as "people jealous of Will Smith's success" - presumably because both involve the word "hate". Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draft if needed, delete for now until better improvements are available. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 26 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas-Georgia football rivalry[edit]

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

Not an actual rivalry. It's a conference game, nothing more. Rivals play every year, they don't. CrashUnderride 06:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and then delete anyone who thinks this is a rivalry. Lizard (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this is a rivalry.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding any reliable sources reporting on this series as a rivalry. Moreover, the series does not satisfy any of the intangible markers we look for as evidence of a rivalry: (1) longevity - no, as the series was first played in 1969, (2) frequency - no, as there have been only 14 games in 47 years; (3) geographic proximity - not bordering states, to the contrary, there are two states and nearly 800 miles separating the two schools; (4) existence of trophy or official game name - no; (5) competitiveness - marginal; (6) prominence of programs - yes, but that by itself is not enough to override everything else. Nor does it qualify otherwise as a highly significant series where, for example, and with the exception of the 1969 Sugar Bowl and the 2002 SEC Championship Game, the teams have not played multiple games in which both teams were highly ranked and/or championships rode on the outcome. Doesn't qualify under any known criteria. Cbl62 (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Teams that only play about once every three years don't have a rivalry. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Furniture Mart[edit]

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

Fails GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cursory Google Books search reveals considerable relevant material, to say nothing of newspaper reporting (some of which is, in fact, already cited). This is one of a slate of nominations of furniture retail chains by the same editor, several of which have already been withdrawn, and all of which are problematic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal What was I thinking last night - CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:51, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bassett Furniture[edit]

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

Fails GNG. The one good article, theWSJ article, is from the Blog section and is about the owner, not the company. CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the nominator didn't see the dedicated article from The New Yorker and googling turns up other coverage. Passes WP:GNG. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawal CerealKillerYum (talk) 15:42, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture Row[edit]

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

Fails GNG. News coverage is about the NASCAR sponsorship and not about the company itself CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You are correct, "Furniture Row Racing" would be more deserving of an article than this. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found some links but this is still questionable at best, delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Furniture HomeStores[edit]

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

Fails GNG.CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major chain of stores with coverage from reliable sources all over the place, easily googled. Easily passes WP:GNG. Note that just because these reliable sources don't appear in the article doesn't mean they're not applicable for determining notability. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this was a mistake. I withdrawal the nomination. CerealKillerYum (talk) 15:40, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Cline[edit]

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

News search results about Walter Cline are about other people with the same name. There is nothing about this person. Greek Legend (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -BLP article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also imaginably speedy given the current formatting thus there's also nothing to imaginably suggest solid notability or convincing enough improvements. Delete at best for now and restart later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - commonality of the name makes research difficult. Cannot find any in-depth coverage which seems to be about this particular person. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:18, 26 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vento Winds[edit]

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

Non-notable small orchestra formed in 2013, which plays two annual public concerts. No recordings, CDs or similar. No references found in news or book sources-- not surprisingly, given the short time since its founding. Speedy deletion tags removed by creator and others. Does not satisfy not a single criterion for notability at WP:MUSBIO. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the editor above has conveniently changed the location of this argument to silence my voice and the original editor's voice...I'm just going to leave this here. FROM Contest of Speedily Deletion Discussion: "Notability, like art is relative, biased, and convoluted. I think we all know the media chooses what they deem "notable" or not and it may not be the fault of anyone in this group or the actions of the group itself (or lack there of) that caused them not to get the press they so deserved. I say let this page be. Their impact on their own community in itself deem it noteworthy, and user HappyValleyEditor may not have the direct relationship with the city, state, or country that this music ensemble belongs to in order to make that call." I think it's obvious the original editor had a direct relationship to the page. I however do not, and hope to be reading more about this small, and obviously locally noteworthy pursuit on Wikipedia in the near future. 174.103.229.23 (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I will not contest the difficulty of finding references in news or book sources. But it is clear this group is currently heavily active in its community. 174.103.229.23 (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I will not contest that it can be hard to find proper references for such local groups, which may well be important to their community. However, we are not the state's pedia--articles here need to be on subject that have the kind of importance that is attested by reliable secondary sourcing so the subject passed WP:GNG. (Impact on the community isn't even proven in the article, let alone broader significance.) That does not seem to be the case for this ensemble. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 174.103.229.23, speak away! This is actually a larger public forum than the talk page for the article.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 There is no assertion of notability in the article and no references that could back one up if it existed. To the IP: The criteria for inclusion is not based on a perception of importance, either by you, me, your community or anyone else. Instead it is based on exactly what you state does not exist. Media coverage. If a subject is not written about in detail in multiple reliable sources (and in the cases of organisations such as this, or corporations, from geographically disbursed locations), it doesn't get an article. John from Idegon (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local musical group, no indication of meeting WP:BAND. And I come from their area of Wisconsin and I disagree with 174.103.229.23's suggestion of their importance. I still encourage the anonymous contributor to voice their opinion in this public forum. Royal broil 19:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and none of this is currently convincing enough to keep. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 25 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 enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclops (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

