< 1 March	3 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 keep. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Lloyd[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Starred in one or two minor movies (out of 18 IMDb credits), but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Actually Imdb isn't 100% accurate. There are 6 credited roles on Imdb, there but Imdb is missing one other that she was credited for. Out of those 6 roles on Imdb, 2 she was one of the main actors and in another, Song of the Saddle she was actually the co star. She was a credited actress in 3 more. The problem is, that when people create pages for a person or film, they need to put in a bit more info so that it makes it easier for others to see where the notability may be. Doesn't take that long actually. Karl Twist (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Odd that the article doesn't mention that she was the daughter of director Frank Lloyd. The press did give Alma some attention at various times: "Warners Sign Director's Kin", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jul 30, 1935; "Director Lloyd Is No Hero to His Daughter", Chicago Tribune, March 13, 1936; her wedding notices and photo in various papers around the country such as [1][2]. And she did star in at least one film, The Big Noise (1936) [3]. A marginal career to be sure, but I think our paperless encyclopedia has room for such sourceable content about old time actors. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her father is famous, not her especially, so WP:NOTINHERITED applies. And even if we really stretch and call The Big Noise a significant production, that's just the one. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference is IMDb, which is not reliable. Majority of her roles were uncredited. Maybe redirect to her father, Frank Lloyd. JDDJS (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as soon as I saw this I recognized her from magazines that I've read over the years. A couple had spreads on her. Yes she never achieved stardom but she had prominent roles in a few films. In some tv guides that have a short list of the main actors she was listed in the short list. She had a prominent role as Mary in Jimmy and Sally, the 1933 film directed by James Tinling. She also had similar as Sandra in the William C. McGann directed Freshman Love. She was a co-star in the Song of the Saddle directed by Louis King. She played the part of Jen. She also had good roles in I Married a Doctor and a smaller than usual role in 1938 with If I Were King. Yes her career fizzed out and she had more uncredited parts than credited ones. Problem with her, she was picked for a degree of stardom and had potential. She could act but was (possibly) too pretty to be taken seriously as a character actress. There are reasons for those actors with potential no making it but I won't go into that because I don't know what (if there were in her case) other forces that held her back. What I do know that she had recognition in the beginning and was picked for greater things. If I were a bookie back in the day I would have picked her as a favorite. Her good roles, the few she had makes her notable. The article needs a good amount of work so I might have a go at improving it when I have some time. Karl Twist (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In addition to the newspaper coverage that someone has already mentioned, she has quite a few mentions in movie history books. If the article can't be kept I would recommend merging with her father's article, however my impression is that she had just enough of a career to create confusion if she's simply mentioned/ incorporated with her father. TheBlinkster (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect. Gosh, this one's on the bubble, isn't it? But it's a good nom. She doesn't meet the standard, and I can't find anything else notable in her career or later life. I'd say merge over into a paragraph in Frank Lloyd. --Lockley (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the newspapers and magazines coverage mentioned being reliable sources, and the subject has had some prominent roles, and was once thought of as an up and coming star, I think WP:BASIC is passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes Atlantic306, you summed it up. Yes she was thought of at the time as up and coming star. And she received coverage as such. Also if we look at advertisements for some of the films she had billing in, The Big Noise at the Brooklyn Theatre as advertised in the Evening Post - March 13,1937, the stars listed in order were Guy Kibbee, Alma Lloyd and Warren Hull. In October 1936 at The Roxy and Tivoli in New Zealandd, as per the Auckland Star - 1 October 1936, Dick Foran, Guy Kibbee, Alma Lloyd, Mariee Wilson, Henry O'Neil. Same here years later at the Democratic Underground website TCM Schedule for Friday, April 26, 2013 -- Friday Night Spotlight: A Woman's World. The film Song of the Saddle that played at Regent Rangiora in New Zealand, advertised in The Press - 5 December 1936, she was listed as co-star. Quite a bit more too. Karl Twist (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources in the article show that she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as she passes WP:ACTORBIO on the grounds of multiple notable performaces. While she may not starred in any Oscar winners, her career was prolific enough to warrant her an artcle. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 02:07, 12 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. TomStar81 has already speedy deleted this page (G4: (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, WP:XFD) (non-admin closure) Vipinhari || talk 14:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Matriarch Agency[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The only sites I could find were the company's own, and there is no news that I found on it. Fails multiple WP:ORG requirements: no independent coverage or inherent notability. It also seems that a June 2015 PROD on this was closed with consensus to delete, and so it has been recreated. GAB^Hello! 23:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per arguments made above by nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayestron (singer)[edit]

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

No reliable, independent coverage, and fails WP:BIO generally. Only sites I could find appear to be operated by him (social media, Soundcloud, etc.) GAB^Hello! 21:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Hasn't even released an album yet. JDDJS (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. ubiquity (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Page's only reference is to a wordpress blog. Meatsgains (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only locally known it seems, nothing at all satisfying the applicable notability. Notifying Wikicology for local analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I can't see any credible claim of significance. Wikipedia is not a social media. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - My left leg has more swag than him .... and I'd imagine it's more notable too, Anyway personal opinions aside I can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 9 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Victorian Secular Lobby, Inc[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable, local, secularist organization. Article was created by the organization president after an external link to the organization was repeatedly added to (and then removed from) the "list of secularist organizations". The article is sourced mostly with non-independent sources. The only independent sources (rationalist.com.au and progressiveathiests.org) are trivial mentions. I have searched Google Books, Google Scholar and Google News for other mentions and nothing non-trivial comes up. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Association has been mentioned in the news (specifically 'The Age' newspaper), has contributed to the Victorian Parliaments select committees. Given that the organisation is the newest among secular groups in the country and that most of the activities involves lobbying politicians and sourcing reporters directly, it is perhaps not surprising that there is not as much media coverage. The article was only created less than 12 hours ago, so there is more content that needs to be added.

Perhaps it would also be good to get an expert on Victorian secular groups to contribute to this discussion.Lev Lafayette (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability here at all, and press quotes and parliamentary submissions do not notability make. Heck, I personally come closer to meeting GNG than these people. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if this is a new group that has not had much impact yet and not gotten the secondary sources required to push past the WP:GNG, then it shouldn't be the subject of an article yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:47, 6 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). Given that there is no obvious consensus on the page move, I'll leave it where it is to allow for further discussion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IZY[edit]

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

Not a notable company. It was just announced, and they haven't even started yet. PROD was removed by article creator. JDDJS (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Err, I know it hasn't started yet. However, the launch has been on the news in much of France and Belgium. Give it time!

Also there was the Ouigo article introduced before the service has even started, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ouigo&oldid=539532783 which was written on the 21st February and was started on the 2nd April. Plus, it has a French language version of the page. 159753 (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but move to Izy in line with refs above). It isn't a company at all, so the nomination doesn't make sense. I just checked WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and I can't spot that any part of it would apply in this case. Qwfp (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Qwfp. As I said earlier while it hasn't started, there are concrete plans to service especially since it is only a month away. Although I disagree with you on the name in capitals, Thalys promotional literature does put in all upper case. https://www.thalys.com/be/en/about-thalys/izy 159753 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For all the reasons given above. Slasher-fun (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women Who Code Delhi[edit]

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

Not a notable company. JDDJS (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable non profit. Meatsgains (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of this comes close to establishing solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's wonderful that women in the IT business can support each other. However, this particular group do not seem notable to non-members. Thuresson (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination is slightly misleading as It's not a company, User:JDDJS. It's a non-profit organisation. AusLondonder (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nestor (film)[edit]

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

WP:NOTFILM reddogsix (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film with no credible claim of notability under our inclusion criteria for films (screening at one minor film festival does not get a film into Wikipedia in and of itself) and no reliable sourcing to support it (all of the references here are either primary sources or blogs.) As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which every creative project in existence gets to have an article just because it exists; notability and RS coverage must be shown. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator -- none of the criteria under WP:NOTFILM are met here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Coast Brands[edit]

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

Advert masquerading as an article, most sources aren't reliable, and so fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a local company with obviously only passing mentions not to mention a press release, simply none of this comes close to even general notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:CORP. The only references with non-PR reliable sources are about their legal problems. John Nagle (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from press releases, there isn't much on the company. Elaenia (talk) 04:59, 9 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. Jimfbleak has already speedy deleted this page (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) Vipinhari || talk 16:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent Machines[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. The notability of this game that hasn't been released can't be known now. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, unsourced BLP--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anika Knudsen[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable individual. Quis separabit? 20:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article's subject does not meet WP:GNG. Additionally, under WP:BOLP, the article contains poorly sourced matierial -- the only source is IMDb, which should only be used for "hard data on released films" -- "which should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", according to set guidelines. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Great American Beast[edit]

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

Contested prod for a band for which I could not find any RSes to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching for info on the band I only found a few references, one isn't even about the band but an independent wrestler: [4], the other an interview with the head of the band's former record label where they are mentioned for a moment: [5]. I would says none of this shows how they meet WP:BAND. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I deprodded this based on the following sources which I beleive demonstrate notability: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] ~Kvng (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

responding to those sources in order, from the ridiculous to the OK (none strong)

a forum on german dating site? i can only say wtf to you bringing that, Kvng
lambgoat seems marginal-y
testwood is an SPS but the owner seems expert
noisecreep seems like an independent site about hardcore, i guess
exclaim does seem pretty good, although let's be clear, it is canada and Toronto at that.

these sources are not ragingly strong at all. my !vote has not changed, but it could if someone generates good content from decent sources. Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I can't tell if the several references Kvng cites are important or significant sources. They may all be glorified music blogs with little weight or influence. But I don't know for sure. If they do "save" this page they need to be incorporated with the article. Until that happens I am voting delete but will change with more convincing. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I am saying this because the Exclaim! review, only.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scrapes by WP:MUSIC with two releases on Trustkill Records and the sourcing given above (Exclaim is international coverage, and I agree that the case would be weaker without it). Chubbles (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the improved sources of Exclaim and Noisecreep, reliable sources enable WP:GNG to be just passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough reliable sources have been provided to just pass WP:BAND. The article gives enough information about the band's successes to prove it's notability. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether or not this band satisfies WP:BAND is borderline; whether it meets the source guidelines is a matter of personal judgment, though it flat out fails all other notability criteria (no major albums, semi-notable record label, no awards, etc.). In light of this, deletion seems most appropriate. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 02:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Bresler[edit]