All of the references given here are primary sources— none of them provide "coverage" or "discussion" of the role playing game "D&D" cyclops via a secondary source. This is a classic example of a character from a film or a video game not warranting a standalone article because they are not notable independent of their film/ game, though they may be mentioned many places (somewhat like the WP:POKEMON issue). If not deleted outright, this article could also be merged into the already extant article on the Greek cyclops. KDS4444^Talk 03:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Pathfinder and "for dummies" sources are secondary, and thus the WP:GNG is met. If this were merged back into Cyclops proper, it would provide undue weight on elements not relevant to the mythological creature, but appropriate for its depiction in games. If there were to be a merger or a change in focus, it might be more appropriate to treat this as an "in popular culture" article and incorporate game appearances from non-role-playing games. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent, secondary, or relaible to even remotely establish that the DnD cyclops has some sort of particularly notability as an independent topic. A minimalist reference should (maybe?) be added to the main Cyclops article, but I question if that is even worthwhile, given that the cyclops has appeared in numerous different works and media pertaining to fantasy and mythology, and Wikipedia is not the place to create an article about where every fictional creature or topic intersects with every game, comic book, movie, novel, or whathaveyou. Further, pretty much every last word of content seems to be summary of material found in rulebooks for these games. This is just not encyclopedic content in any reasonable sense. I'm sure this can find a home on a wikia somewhere (indeed, I'd be surprised if it's not on a dozen), but for Wikipedia? Sorry, no. Note also that the image in the infobox is pretty much without doubt a WP:COPYVIO that is not allowed under our policy exceptions, so someone should look at that as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow Rise (talk • contribs)
Keep per Jclemens, or merge. BOZ (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens source discussion. WP:GNG is met. --Mark viking (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry: BOZ, Mark viking, Jclemens, do me a favour and try to explain this position to me, because I'm having a hard time seeing it here. Are you saying that you think one "for dummies" manual is a high-enough quality WP:reliable source to establish the general encylopedic notability of the cyclops in the dungeons and dragons context? Because let's say we grant this source all benefit of assumption that it meets WP:RS standards (I suppose we could ask WP:RSN). There's still the matter that all it sources is the following content:

"The cyclops impaler was ranked tenth among the ten best mid-level 4th Edition monsters by the authors of Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition For Dummies. The authors described the cyclopses as 'one-eyed giants from the Feywild that often serve more powerful masters,' with the impaler having 'all kinds of ranged powers that make it a great monster to put at the back of a band of other, more melee-oriented creatures" since "the cyclopes impalers hurl spears and use their evil eye and impaling volley powers to harass the heroes from a distance'."

That's it; all of the additional sources are clearly primary and the material they support violations of WP:NOT(DND)MANUAL including those Pathfinder manuals which are clearly not providing independent subjective analysis of the topic, but are in fact just replicating the same market as the original manuals which make up all of the rest of the sourcing here. That's to say nothing of the outright WP:COPYVIO content. All of that has to go--the absence of anything encyclopedic to say at this juncture doesn't mean we fill the void with WP:FANCRUFT not sourced to independent or reliable sources or outright violating our non-free content policies. So the question here seems to boil down to: do you see an article as warranted for the sake of having a brief stub that says that the Cyclops (of DnD context) was briefly mentioned in a "four dummies" manual about DnD? I gotta tell you guys, that's a tough sell. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COPYVIO is a serious charge. Please substantiate it, so we can fix it if it exists, or withdraw it as reasonable but unfounded. That is, I agree that it SOUNDS like parts of the article, specifically the original creation, may have been lifted from somewhere, but I haven't been able to find where. I googled and found this, which is 2 years later than the 2006 creation of this article, and appears to rely on it. I have no idea whether the article itself was copied from somewhere else, but I do not recognize it if it was. Mind you, my D&D knowledge is decades out of date, so I'm far from an authority on it.
My personal view is that each "edition" of D&D is its own separate game, because characters and settings cannot be used seamlessly with each other. If you get a new edition of Monopoly, you can use the new board with your old pieces and money... not so with D&D. Thus, we have about three different TSR-published games, three separate WotC-published games, and one Paizo. No matter how you slice it, they can't all be primary--others are necessarily derivative, and while WotC is clearly a successor in interest to TSR, they are equally clearly not the same company, and two separate companies cannot both be the author of a game for primary vs. secondary concerns. Thus, your question isn't germane, as I find no less than FIVE secondary sources, not simply the 'for dummies' one. I highlight that because I don't have to explain it to people who aren't familiar with the 'family tree' of D&D-like games. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio alluded to is the non-free image, clearly ripped from one of these products listed here, if not another entirely. The rest of the content is presumably not straight copyvio text, although from the way the content is presented, it is almost certainly meant to be closely parallel the format and purpose of what can only be a game manual (again, exactly the kind of content prohibited against in WP:NOTMANUAL)....which is is why it all sourced to game manuals.

As to the other issue, you'll have have to be more specific if you want me to know which five of these sources can possibly be considered secondary, let alone qualify for WP:RS for establishing the encyclopedic, independent notability. I honestly don't see a thing that qualifies. Again, I suppose we could request an WP:RSN analysis. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you've been around long enough to understand fair use, and see that the image is appropriately tagged? Please confirm that you understand this. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing on a fair use tag is not a magic talisman (pun intended in this context) which automatically makes a copyviolation ok; en.wikipedia in particular has extremely high barriers to the use of non-free images. So do you understand fair use, as it means on this project and not as just a general concept. Because, per WP:NFC guidelines: "All non-free images must meet each non-free content criterion." And WP:NFCCP8 and WP:NFCCP2 are both clearly violated here. Under criteria 8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Are you trying to tell me that the picture in question is absolutely vital to understanding this topic and that there will be some concept discussed in the prose that our readers could not get their minds around otherwise?.

Even more concerning in this case is criteria 2: "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material. Non-free images are meant to be used sparingly, for encyclopedically significant topics, where the image might be necessary to understand the analysis and commentary reported from our secondary sources. What has happened here is that someone went through and made hundreds upon hundreds of articles replicating the content of various entries of Dungeons and Dragons gaming books concerned with their fictional monsters, and then pulled the images out of those entries and stuck them in as well, putting them in exactly the role they are utilized in, in a commercial context. That is unambiguously a copyviolation of the most blatant, obvious sort. Sorry, but we regularly delete many other images that are of massive value to the readers of the articles they are in because they do not meet out non-free content guidelines; this image fails two and its in an article that is itself a pretty clear WP:NOTAMANUAL violation itself. NFC is definitely flunked for this image. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are being ridiculous, if you genuinely think that image damages the market rights or monetary position of the copyright holder. #8 is a perennially debated criteria, I grant, but invoking #2 in such a manner demonstrates an unequivocally fringe view of NFCC. If someone were to print Wikipedia pages, bind them, and try to sell them as a "monster manual" replacement, they would not be entitled to use the images as fair use, so NFCC #2 cannot apply.

But what's MORE important than whether or not we agree on how NFCC might apply to the image used in the article, is that you have just admitted you never had any suspicion of the article itself being a COPYVIO, but yet you threw that term in to an AfD. Falsely conflating issues that may or may not apply to an image to the deletion discussion of the article in which that image appears... what is that? Gaming the system? Casting aspersions? However you slice it, raising the issue was simply not appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A) Before you start making comments that use language like "gaming the system" and the like, consider that those are strong words usually only reserved for concerted WP:Disruption, not my simply citing policy and my opinion of it. That's considered a WP:Personal attack on this project if you can't provide explicit examples of a person violating a behavioural guideline. At the very least a deeply perplexing and troubling inability to WP:AGF. So let's back this away from the personal and actually look at the issues. You might want to especially reconsider your words after you go back reread through this thread and see that I made clear from my very first post that the material I was talking about with regard to copyviolation was the image. You misinterpreted what I said in my second post here, and assumed I was suggesting that the prose section was a direct copyright (even though, if you look closely you will see that I also addressed that already too) and then when I explicitly went through the trouble of making that point explicitly clear to you, so we'd be on the same page, you use that as some sort of launching point to attack me for supposedly trying to manipulate you? Believe friend, I choose my words very carefully on this project and for maximum clarity and specificity as to what I am talking about. I'm not trying to "slip one past you" (how would that even work?) so please calm down.

B) Now, getting back to the actual issues... Discussing which amount of material can and cannot be retained in light of our content policies is a regular and basic part of the RfC analysis process. As to WP:NFCI2, at the risk of raising your ire again, I'm just going to say that your stance here (that using this image in this way cannot be construed as a violation of "respect for commercial opportunity"--as a general concept and especially under our policies) suggests that your understanding of the relevant common law on the matter is limited. And anyway, this is only one of many reasons we have placed strong limits on "fair use" arguments on Wikipedia. Our WP:NFC policy is clear: the image must clearly pass each test, not just the ones you feel you can make a good argument for. And never did I say that this image was the only content that needs to go for inconsistency with basic policy. Once again, if you look above, you'll see that I note that basically not even a stub's-worth of content is presently sourced to anything that approaches an WP:RS.

C) That's the sum total of my perspective on this. I'm going to leave it at that for the present time, as the climate here is feeling, frankly, a little WP:BATTLEGROUND and anyway, I think the main issues are all a matter of record; anyone further responding can take a good look at the article and the sources and decide which of us is calling this correctly with regard to policy. If response remains low in the coming days, we can relist and/or post a request on WP:RSN. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:52, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craftsman furniture[edit]