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

Article lists only 2 sources total, both of which are either IMDB or self-published, which is against WP:CITEIMDB and WP:SELFPUB as established Wikipedia essays or policies. Google Books, Google News, Google Newspaper Archive, and Google Scholar make passing mentions, if he's listed at all. A further search on HighBeam for "Doug Bresler" returns 0 results. These would strongly indicate the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG, nor WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. GauchoDude (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that this article would never have come to administrative attention if the whole battle over "Coo" had not started. Should an article be ranked any lower simply because it has recently had more activity? 107.77.232.190 (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Recent (or lack of) activity has no bearing on article quality or notability criteria, the second being addressed above. GauchoDude (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and none of this solidly satisfies any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, check the edits by the last editor. I see he was banned for sockpuppetry but the article might be more credible now. 166.173.251.200 (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For me personally, quantity does not equal quality. While Mr. Bresler was mentioned in all of the non-interview articles, they all seemed to be passing mentions while the bulk of the article was focused on the work being created. Perhaps the best solution is to redirect Doug Bresler to the Doogtoons article if that is where the notability is. GauchoDude (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he seems to be a prolific contributor to the field of cartoons, with his own studios and has won a number of awards. The improved sources discuss him enough for WP:BASIC to be passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The awards listed on his page, which are currently unsourced and subject to removal via WP:BOLD and WP:BLPSOURCES, are also non-notable. As an extreme example, if a person were to win their high school prom's King or Queen, that's a non-notable award and just because they won has no bearing on if they should have an article or not. Again, for me, he fails WP:BASIC as very little to none of the articles listed are actually directly about him, moreso about his work. In light of this, in my opinion Doug Bresler shouldn't have a stand-alone article and it should be either deleted or merged into his work's article at Doogtoons. GauchoDude (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR. Not enough in-depth coverage for the first, not enough quality for the second, and clearly doesn't meet the parameters of the third. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. Remember that information in the article itself is not relevant in this discussion (minus sources, etc). Most of the content in the article is completely unreferenced and not even supported or discussed by the sources that are listed. There doesn't appear to be any in-depth coverage from secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which also means that the significant coverage requirement is also out. So GNG is not met. ANYBIO is also not met, as the person has not received a "well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". The article states that he has, but that information is completely unreferenced and I could find no reliable sources to assert that this information is true. And I also feel that NACTOR is also not met, as I see no sources that show that this person has played "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". In the end, I feel that this person is a personality and actor in non-notable media and with an overly inflated article with no references to support most of the content. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:25, 11 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. If one discounts the opinions by those apparently connected to or canvassed from the website, consensus is unanimous. Also protecting against recreation. Sandstein 18:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fudzilla[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG. Doing some searching finds nothing of real use. Not a comment on the site itself, but it hasn't generated enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass the criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You sound very much like you simply don't like the site. If you would apply that level of scrutiny to every article on the English Wikipedia, you would've to delete about 50% of the articles (like they do on the German Wikipedia) --BoMbY (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been to the site, so it is impossible for me to have a personal opinion. What I didn't find was sources to support the inclusion here, which is what policy here requires. To assume it is personal is wasting your time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Magus007: And how do you quantify enough? Fudzilla has been operating for nine years and is a respected hardware blog with a loyal fanbase and a good hit ratio. Stories are linked in other magazines and I fail to see how your "search" failed to spot them. Again this is not about whether inclusion should be based on WP:GNG but whether one person can conduct an suitable search before calling for a delete. Sites with a considerably lower profile have pages which are considerably longer than this modest effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magus007 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I appreciate your loyalty, but Wikipedia has a specific criteria for keeping articles that excludes things like fan base, years in service and such. See WP:BIG for examples. The actual WP:GNG is the core that gives all criteria their authority, so it is what we have to use to objectively look at what to keep and what not to keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] there are nearly 200 references to fudzilla on wikipedia, does that count for anything?46.244.169.20 (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse google hits with references. If the references isn't considered a reliable source via WP:RS and the coverage isn't significant, meaning the article is centered on the site and doesn't simply mention the site in passing, then the link is useless for establishing notability for our purposes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fudzilla has proven to be a good source of information and an early indicator of tech industry news. This falls into the same issue that Dennis spoke of above, but it does help illustrate that other credible new sources have referred to Fudzilla as a way of providing sourcing or credibility for their work. I hope that providing a few links will help add some value to the review of the site. Note, none of these are reviews of the site directly. I apologize if I have (most likely) done this wrong. New York Times 6 references ^[2] Wired Magazine 2 references ^[3] CNN 1 reference ^[4] Reuters 9 references ^[5] Bloomburg has 1 reference no longer available, this is google cached result ^[6] Ars Technical 175 references.^[7] A large portion is from the user forms, but that does show that its users do see Fudzilla as a resource. The user base show a variety of opinions on the quality of the information but following the story histories shows that Fudzilla often has it correct and is frequently one of the first sources. I hope this helps with the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GZva (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are several links to Fudzilla from another website - wccftech.com ^[8], which is often referenced from wikipedia articles ^[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpertbg (talk • contribs) 20:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It sounds that tech news is just not the specialty area of Mr. Brown. Unless one lives under a rock, everybody in the tech news business has heard of fudzilla. Graphics cards and Computer Chips, is a relevant and very large industry. In this field, fudzilla is not only a tech-news site but one of the most important firsthand sources. Thats right, it is not a simple Tech News aggregator, but it is a Source. Often it is the source for Articles written by bigger Sites like Yahoo Finance, ZDnet, WCCFtech, Fool.com, liliputing, because apparently fudzillas staff knows the Bars and Clubs of tech workers better than the mainstream media. Besides, it is an example of gonzo journalism very unique in the tech sector, often with its own language and literate style. Fudzilla inherited the Role of TheInquirer after the staff there changed and refocused to something else. Like TheInquirer, Fudzilla introduced quite a few neologisms which are in popular use by tech-forum culture and other tech sites. - ^[10] - ^[11] - ^[12] - ^[13] These are all articles where the Original source has been Fudzilla. Unless you don't know these websites, i suggest you rather stop editing Wikipedia Articles about the tech industry and stick to shakespeare ;) Maksdampf (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSER - Once again, Fudzilla is canvassing on their website to keep this article. [11] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One more article from independent source about Fudzilla ^[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpertbg (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep-delete: whatever. Who do you think you are to judge that a website is respectable or "gossip"? And even if you think you can, why is "E!" in your "Encyclopedia"? Last time I checked that's gossip. You even have entries for things as KLINGON LANGUAGE and KLINGON SHIPS, which DO NOT EXIST. But hey, you're the rulers of your walled garden, so do whatever you like. But please, don't expect to be deemed "respectable" (check your "encyclopedia" to see what respect is). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.227.57.78 (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - back to policy, and away from opinion and canvassing. Simply not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are a number of search results, it appears none of them are reliable sources suitable for establishing the website as notable. The previous AfD closed as 'delete' and was plagued by outside canvassing issues, forged signatures and votes from IP users, single purpose accounts, and other unwanted behavior. It appears similar issues are resurfacing in the current AfD too. Elaenia (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG (and the closing reason behind the first AFD nomination). There isn't significant coverage from secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject and cover this subject in-depth and as its primary focus. This is required in order to pass WP:GNG, and it does not. Also, note that they are canvassing votes here by discussing this AFD in their blog. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As was stated, it fails the general notability guidelines, and therefore has no place on Wikipedia. This fact is reinforced by the fact that the article is an orphan, and, most importantly, the overall lack of sources. If, as it seems, there is significant bias related to this article, I would also suggest creation protection to avoid a repeat of events. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 02:51, 12 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 451 group[edit]

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

Spam. Sources are unreliable, press releases or ordinary that don't establish notability. Created by SPA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage is only trivial and none of this is better convincing for applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 5 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daioh[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had few meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, leaving us with a KLOV listing, a Szczepaniak short article, and an empty AllGame listing. Nothing in the jawp article to help. I'd support a redirect to Athena (company). czar 19:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 20:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 4 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shkurte Sherbeti[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- as per rationale given by IJA above. --Mondiad (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still fails notability? 0 hits on Gbooks. The refs used in the article are unrealiable, as per RS-board. Merge content into List of Kachaks if you insist.--Zoupan 19:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How are the references unreliable? Are the published books which are used as references unreliable? If so please explain how. 0 google books searches means no books on google books, not 0 books on the topic. IJA (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malsia.eu and Albaniapress.com were deemed unreliable, as per other nationalistic sites. Dedushaj is obviously unreliable.--Zoupan 19:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Absolutely no notability: 6 hits for "Shkurte Sherbeti" -wikipedia on Google! And honestly, IJA and Mondiad, did you look at the references? None of them are published books. The two first are from malsia.eu and albaniapress.com. They are "openly Albanian nationalist" sources, not according to me, but according to User:Albanian Historian (the indef-banned editor who created this article), see here. The third reference? Please compare it with the first one. They are the same. Davey2010, please explain how this is meets GNG. 6 Google hits? I have more than 100, and I can assure you that I am not notable. --T*U (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- Having voted keep on a series of these AFDs on Albanian (or Kosovar) patriots, this is the one is the first where I have doubts. She seems to have fought to protect her village from Montenegrin soldiers, but without being a commander or particularly distinguished, except that fighters are usually men. This seems to have led to a statue being erected in the village. People who are notable locally are not necessarily WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability per T*U's above analysis. 23 editor (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while its creator's status is not a valid reason for deletion, the fact that this person doesn't meet WP:GNG is. Simply not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me}
Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if some knowledgeable editor should someday write/source a well-supported article. This one fails GNG standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Poindexter[edit]