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

Non-notable subject CerealKillerYum (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawal CerealKillerYum (talk) 15:42, 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 as this is enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre St.-Jean[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable weight-lifter. Quis separabit? 02:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per below Snow ^{let's rap} 06:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC) (Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. The mere two sources for this tiny stub are probably not RS and even if they are, the mention is incidental as best and does nothing to establish the level of notability necessary for an article. Even the article doesn't suggest a notability higher than winning tenth in his weight class at the Olympics in 1968. If some speculation can be forgiven, this seems like a WP:Vanity page made by someone who might know this gentleman and wanted to preserve mention of him here, or wanted to do something respectful for him. But whatever the motive, I can't see an argument for being able to keep it, certainly not under present sourcing. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Not sure about the second source you're referring to but the website of the International Olympic Committee is clearly a reliable source for the events of the Olympic Games. Hut 8.5 16:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject competed in the summer Olympic Games in 1964, 1968 and 1976, which is more than enough to pass WP:NOLYMPICS. Although it's not in the article he also won three medals at the Commonwealth Games (silver in 1962, gold in 1966 and bronze in 1970) and two bronze medals at the Pan American Games (1963 and 1967).[23] It isn't hard to find contemporary press coverage of his career either - [24] [25] [26] [27] etc. Granted the article isn't very long, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Hut 8.5 16:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the newspapers do put a bit on the fence now. I just don't know if a few short pieces in some local papers really are sufficient to establish real, lasting notability. On the other hand, at least the articles are all about him, not just incidental mentions. Ehh...might swing my vote on this one based on the new sourcing. Will think on it. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just what I found in a few minutes on Google News, there may well be other sources available in offline newspaper libraries. I wouldn't expect newspapers from the 1960s to be particularly freely available on the internet. WP:BIO doesn't actually distinguish between local/national coverage, and it looks like virtually all newspapers in Canada are local or regional so the distinction breaks down somewhat. The Montreal Gazette is one of the larger newspapers in the country. The subject does also meet the relevant subject-specific notability guideline. Hut 8.5 10:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, alright, good enough. I'm still not doing cartwheels over any particular source, but putting all of the new material together, I guess it does collectively make at least a minimalist argument for notability. Changing !vote. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering. Hut 8.5 20:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple times an Olympian, even taking the Oath on behalf of the athlete's in 1976, plus a medallist at the Commonwealth Games. Comfortbly passes WP:NOLYMPICS and I'm sure with 30 seconds of searching would also pass WP:GNG - Basement12 (T.C) 22:34, 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 speedily deleted per WP:G7 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canon TrueType Font Pack[edit]

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

Unsourced; notability highly questionable; at most merge into Canon Inc. or TrueType. General Ization ^Talk 02:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find nothing online about this font pack. Without sources, this article cannot stand. One could merge a one line summary into e.g., List of Canon products#Software, but we'd still need a reference verifying it. --Mark viking (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Even if a source could be dug up somewhere for this, it'd still be non-notable. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to speedy delete per G7, author blanked the page and requested deletion. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:05, 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 speedy keep. criteria #6, article is linked on the main page . (non-admin closure) JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Near[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable in all respects. Quis separabit? 02:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I too cannot find any published sources that give any reasonable coverage of her. Jolly Ω Janner 07:59, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Villanovas[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Trivial coverage in local newspapers or non-notable publications. The same sources were listed multiple times through the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not meeting any criteria for WP:NBAND at this time. Appears to have only released a non-notable EP and one non-charting single.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now and Draft if needed as there's some sources listed but it's still questionably enough for a solid article. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in searches to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 26 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvraj Kumar[edit]

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

non-notable actor. Greek Legend (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find sources other than the one mentioned in the article. Seems WP:BLP1E to me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:16, 26 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zetamar Lighting[edit]

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

No news about this organization. Fails WP:COMPANY. Greek Legend (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing obviously better. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding source coverage to qualify an article, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:15, 26 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 The Villanovas. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Smith-Daniels[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the sources cited don't even mention Brett Smith-Daniels. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be independently notable. Potentially delete and redirect to The Villanovas should that meet notability guidelines.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to The Villanovas as this could simply be saved and moved to the band article, he's still overall questionable for solid independent notability and none of this seems convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zonal Welfare Council[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is actually an NGO as claimed in the article and there are no mention in any other independent source. Greek Legend (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are directory listings, dead links or do not mention the organization at all. Might qualify for speedy -- the content has not changed much since the previous discussion. utcursch | talk 15:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully concur, unless suitable coverage can be found, perhaps in Bengali? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete again as I along with other AfD frequenters said Delete in October and frankly there's nothing imaginably better yet. If need be, restart the article with WP:Articles for creation) (It will likely be me who reviews it also anyway....). Still questionable for better notability and improvements, SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 26 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Los Matadores Del Genero[edit]

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

non-notable compilation album damiens.rf 23:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NALBUMS, remains unsourced, search reveals blogs, youtube links, and streaming/download sites without any WP:RS discussions.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionably better for an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:13, 26 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. per CSD A9: Article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where no articles exist for the artists, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Week: The Visual Album[edit]

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

Notability. There is clearly a vast push to create articles about this fundamentally insignificant wannabe; Yes there are 'sources', but they are all from niche publications & imo do not establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A9 as there is no article for band and the articles for the two artists have been deleted via AfD.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:21, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mesropyan Mger[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. I couldn't find anything in news. And this article starts as Mger Mesropyan which was deleted. Mger Mesropyan Greek Legend (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nom originally didn't bother with a rationale so thus I closed as Speedy Keep ... they've now decided to revert and provide a reason so instead of reclosing I'm just gonna relist, –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better at all so unless convincing coverage is found, there's nothing to suggest this can be kept. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding source coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources to show they pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge as this is enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Always and for Real[edit]