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

Delete: WP:BLP1E. An ordinary banker/businessman with no encyclopedic notability whatsoever other than for discovering the body of a notable subject. Tenebrae (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the recent Scalia coverage and tangential coverage via Cibolo Ranch and his business activities, there's also his Vietnam Service and subsequent veteran advocacy (which resulted in his troop receiving the Presidential Unit Citation), and his attempt to purchase a chunk of national park. Stories include 2009 Forbes, 2006 Texas Monthly, 2010 Houston Biz Journal, 2005 Houston Chronicle, etc.^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 10:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to all of the press he received following Antonin Scalia's death, Poindexter has had press in San Antonio Express-News as well as all those mentioned above as he has been mostly successful acquiring a large amount of land in his luxury resort in West Texas. Optim.usprime (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"acquiring a large amount of land [for] his luxury resort in West Texas" is hardly encyclopedic. Real-estate developers acquire land every day. Additionally, tens of thousands of men and women served in Vietnam. That in itself is not encyclopedically noteworthy. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)--Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If his only event had been the discovery of Scalia -- even as a highly-quoted spokesman for the ranch -- then sure, BLP1E, and he could be redirected to the Ranch with a mention there of his company as the world's largest producer of commercial truck bodies since it doesn't otherwise appear particularly notable in terms of coverage. The coverage of his post-Vietnam activism which resulted in coverage of his Vietnam service is, however, in no way run-of-the mill. Interestingly, his doctoral thesis regarding Venture Capital looks like it's been reasonably well-cited per GScholar and GBooks. There's no BLP2E+ delete. It's a WP:NPOINTS keep. (My back-of-the-head rubric here is Is he likely to receive obituaries in major news sources, particularly non-Texan ones?) ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 08:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about "world's largest producer of commercial truck bodies" appears to unsupportable. See Talk:John B. Poindexter#WP:EXCEPTIONAL. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has (at least) 2 sources (Forbes and Houston Business Journal). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 03:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of which read like a press release, and neither of which provides any context. Remember, most small trucks have OEM bodies, most vocational trucks have, essentially, no bodies, and most big trucks use trailers. This is a niche market. Being big in it may be a reflection of the size of the pond, not the size of the frog.

(It's also a niche market in which Poindexter companies can and do sell to each other; if a buyer asks Reading to build a $10k body on a $5k Morgan trailer, Poindexter's sales overall would show $20k, not 15.)

Finally, looking through an Inc Magazine site of firms in this revenue range, I don't see that many owners or CEOs who have their wiki own page. Personally, I'm not sure this is a good idea, or a persistent wikifailing, but it does seem to be there. Anmccaff (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anmccaff: Thanks for that. I'll follow up (sometime...) on the article's talk page re wording for that claim and will ping you when I do. Re CEOs, if his business career were all that was documented, I don't think he'd qualify for an article (possibly redirect to the company, but it's not clear that that warrants an article either given how little coverage there is separate to him). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing WP:BLP1E, which says that "John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination *attempt*, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." John B. Poindexter was the last man to see Antonin Scalia alive, which is significant. The fact that Poindexter owned 100s of Millions of dollars worth of land, and he is a highly decorated Vietnam vet only indicates he already surpassed notability requirements. Optim.usprime (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the policy. If Poindexter had murdered Scalia, then fine. We don't do an article for every first responder who uncovers a celebrity's body.

Owning "100s of Millions of dollars worth of land" is not noteworthy in and of itself — if that could even be documented. And tens of thousands of men and women are decorated Vietnam veterans. Also not noteworthy in and of itself.

Let's also note that some of the primary editors involved in that article all appear to be the same individual. User:209.140.44.16 has just been blocked for trolling. Others involved include User:209.140.37.167 and User:209.140.36.15. I suspect this is the same as a registered user, since their nearly identical edits all reveal a single-purpose account evidently designed to leverage Scalia's death in order to promote this businessman. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't misunderstand the policy. John B. Poindexter was the man who, unquestionably, Discovered Antonin Scalia's body (2 , 3 , 4). Notably, Scalia's body underwent some very unorthodox procedures.. Cinderela Guevara was called, by Poindexter, and was willing to follow his direction after 2 other justices who were called by Poindexter refused to do so. And yes, Poindexter's land, as with any developed property exceeding 30,000 acres is easily worth over "100s of Millions of dollars worth of land". User:Tenebrae, please take the advice of User:Lzz, User:Chzz & User:La Pianista, take a deep breath, relax and think about the edits you've been making.. Your edit war with User:24.27.96.84 (talk) notwithstanding, your impulse to delete here and your logic to do so is impossible to follow. It does not make sense why you are so insistent on removing this man from wikipedia other than that you are singularly focused on that purpose. Optim.usprime (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, you do misunderstand the policy since we clearly don't do an article for every single first responder who uncovers a celebrity's body.

Second, I don't see those other editors here, so you're apparently combing through my history and wikistalking me. Stop. Thirdly, you and the suspiciously similar single-purpose-account anon IPs — at least some of which if not all are the same person — appear to exist solely to promote a non-notable businessman. Finally, how is my logic impossible to follow when it's: "There are tens of thousands of Vietnam vets. Being a decorated Vietnam vet doesn't automatically make you encyclopedically notable." Or "Just because you're rich doesn't mean you're encyclopedically notable." Really? That logic's hard to follow?--Tenebrae (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Poindexter is not "tens of thousands of Vietnam vets". He was given the Presidential Unit Citation for a Vietnam unit he led. And his Cibolo Creek Ranch is not unlike a Caribbean island that has gotten Jeffrey Epstein into trouble.. 209.140.35.244 (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article for the award that this multiple-account-abusing anon IP names, there have been 271 such citations given. Unless this makes every other person notable for leading a unit that won the citation, this in itself does not reach the bar, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's about 3.6 PUCs a year since creation. Comparatively there's been about 22.4 Medals of Honor a year since creation. There's ample coverage to meet WP:GNG requirements for this, and for Poindexter's role in proceedings. Given that SOCKs, IPs and/or FRINGEists appear to be an issue (spilling over from Scalia's death), however, then semi-protection might be a good idea ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 03:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Cibolo Creek Ranch if needed, as simply none of this suggests better solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article also has a whiff of promotion about it. Maybe this needs a twofer. Anmccaff (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with Anmccaff that the way Scalia's death is mentioned in the Cibolo Creek Ranch is very self-promotional, which, given the questions surrounding Scalia's lack of an autopsy, is quite odd.. 209.140.41.165 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete, ~~despite for the arguments above, not because of them. He's a businessman on a big enough scale that inclusion is warranted. As a stub, until some real coverage comes in,~~ as opposed to the promotional rah-rah fluff above. If a chambermaid had found Scalia, would we have an article for her? Anmccaff (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued interaction with what is almost certainly the block-evading head fanboi here is making me reconsider; as long as the article is around, he'll be here to "improve" it. Anmccaff (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is the single event Poindexter's receiving the Presidential Unit Citation for a unit he led in Vietnam as a captain? or his finding of Antonin Scalia's body? Because either way, Poindexter's company, which he owns 100% of, generates over a half billion dollars per year and is the biggest supplier of commercial truck bodies in the world.. 209.140.41.165 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC) @Wehwalt:[reply]

First, your link about to that claim about biggest supplier of commercial truck bodies doesn't seem to be in the link you posted to this same WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim above ... and the source is nothing more that the company's own press releases! In the interest of honor, would you please state whether you are, as I suspect, one of Poindexter's corporate employees or perhaps a friend or family-member. Those of us who have been on Wikipedia for years are very, very familiar with this type of boosterish, self-promotional, conflict-of-interest editing. Your abuse of multiple IP addresses is an entire separate issue in itself. --Tenebrae (talk)

Note: It has gone viral already that this involves secret societies, so calls to keep a lid on it or suppress info on Wikipedia might easily be predicted. 172.56.3.167 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Washington post only says "secretive society". Given it has a website and business licenses ... not much of a secret.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly, as per the rationale of the nom, WP:BLP1E - as Anmccaff said above: if a maid had found the body would that make them notable enough for an article? Does Eunice Murray have her own article? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. MB298 (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pointdexter is clearly noteworthy, already interviewed for Texas Monthly (The Man in the White Hat) in December 2015, in addition to articles listed above in Forbes etc.Ekem (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since yet another multiple-account-abusing anon IP — this one going under User:2607:fb90:1905:54bc:18f4:2fa4:60c0:3093 and User:2607:fb90:1705:aa21:e47e:b496:e634:e1f5 — has been vandalizing my talk page to the point other editors are voluntarily coming by to remove nasty, over-the-top comments, this suggests to me there's a concerted campaign of these anon IPs to serve as promotional trolls for this businessman. I'd be extremely surprised if they're not from his company's marketing / PR departments. Any of us who been around Wikipedia even half as long as I can recognize this pattern. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Tenebrae, if it gets worse I could semi-protect your talk page. There's no point in blocking those IPs. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. This could also be someone who was impressed with Poindexter politicing the PUC for his old unit, perhaps.

Keep In order to evaluate the BLP1E claim, I read only the sources published before Scalia's death and did not read those published in recent weeks. I found truly significant coverage already cited in the article from Texas Monthly, Forbes, and the Houston Business Journal. He is 100% owner without other investors of an industrial company with $700 million to $800 million in annual revenue, which is not at all common in the business world. His Cibola Ranch development controversies attracted significant coverage well before Scalia's death. His work to gain recognition for the Vietnam War combat unit he led was acknowledged over 40 years later in a White House ceremony by Barack Obama, which was widely reported. These sources provide significant biographical details about his life story. That makes him notable. Therefore, this cannot be a BLP1E. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328: There's plenty of source material published even before the recent event which could have supported an article. No impending need to delete this. --Jayron 32 02:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete. I am concerned by the allegations that the article's creator, who is now indefinitely blocked for abusive use of multiple accounts, engaged in COI editing with this article. This editor claimed on the talk page to have created the article after he/she "struggled to find information" about Mr. Poindexter on Google, but a quick Google search readily turns up major coverage of him. The combination of (1) this incongruity, (2) the numerous single-purpose IPs that suddenly emerged to argue stridently in defense of this article, and (3) the article's laudatory tone leads me to suspect that this biography might have been written as a promotional piece. Given that this is a short, new article, I think that the best course of action is to simply WP:BLOWITUP and start from a clean slate in order to remove any lingering concerns about this biography's neutrality. On the bright side, since there does seem to be significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, I'm satisfied that WP:GNG is fulfilled. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of changed vote. @Jayron32: and @Mendaliv: you have convinced me that my concerns about COI editing are insufficient grounds for deleting this page. The non-trivial coverage of his career (prior to Scalia's death) in independent, reliable secondary sources shows that he fulfills WP:GNG. This biography should be rebuilt from the ground up, but deletion is not necessary. Astro4686 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a landowner and military veteran are not in themselves notable. Finding a dead celebrity is BLP1E territory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is read by "the little people". It's not that he's unimportant - more like he's too important for the little people to put any scrutiny on, at least that's the gist I'm getting from this page. 172.56.2.164 (talk) 16:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cullen nails it. There's significant coverage related to incidents or events prior to Justice Scalia's death. If there's neutrality problems, they can be fixed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that Cullen's analysis is spot-on regarding the issue of Mr. Poindexter's notability. However, my concern is that if the allegations of extensive COI editing and sockpuppetry are true, it might be challenging to detect and remove all COI edits. Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue is two fold 1) Deletion is not really about article content, it's about the suitability of the subject as a topic for an article. If an article about the subject should exist at Wikipedia, there's no compelling reason why deletion is a reasonable course of action, excepting copyvio issues or things like that 2) COI editing is only a problem insofar as it produces the sort of writing that a non-COI editor would not have produced. If a statement in the article is written such that someone who has no COI would have added it substantively the same way, there's no compelling need to remove it. Problems with tone can be fixed by normal editing. Given that, I see no reason to blow it up and start over. There's plenty of redeemable content here, that just needs work and rewriting. --Jayron32 13:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. Content issues are rarely grounds for deletion when there's notability. Someone might even want to rewrite the article from the ground up and just replace everything here, but that still wouldn't call for deleting the page history. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Astro4686, it is being progressively (re)built, albeit... somewhat... glacially (Things that have become clear since this AFD started: I really don't want to know nearly so much about the subject), and its last ANONIP/SPA edit was over a week back. FWIW, I suspect the opposite to Tenebrae: that Poindexter's possibly been used as an attempted WP:COATRACK to increase coverage of the conspiracy theories regarding Scalia's death. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly possible. And I will say the additional details that have been added to the article make a stronger case for notability — although I'm still not convinced it's there yet: "businessman who was an activist on behalf of himself and his own squad" doesn't seem as notable as, say, someone who was activist on behalf of all veterans. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hydronium Hydroxide: Thanks for your work on the article. This discussion thread persuaded me to change my earlier vote to keep. @Tenebrae: regardless of the outcome of this AfD, you've done great work by detecting and opposing the suspicious edits by single-purpose accounts. Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficiently passes WP:GNG for me. GauchoDude (talk) 13:10, 11 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Idriss Aberkane[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is not "significant coverage" for the article subject: a Google search gives only 229 results, including resume ("CV"), a video download site and articles written directly by the subject. Furthermore, this last remark leads to the lack of source "independent of the subject". See WP:N.

The article contravenes Wikipedia:Verifiability: no of the statement, a lot tagged citation needed, could be verified, by lack of reliable and independant secondary sources.

Yet, the article has presented this person as a major 21th century "philosopher". A previous AfD has been opened but couldn't reached a consensus, as it were spoiled by sockpuppet to keep, and sockuppet to delete. This casts serious doubt on the motivation of the presence of the article, this could be a case for self-promotion and publicity. See WP:SPIP.