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

Non-notable album. I tried a merger proposal in talk page, but almost no one discussed the album and the music duo. Content without tracklist is already copied to Adeaze. George Ho (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the album apparently was number 1 on the New Zealand charts, thus seeming to meet WP:NALBUM. Merger might be a good option, but I'm not sure I see an argument for deletion.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I don't necessarily agree with deleting the page for reasons Mojo Hand noted. I'd like to see it merged with Adeaze. Meatsgains (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this article would be best merged into Adeaze - not significant by itsself NealeFamily (talk) 02:28, 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 Revert as this seems convincing enough to close and there are apparently no solid Delete votes (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CodeFuel[edit]

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

The page was initially "Conduit" on 3 January 2015 and "Conduit toolbar" until 20 August 2015. Both Conduit and "Conduit toolbar" was notable. On 2 October 2015, the page was moved from another new name, Conduit (publisher network and platform) to CodeFuel, which doesn't makes sense as CodeFuel is a different product of Perion Network and nothing to do with the toolbar. The Conduit was merged with Perion and nothing to do with CodeFuel. A new page, Conduit (company) was created on 7 May 2015‎ which is itself the toolbar company along with a few new products. It is clear that page was strategically renamed 4 times to give an advantage and separate the negative news about the toolbar. See Techcrunch.

CodeFuel is clearly Delete and redirect, looking at the references, they all are about Toolbar which is Conduit (company). This page is renamed 4 times in a year, which looks very suspicious however still this page is clearly a delete. CodeFuel can be redirected to Perion and "Conduit toolbar" can be redirected to Conduit (company). Kavdiamanju (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perion. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to Coduit toolbar. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to a much earlier version and rename back to the tool bar. What we have here is an attempt to whitewash Conduit, but does not appear to be based on any genuine source that codeFuel is the same as Conduit. After all Conduit tool bar was the notable thing, and any live as CodeFuel does not seem to be notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In particular revert to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CodeFuel&oldid=682201846 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to previous and move to Conduit (toolbar) Just because the product/company has been discontinued doesn't mean the article ceases to contain valid information. Given the nature of the software and the constant renaming, it appears to be an attempt to make information about the toolbar more difficult to find. The current article appears to have been whitewashed and contains lines such as "Some antimalware tools find this program PUP. In fact, this program is only protecting a default factory settings of Internet Explorer by asking for an explicit user's permission." Such statements contradict the well-established fact that Conduit is considered PUP/malware and there are several sources to back up the malware claim. Talk:CodeFuel indicates COI whitewashing too. Elaenia (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Conduit (toolbar), the nature of the edits is very clear, as suggested revert to the previous version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CodeFuel&oldid=682201846 Nik.gourley (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close and Revert to the original toolbar nameology. As suggested by Graeme Bartlett, there is an ongoing chain of edits by some users causing one to have the idea that something is questionable. I am having the impression that someone is involved and prone to behave in an untrustworthy manner. Reverting to the earlier version will mostly resolve the issues raised by the nominator. Revert to Conduit (toolbar)Hurricaneginger21 (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert to Conduit (toolbar) version seems to a right decision. Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:15, 25 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, all in all, I was going to comment, but this seems enough to close for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ang Probinsyano guest cast[edit]

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

As a regular viewer of the series, I feel that it is kind of weird for me to nominate this for deletion. But this is an indiscriminate list of information, one that isn't notable enough for a separate article. At best the information here could simply be added to FPJ's Ang Probinsyano (possibly without a redirect due to this article's title being grammatically off). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User possibly created this as a separate article due to WP:LISTCRUFT. We could keep this as long as someone could improve the article to comply with Wikipedia standards. I noticed refimprove tag has already been added. User:VanHalers09 (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need to create a separate article just to list down guests of a TV series. -WayKurat (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly keep unless adding reliable sources for some guests who are part of the said TV drama. - Supergabbyshoe (talk2me) 13:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other notable TV series has separate articles to list down guest stars such as List of The Simpsons guest stars, List of The Love Boat guest stars, List of Futurama guest stars, List of Murder, She Wrote guest stars, List of Family Guy guest stars. The article needs improvement not deletion. -180.191.115.99 (talk) 9:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RedSpotGames[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Redspotgames

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

Promotion for non notable company bombarded with primary sources and passing mentions. Company lacks coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The page has been nominated for deletion before and people voted in favor of keeping the article. I would state here that nominator Duffbeerforme has not read through the references properly as 1up, Kotaku, Gamespot, Joystiq, Wired and several other reputable sources have been cited which clearly establish notability as well as credibility. These are not primary nor are they mentioning the company in passing. This is a waste of my time, instead of working on improving articles, we are redundantly discussing a page that has been previously cleared.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at your claim that "The page has been nominated for deletion before and people voted in favor of keeping the article." Start with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redspotgames. "The result was delete." Then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedSpotGames. "The result was no consensus." Would you please stick with the truth in the future. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I just assumed since we had a previous discussion it was ruled in rsg's favour. My bad. However your claim of it being bombarded with primary references and passing mentions is also wrong.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A video game publisher of notable games does not mean the publisher is notable. Of the sources listed, Wired, Engadget and GameSpot are reliable and notable. But this one and that one by Engadget are pretty much the same - hell, they were published a day apart. The GameSpot piece covers the same as Engadget. Wired's piece is different though. So out of 31 references, there are essentially two that are reliable. That does not meet WP:GNG and does not mean there should be an article on RedSpotGames. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why only two are reliable?