For all these reasons, I would like to resubmit this article for deletion. Dereckson (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dereckson (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the sources I listed in the previous AfD [12] [13] are good enough for WP:GNG and don't find the nomination rationale persuasive — if the strongest criticism you can make of the actual subject (rather than our in-need-of-cleanup article) is to put his profession in scare quotes, you don't have a strong argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the quotes are because French medias use the word philosopher for pundit, and not for someone who has a degree in philosophy or publishes in the philosophy field. Indeed, if that were the only issue, that would be an issue of cleaning the article and states correctly the fact, not a matter for deletion. --Dereckson (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "The geeks shall inherit the earth" is an article not centred on the article subjet, but on a unique talk. It's doesn't allow to cover the subject, as the article doesn't give any bibliographical information (excepted a talk has been given). « Idriss Aberkane, l'accoucheur des " geeks " de Gâtine » has a title more promising. We can source with this article the basic bibliography facts (« Né en 86 dans le Val de Marne », followed by studies), the field (« biologie théorique ») but then, the article is about coaching of an high school fact.
  So the notability is asserted by two press articles about a talk given in one town, and a high school class coached on a project. I'm not convinced that's enough to establish notability. --Dereckson (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof. GS cites are tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see two major articles about him in Le Monde. , That's enough to meet the GNG for anyone at all. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure which two you meant, but for anyone else who's also curious, I found three articles in Le Monde discussing his work: [14] [15] [16]. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentions, otherwise public relations flim-flam. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Per nomination, and per lack of reliable 3rd party coverage. ––Dereckson (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy as a compromise as the article may have potential and improvements but this would need time and work, and the article has not yet been improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dereckson and Xxanthippe are right here. Preaky (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the 1st round. There is nothing to improve, no reliable source of any kind. Self-promotion is proven. Kumʞum ouatizite ? 21:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:11, 11 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. The only significant argument to delete was based on copyright violation. The issue there was lack of correct attribution during what was apparently a series of copy-paste text moves from one article to another. But, that can be repaired.

The best process when moving an article from one title to another is to use the built-in move function, because that fully preserves the history. The next-best thing would be to include an explicit note in the edit summary, as described in WP:COPYWITHIN.

Unfortunately, we can't roll back time and implement either of those. So, we're left with the least desireable, but still viable, alternative of leaving a note on the talk page describing where the text came from. The person who did the copy-paste should go back and do that now. In fact, I'll make the requirement to do that an explicit part of this close. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Rebellion (rugby league)[edit]

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

An equivalent title was redirected by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island Rebellion and protected after two recreations. The article was then recreated under this title, and G4 tags were removed. If the consensus of the AFD is disputed, it should go to DRV. —teb728 t c 12:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment from creator I created this as a revert of an edit that appeared to have mistakenly changed Dorr Rebellion to the text of this article, not knowing the whole background of this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we've moved on to talk about content, then I think the topic is notable. This is a club that has been established for six seasons and competes in the top level of their sport in their country, in a league that regularly supplies players to their national team. I don't think a distinction between professional or semi-professional is helpful for establishing notability. While I think the article could be better written and sourced, It's a keep for me. Mattlore (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I requested this article be restored following a G4 speedy deletion here and the admin obliged. As I stated on his talk page, this page doesn't appear to just be an identical unimproved copy of the page that was deleted. I wasn't aware of the recreation history or RickinBaltimore's reason for creating this page. Mattlore (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Dorr Rebellion article was overwritten by the Rhode Island Rebellion text. That was vandalism by an IP, see their contributions: Special:Contributions/90.198.195.116. RickinBaltimore, in good faith, split the text from the Dorr Rebellion article. I think the best bet is to respect the result of the previous AfD and redirect this page, because it has the rugby league disambiguator, to USA_Rugby_League#Teams. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible KEEP The original article should never have been redirected, IMHO the Afd was completely flawed with very little consensus for a redirect. Had the Wikipedia Rugby League community been properly notified of the Afd, I have no doubt it would have closed as keep. However, that is done now and the new article is what is up for discussion. Again, this semi-professional rugby league team IS notable. Just as all the other USA Rugby League teams. They all have sources, most have multiple sources. The league and clubs (RI Rebellion included) get coverage not just in their native USA, but in other Rugby League nations too. Australia/UK especially. I can't deny the fact that I feel there is some kind of vendetta here against Rugby League. That's my feeling and I've made it well known. However, I do feel my rant on WikiProject Rugby League's talk page may have contributed to that above linked IP targeting the Dor Rebellion page for vandalism, which is something I do not want. I apologise if that's the case, but I do feel my opinion, though strong, is justified. After all, my sport has a lot of haters and Wikipedia is sadly a public place where those haters can target. I'm not going to point a finger at any one editor, so If anyone here is NOT a League hater and just been caught up in this mess, I apologise for any hurt feelings from my opinion. Thank you RugbyXIII (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since some people are treating this AfD like a DRV, Endorse closure of previous AfD (by nominator of present AfD). The consensus was clear. Even the one Keep !vote did not claim the team was notable, but only that other stuff exists. The fact that some people now disagree with the consensus is no reason to overturn the closure. —teb728 t c 10:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The content of the page isn't the same as it was at the time of the previous AfD. Mattlore (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a violation of copyright. Text was first copied and pasted from Rhode Island Rebellion to Dorr Rebellion and then again (in good faith) from Dorr Rebellion to Rhode Island Rebellion (rugby league). Compare [17] and [18]. In doing so, attribution to those users involved in creating the content has been lost and thus this page is a breach of Wikipedia's licensing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though presumably if this occurs then, as there has been no decision on notability, we are free to re-create this page from scratch? Is there no mechanism to retrieve this, ie merge the two page histories? Mattlore (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are ways to correct the history after a copy-and-paste move; so Malcolmxl5’s argument means only that the article can’t simply be converted to a redirect without being deleted first. But no, if the article is deleted (speedily or not), it can’t be recreated, for the non-notability was decided by the original AfD. It can’t be recreated unless and until the previous AfD is overturned at DRV (and there is no grounds for that). —teb728 t c 06:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Recreation of previously deleted pages does not seem to indicate that it is such a bright line. The previous AfD didn't seem to know anything about the subject, and most commenters instead discussed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While not policy, it seemed odd that the project listed in the talk page wasn't notified, especially when the debate was relisted seeking more contributors. The article has changed substantially since then, and no one yet in this AfD has said that the article is not notable. So far the objections seem to be the history and the fact that it has seed from a previously deleted article on the same subject due to the vandalism from a user. Mattlore (talk) 07:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECREATE is a policy proposal which failed to receive consensus. It is retained as an essay of one user’s opinion. Since it is grossly at odds with process, I am surprised that nobody had MfD’d it before. As for the previous AfD discussion, the fact that people talk about replacing with a redirect or disambiguation implies that they accept the nominator’s assertion that the team is not notable; even the one Keep !vote did not claim the team was notable. —teb728 t c 11:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment: Listen guys & girls, the article is well sourced. It is not breaking any copyright. It IS notable. The only real issue with the origional AfD was that people may type in Rhode Island Rebellion seeking the Dorr Rebellion article. This has been addressed and the article in question now, Rhode Island Rebellion (rugby league) can only be classed as an easy keep if people here use common sense. Unless my rationale that Union fans are trying to surpress League is in fact correct, I cannot fathom any reason at all why people would be so passionate about getting this well sourced article about a notable rugby league team completely deleted in all forms. Further note: If possible, the article history from Rhode Island Rebellion pre-redirect should be moved/merged into Rhode Island Rebellion (rugby league). I've had my say now anyway, I hope common sense will win the outcome here and if it does, maybe some of my faith in this project can be restored. Closing admin, please make the right decision!! Thank you. RugbyXIII (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Team seems notable within American rugby league per articles sich as these: [19] [20]. DRV doesn't seem appropriate when the first AfD seemed more concerned with establishing the primary topic rather than the notability of the subject. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the sourcing looks like it'd push this over the notability bar. I'm having trouble following the copyvio argument made, but if this has been the source of a cut & paste move, that can be properly sorted out with history merges and does not require deletion of the content. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:05, 13 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 Move to Draft:Conquistador (band) -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conquistador (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unsourced article about a band with no strong or verified claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. It claims hit status for one song -- but because musicians frequently claim "hit single" status for songs that actually weren't charting hits anywhere, we have to be able to reliably source that the song was actually a charting hit rather than just claiming it. And there's no other substantive notability claim here at all for anything other than the fact that they existed. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if it can be sourced properly. (Note that first discussion was about an entirely different band, so this is not eligible for speedy as a recreation of previously deleted content.) Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two hit singles, and four hit albums in the Netherlands,[21] passes WP:NMUSIC. I would guess sources are more likely to be from Netherlands sources, but that's not a reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draftify No indication of notability due to lack of any sources, let alone viable ones... -- Hybris1984 (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched and found nothing.--Rpclod (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, as it seems to pass WP:NBAND's 1-single-in-a-national-music-chart criterium (see Michig's comment), but lacks sources to support most of the information. At first I would have said "WP:G4 speedy delete", but the previous discussion was apparently about an American band of the same name. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we can't source what's there we can reduce it to what's verifiable. We know the band had hit albums and singles, released 4 studio albums (2 on Philips - another pass of WP:NBAND by the way) and lots of singles. Clearly a big enough success in the Netherlands to justify inclusion. I see nothing wrong with a stub that simply states the facts that we can verify. It would be better for our readers to have that rather than nothing at all. --Michig (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. there is some info on the Dutch article, none of it is sourced though. Reduce to what's verifiable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy because both Wikis are not yet convincingly enough for a solid notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Would not oppose it being moved to draft, if there is interest to improve the sourcing and content. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – Seems to be a good compromise for this particular article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 12 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 rename to Island of Stability (speech). Further discussion regarding the article's title/potential further renaming can occur on its talk page, as can further discussion about the article itself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Island of Stability[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable phrase. Fails WP:GNG. This does not mean that it was not said by carter, it was never mentioned in detail by WP:RS FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: It was better to wait for sum up the discussion in the talk page. Merge tag was better tag for this article. Keep: I am agree with Mhhossein, because the term of Island of Stability and totally the article are notable and there are several RS about them. You are hasty and did hasty work.Saff V. (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iran–United States relations#1977–1979: Carter administration where it's already mentioned, as suggested above. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under some circumstances: The lecture is notable enough. Look at this article for example. The only thing needed is to focus on the whole lecture. Moreover, the phrase is also used by personalities other than Carter, such as by Mohammad Ali Jaffari. I suggest these sources for completing the article; [22], [23], [24], [25] and etc. Mhhossein (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is so little text in this article, it wouldn't be a huge deal if we added it to the Iran–United States relations#1977–1979: Carter administration section. In addition, we could rename the section as ' 1977–1979: Carter administration — "Island of Stability" ' with the Island of Stability in the section title. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or make the "1977–1979: Carter administration" a larger section (the kind with the horizontal line) with smaller subsections, one of them titled "Island of Stability" which would be singularly about the speech. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. The phrase "island of stability" is is widely used, and this is merely one example of it. If the article is to be kept, it needs a more specific name. Carter called Iran "an island of stability in a turbulent corner of the world". If you search for this phase in inverted commas you get 34 hits on Google (all relevant).[26] If you merely search for "an island of stability", you get 304 hits on Google (most of which are about other topics).[27]-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename at the very least. The article needs a different, less ambiguous title, because there's also a more notable physics subject: island of stability. Possible alternative titles (inspired by Category:Diplomatic visits by heads of state): 1977 visit of President Carter to Iran, 1977 Carter visit to Iran, 1977 United States presidential visit to Iran. I would not oppose a merge as described above either, considering the small amount of mergable content. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGaruda: How about focusing on the whole lecture, instead of a "phrase" or "visit"? Mhhossein (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: What do you mean? What lecture? You do hopefully understand what a lecture is: an educational presentation, such as given by a professor to his students. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGaruda: Actually, I was suggesting to act like "Tear down this wall!" which is a speech (sorry I meant speech, not lecture). Mhhossein (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a big improvement.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we cannot use "Island of Stability", because it looks too much like island of stability. Any other title suggestions? - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGaruda: How about using disambiguation? Mhhossein (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the similarity of the article titles is too big of an issue, as that can be handled using hatnotes. ansh 666 05:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Island of Stability (speech) (or something similar), as per Island of stability (Physics). This is a common English phrase, easily understood, used not only in political science but in psychology, chemistry, physics, and probably other fields as well. It needs no definition. WP:NOTDIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Island of Stability (speech) as E.M.Gregory told.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think E.M.Gregory and Seyyed's suggestion are in accordance with mine. Mhhossein (talk) 11:05, 12 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 by User:Randykitty under criterion G7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 20:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K. Trap Jones[edit]

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

Prodded a couple of times for failing WP:BASIC, which it still does, with the only sources being WP:NEWSPRIMARY interviews. No suggestion that Jones meets WP:NAUTHOR - the only claim of significance made is that one of his novels "won the 2010 Royal Palm Literary Award", but this was one of many awards that year (in this case in the "Horror / Dark Fantasy (Unpublished)" category) rather than an overall award, and it's unclear whether the Florida Writers Association's Royal Palm awards are significant. McGeddon (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sudwerk[edit]