Just because multiple references discuss the same thing? That reinforces the reference not discredit.
Because they were posted on a short window? That is because the company was interviewed at GamesCom. That's like discrediting movie articles stemming from ComicCon. That is when websites report on them.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it discredits the reference, I'm saying we need more than two websites reporting on the same event. You're comparing apples and oranges, but to go with your example: if ten websites say the exact same thing from a ComicCon panel, we wouldn't include that either. More importantly, I said that out of 31 references, two are reliable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if you don't mind can you tell me why they are unreliable? I understand that only a few sources meet the list of approved references, but the other ones fit the situational references criteria. Also context matters, what are the references used for, I think within the context they are reliable.

I think more pressing concerns is that it isn't written really well and needs to be rewritten. If you'd like to help me become a better Wikipedian and write better, let's collaborate and rewrite it.
The second problem is that I have a close connection with it's subject. I personally don't see that as a problem as I feel I did not write a bias article. I acknowledged all their shortcomings. It isn't like I wrote an article hiding all the bad press, they have accumulated over the years.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Cube b3 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Note to closing admin: Cube b3 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.

If the company has produced notable games, it will be notable. INHERIT is only an essay, and it has long been consensus that its reasoning does not apply to the relationship between creative works and their authors. There are several SNG to that effect. No comment yet on whether the games are notable. The article does not look like an advert to me. James500 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All their games are notable as they set the precedent of quality expected from indie games. Their last game Sturmwind won Classic Game Room's game of the year award.--Cube b3 (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If the company has produced notable games, it will be notable." Not so. Several SNGs have such a relationship. WP:CORP does not. That relationship does not extend to everyone that works on the products. Jim Smith is notable if his book gets lots of major reviews, his publisher does not inherit that notability. Jane Doe is notable if her song tops the charts, her record company does not inherit that notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but videogame developers are not like authors. The publisher gets a larger share of the notability. When consumers go to Game Convention and GamesCom and they see Redspotgames booth there with everyone wearing Redspotgames T-Shirts they association is greater, do you understand what I am trying to say?

Look at this news post here:

http://segabits.com/blog/2010/08/11/dreamcast-indie-dev-expanding-showing-a-game-at-gamescon/

I found another one here from a reliable video game source.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/redspotgames-website-revamped-online-home-for-publisher-of--among-other-things--dreamcast-revival-release-last-hope

They are simply talking about a redesign of their website. Why would they do that if they thought the publisher was not notable?--Cube b3 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC) --Cube b3 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example. When Sturmwind was revealed nationally on German television it was the publisher who was invited to the set and the bulk of the segment was spent on just discussing the publisher.

Also when consumers items were not shipped in a timely manner, or their orders arrived broken. It was the publisher that was criticized:

http://www.dreamcast-scene.com/news/sturmwind-sold-out/--Cube b3 (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.thedreamcastjunkyard.co.uk/2013/05/sturmwind-where-are-you.html

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous Afd has a fairly good discussion as well. More people participated here are some more references I found through the talk:

Keep I found the following secondary sources which help establish this topic's notability.

Game Informer - Dreamcast Not Dead – New Release Set For 2010
Wired - New Dreamcast Games Coming This Spring
GamePro - New Dreamcast Title in 2009
GameSpot - GC 2008: They Are Still Making Dreamcast Games
Engadget - Redspotgames has plans for further Dreamcast development
1Up - Rush Rush Rally Racing Coming to Sega Dreamcast
Computer and Video Games - Dreamcast releases still planned into 2011
TGDaily - German developer is reviving the Dreamcast
Gamesradar - German TV show reveals a new Dreamcast game
Computer and Video Games - New Dreamcast game revealed
Kotaku - On German TV, They've Unveiled A New Dreamcast Game Note: Kotaku is listed as "situational" at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources depending on the author of the article. In this case, Stephen Totilo is a published author on video games.[28]
Game Set Watch - Sturmwind: First Trailer For New Dreamcast Euroshmup Note: Listed as reliable at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources.
Game Set Watch - Sturmwind: New Shoot'em Up Announced For Dreamcast
GameSpot - GC 2008: They Are Still Making Dreamcast Games

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube b3 (talk • contribs) [reply]

the proceeding !vote was posted by Cube b3, not by A Quest For Knowledge. It's the same bombardment of sub standard sources that already exists in the article. Nothin new here. Just a bunch of passing mentions, pr rehashes and non reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote above it that I just found it from the previous AfD and thought I share it.--Cube b3 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have combed through almost all references in the article. I seem to be having problem with the dates or something. Could you have a look and see what is wrong? Also while you are doing that could you read the references that have errors. You will notice they are reliable, notable and not passing.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've further [[WP:BOMBARD|bombarded] it with more substandard references. Passing mentions, PR rehashes.

On the dates, that was mostly Zero-padding. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 17th I spent a lot of time on the article. I tried revising my grammar, make the article read better and I went through the previous AfD found some notable references there and added a few in. There are a ton more references that we can find using the custom Google search engine.Cube b3 (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing the publisher RedSpotGames, not their games. The sources you've provided are announcements of new games, with RedSpotGames as the publisher, and that's it. That does not make it a notable company. There's no in-depth information to be found, no analysis, interviews or something. The fact that they're publishing and distributing notable games, does not make them automatically notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was the publisher that received an endorsement from Sega of Germany on GamesCom 13 years ago. 5 years ago Sega of America formally endorsed them live on Destructoid. How is that not notable?

Simply take notice of the fact that redspotgames was unlicensed, yet they still received an endorsment by the company.

I would say Redspotgames is more notable than other Dreamcast publishers such as Conspiracy Entertainment, [[D3 Publisher, Success (company), Xicat Interactive just to list a few examples. I can go through the Dreamcast publisher pages and find this one much more notable.

I also just added a reference of the time they sponsored several Formula BMW events and made Lassi Halminen there spokesperson.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cube, I think you should consider stepping back fro a while until you take some time to understand what makes something notable. An "endorsement" from a business and sponsoring an event do not help. The have a read of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically about Wikipedia:Othercrapexists, a poor argument you keep pulling out. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as the current article seems convincingly informative and sourced. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, this one is basically It looks good. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:32, 26 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. I will userfy the article upon request. MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PlayableGames[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Looking through the custom Google WP:VG/RS search engine, there are three results. Does not merit its own article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There also isn't much about them indicating notability through regular Google. -IagoQnsi (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Move to Draft - it has received coverage in the form of interviews at the video-game specialist sites Market for Home Computing and Video Games and Gamasutra, both listed as reliable sources at WP:VG/RS. Diego (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to use that word, but that is literally a total of two sources. How does that meet WP:GNG? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because they are in-depth and come from separate reliable sources which are independent of the subject. That is enough material to write a short article with reliable content, which is what notability is about. Diego (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've reviewed with more care the Gamasutra source, and it happens to mention PlayableGames only in passing; I thought the testing process it describes was specific to that group, but it is general. That content would be better suited for an article dedicated to Usability testing in video games. I've changed my not-vote, it makes more sense to move the article to Draft per WP:PRESERVE (the references should not be deleted as they could be used in such article). Diego (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft and Userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plug.dj[edit]

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

Notability dubious at best. Only one of the given sources is a reliable source, in relation to initial fundraising. Opinions may differ on this, but I lean to deletion, but clearly this warrants a discussion. Safiel (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A7: The article does not contain notable references and discusses a website that no longer exists. As a result, I agree that the article does not indicate significance.

G11: Article seems to be pushing premium features, other various aspects of website, and is not written in neutral tone. Also, the article both does not contain notable references and discusses a website that no longer exists. Finally, it appears to be forcing people who search for turntable.fm to link to it as a form of click-jacking self-promotion.

Sirzoop (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving and hiding a discussion not directly relevant to deletion of the article. Safiel (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article clearly makes enough of a claim of significance to overcome CSD A7 and is not blatant spam, which negates CSD G11. However, it is very doubtful the subject meets the notability guidelines. I declined speedy deletion as it is not the proper process to use in this situation. Articles for Deletion is the proper process, as this needs to be discussed by the community. Safiel (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment I have also declined CSD within the last 24 hours from another IP. I don't believe it meets A7, or G11 but I'm not sure it's notable. SQL ^{Query me!} 10:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] I think that the article does not show a level of significance. Just because it is not blatant spam does not mean it is significant. Plug.DJ existed only for a few years and it is already shut down. It also does not appear to have many credible sources. Wikipedia is not the place for dead websites that no longer exist. Sirzoop (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment Only a credible CLAIM of significance is required to overcome CSD A7. It is not required that the subject actually BE significant to avoid speedy deletion under CSD A7. I merely has to make a credible claim of significance, which this article does. Once a credible claim of significance is made, speedy deletion is off the table. WP:A7 further explains the requirements for speedy deletion under CSD A7. From there on, deletion must be pursued by using either Proposed Deletion WP:PROD or Articles for Deletion WP:AFD. Under both processes, the ACTUAL notability of the subject is used in determining whether the article is kept or deleted. That is why this article could not be deleted under speedy deletion, but instead must be deleted, in this case, under Articles for Deletion. Safiel (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment Also, the fact that something no longer exists is irrelevant to determining its notability. Safiel (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment This essay may be of help as well Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. Safiel (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving and hiding a discussion not directly relevant to deletion of the article. Safiel (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article clearly makes enough of a claim of significance to overcome CSD A7 and is not blatant spam, which negates CSD G11. However, it is very doubtful the subject meets the notability guidelines. I declined speedy deletion as it is not the proper process to use in this situation. Articles for Deletion is the proper process, as this needs to be discussed by the community. Safiel (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also declined CSD within the last 24 hours from another IP. I don't believe it meets A7, or G11 but I'm not sure it's notable. SQL ^{Query me!} 10:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article does not show a level of significance. Just because it is not blatant spam does not mean it is significant. Plug.DJ existed only for a few years and it is already shut down. It also does not appear to have many credible sources. Wikipedia is not the place for dead websites that no longer exist. Sirzoop (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only a credible CLAIM of significance is required to overcome CSD A7. It is not required that the subject actually BE significant to avoid speedy deletion under CSD A7. I merely has to make a credible claim of significance, which this article does. Once a credible claim of significance is made, speedy deletion is off the table. WP:A7 further explains the requirements for speedy deletion under CSD A7. From there on, deletion must be pursued by using either Proposed Deletion WP:PROD or Articles for Deletion WP:AFD. Under both processes, the ACTUAL notability of the subject is used in determining whether the article is kept or deleted. That is why this article could not be deleted under speedy deletion, but instead must be deleted, in this case, under Articles for Deletion. Safiel (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, the fact that something no longer exists is irrelevant to determining its notability. Safiel (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This essay may be of help as well Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. Safiel (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was suspecting I was going to !vote for deletion, but this is an undeniably reliable reference covering the subject in some detail. There is also another Tech Crunch article. This discusses the subject in some detail, but I deem it an unreliable, self published source whose prose style hardly inspires confidence. A source called "Radio Survivor" has a couple of articles [29] [30] featuring the service, but I am unable to ascertain its reliability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by secondary sources. Also, apparently not dead yet. Blackguard 01:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Moved Notability by secondary sources. More reliable sources can be added because it does not hurt to add more sources given that it is reliable. Removal should not be biased that the website is no longer functional. Another possible suggestion, move to Draft:plug.dj so that more reliable sources can be added to the page. Although it would be kind of farfetched. Azndrumsticks (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one except for one person in here had actually searched for sources. I took some of my time out to find a bunch of sources. Some may not be reliable alone but can be justified with another source. [1] [2] [3] All 3 talks about why plug.dj shut down. Radio survivor appears to be a blog so I wouldn't use it as a source by itself. [4] Talks about the budget it previously gained. [5] Another Radio Survivor one. [6] hypebot appears to be a blog like radio survivor but both are not related in anyways besides the fact that both are talking about plug.dj [7] A Magazine called PCDays that is Czech. The translated content talks about Dubtrack.fm being the new plug.dj [8] Tech co appears to be a blog. May or may not be reliable. [9] Vator news talks about the budget plug.dj had received from investors. [10] PCDAYS Magazine in Czech. Translated contents talks about plug.dj closing down. [11] Considering this is a press release website i don't believe it is credible to a certain extent but it talks about Plug.dj. I think only a small portion is usable. [12] Talks about alternative to Apple music and spotify and Plug.dj is listed on there. [13] It is in spanish, talks about anyone can be a dj in the party relating to plug.dj [14] This one is Lifehacker India. Might not be reliable considering Best is potentially biased but it has possibly usable information. [15] Lifehacker Japan talks about functional purpose of Plug.Dj [16] Lightly talks about plug.dj. [17] Only a speckle mention of plug.dj on this reliable new source. [18] Radio Survivor, talks about Online Music Room Communities. [19] Um, another radio survivor. Mentions plug.dj only 3 times. Might not be usable. [20] This is in Japanese. The translated content talks about Plug.Dj and turntable.fm [21] rolling stone mentioned plug.dj in one paragraph at the bottom. [22] This one is in spanish, talks about dubtrack.fm because plug.dj shutted down. [23] Talks about plug.dj shutting down. [24] A blog that might contain bias. [25]Pando talks about plug.dj [26] Another tech.co talking about plug.dj All in all, I found at least 26 sources with a quarter of them being blogs. A lot were lifehacker(or country variants) and Radio Survivor. The sources should not be mostly one or two sources but, with these sources (of course checking again for bias) i have found with a mere search it is potentially sufficient. Azndrumsticks (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft and Userfy instead as this may be best if work is continuously needed because this is currently questionable for itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 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. Deleting all of them per consensus. MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Top 40 of 1980[edit]

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

Simply WP:IINFO, plus title of article is not clearly depicting what the list is about. A more specific title, from what I gather about this list, would be something like "List of Billboard Hot 100 top 40 singles in 1980". Nevertheless, we have lists for number-one singles and top 10 singles on the Hot 100, and we don't need to be creating lists for additional, arbitrary depths of the chart. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add these related articles, with the same rationale for deletion:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't defend its existence but it was created as a split-off from the main music articles, in which it formed a superfluous section. Deb (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as WP:IINFO. I think we're stretching it with the top 10 list. There may as well be a list of every song that reached the Billboard Hot 100 should these stay. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. WP:IINFO, specifically #3. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this seems questionable and may be best merged to a larger article. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - arbitrary cut-off points. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:09, 26 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) 06:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Jakobsen[edit]

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

This article seems not to live up to wikipedia guidelines for notability - the two articles in english publications are not profile stories about the subject.. Furthermore it seems there might be a conflict of interest with the main contributors of this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MM09MV & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Prest.beat.stevens). The two users have not made contributions to any other articles and have cited sources only available in print from both big and small newspapers in Denmark. Thelle Kristensen 10:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator. No reliable sources able to prove notability. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:25, 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.