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

Page is largely an advertisement for the company's beers. No sense of notability. Prof. Mc (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources need cleanup but I think the Reuters [28] and Sacbee [29] sources are good enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- On a closer look, the Reuters source is a press release and doesn't count towards notability. Striking my comment while I search for better sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak keep. Local newspaper coverage [30] [31] and in-depth coverage in a published book [32] puts it over threshold to me, but only barely. The book also provides an actual claim of significance: "largest brewpub in the US" in 1993. I've rewritten the article based more purely on these reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator; meets WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The brewery seems to be mentioned in beer guides, such as California Breweries North, and The Beer Book, but I am not sure that these count as in-depth. Note that there also a Sudwerk brewery out of Zurich[33]. --Mark viking (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a marginal keep per WP:HEY and David's nice rewrite to include RS and to create a more neutral POV. --Mark viking (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The brewery has an adequate number of write-ups in secondary sources to pass the general notability guideline. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Steffen[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a businessman and philanthropist whose notability is exclusively local to a single area. Every single one of the 12 sources here is either a primary source which cannot assist notability at all, or a glancing namecheck of his existence in almost-exclusively local coverage that isn't about him -- the one source here that gets closest to being about him is a 62-word blurb in a "10 consultants who avoid the BS" listicle, but even that doesn't actually say anything genuinely substantive about him and is being cited only to support the assertion that he was named in the listicle. (But neither "named in a listicle" nor "avoids the BS" is a claim of encyclopedic notability either.) He might be eligible to keep an article that was sourced a lot better than this, but this is not the article or the sourcing that gets him in the door. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His notability is not wide-spread enough for it to meet the standards of Wikipedia. CLCStudent (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies the applicable notability, none of this is convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of food days. Redirection instead of merging as the target list has very little space to incorporate the extra information. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 03:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Burger Day (United kingdom)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:MADEUP. Event organised by a men's lifestyle website and a few minor food retailers. Some media coverage, but certainly not any kind of well-known event. Blythwood (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, however appreciate that since the day was originally created by Mr Hyde its difficult to separate the two. There is mainstream media coverage^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] and national restaurant chains taking part.^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] --Ibwannet (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "National Burger Day". Telegraph.
^ "National Burger Day". The Sun.
^ "National Burger Day". Timeout.
^ "National Burger Day". Perez Hilton.
^ "McWhopper Campaign on National Burger Day". Metro.
^ "Byron Burger".
^ "Gourmet Burger Kitchen".
^ "Shake Shack".

delete blatant PR trick. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PR Trick by whom? --Ibwannet (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep WP:GHITS 233k Google search results for a single day event is notable.^[1] --Ibwannet (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "national+burger+day" "Search Results". Google.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible evidence that this is a notable event. Even the mainstream press sources do not engage in any substantive discussion of the event itself, but are largely given over to presenting recipes for burgers. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Merge to List of food days. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there. How would you feel about a simple redirect? NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer a merge, per WP:PRESERVE. It is presently just a mention at the list article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as there are no serious needs for deletion but there are also no convincing signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald W. Barden[edit]

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

Couldn't find much over the internet about him, seems promotional, Single purpose account Savourisblue (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found only expected sources and the currently listed sources are not convincing. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not even a real claim to notability. His books are privately published, (byWest Bow Press, which describes itself as "a Christians self-publisher," and, not surprisingly, none of the three are in any WorldCat Library. This is a press release, and I suggest G11. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 3 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Booger Swamp[edit]

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

I'm not sure if there is any such place exist called Booger Swamp, even there is nothing verifiable at Google Maps, possibly coined by author. Fails WP:GEOLAND, however, there is a street called Booger Swamp road, but it appears to be a minor street and such streets are generally not considered notable. Jim Carter 17:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as non-notable. Cannot find any sources on Google, Google Books, or Newspapers.com (historic newspaper site) establishing the notability of this location in North Carolina. Only found two passing mentions of "Booger Swamp Road". To the extent that a number of sources discuss a location named "Booger Swamp", that location is in the state of Tennessee and is therefore different from what's discussed in the article. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment probably not notable, but I wish it were. There really is a Booger Swamp Road near a Yadkinville, NC. [34] 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:33, 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 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because whether or not it exists, there are no convincing signs of an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Capital Institute[edit]

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

Not notable. May not exist any longer. Rathfelder (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete – I have a hard time understanding why this is in an encyclopedia. CLCStudent (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noticeably promotional, no actual convincing coverage and no solid claims of notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I have been alarmed at some discussions which have suggested deleting or have challenging the validity of articles on new or emerging concepts such as Natural Capital, I think this particular article is poorly written, about a defunct group, and cannot easily be shown to be notable. I would observe that it is quite feasible that this name might well be applied in the future to a completely different and more notable/effective organisation and that, should this happen, the two should not be confused. I recommend Delete. Parkywiki (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:09, 3 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mobconf[edit]

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

Promotional. Self-referential Rathfelder (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional article, minor coverage and overall no solid claims of notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 9 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 raw count is just on the edge of what would normally be considered a consensus, but looking at the arguments to keep, there's not a lot there.

The arguments from the article's creator fail to distinguish between subject has done interesting things and subject has received coverage as required by our notability guidelines. Torchiest makes a reasonable argument about coverage in the NY Times. However, I find the counter-arguments that, due to the nature of this subject, the NYT's coverage should be classified as local and routine, to be compelling. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Newell (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election. As always, candidates are not entitled to Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that they were already eligible for a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate, then they do not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until they win the election. But the only other substantive thing here is that he served as district leader of his political party's local chapter, which is not something that gets a person over WP:NPOL. And as sourcing goes, we have a little bit of WP:ROUTINE local coverage of his non-winning candidacies for office, and a lot of primary, neighbourhood-weekly and blogspotty sourcing for everything else -- which means that WP:GNG has not been demonstrated. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? He's *been* elected. A district leader is not a general term but the actual name of an elected position in New York City. Did anyone bother to read the article and look at the sources? He's up for ANOTHER position, yes, but IS CURRENTLY IN AN ELECTED POSITION. thanks.--A21sauce (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely misunderstanding what I said. Wikipedia does not confer automatic notability under WP:NPOL to every single holder of any political office at all just because that office was elected: he has to win his current campaign for election to the state legislature before he's eligible for a Wikipedia article, because that is the lowest level of office at which a person automatically gets into Wikipedia just because they won an election. "District leader" is not an office that automatically gets its holders into Wikipedia just for the fact of having been elected to it, because it does not represent serving in any legislative capacity — it's the equivalent of what I as a Canadian would know as the internal executive board of a political party's local electoral district association, which is not a notable office in its own right either. So right now, the only real notability claim present here at all is his status as an unelected candidate to a more notable office than the one he currently holds, and none of the sourcing is good enough to grant him a WP:GNG pass in lieu of failing NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being extremely technical here. Newell isn't some small-town district leader. He reps New York City's Chinatown, Financial District, and the Lower East Side, each of which have substantial Wikipedia articles of their own. He is also the subject of a documentary, and has been in the press alot for going after one of the most corrupt New York state politicians of all time, Sheldon Silver. If you'd review these articles and take step back and think a little, it'd really serve the Wiki cause, I think. Don't be so narrow minded, just because you happen not to like New York City or never visited or something;)A21sauce (talk) 08:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with me being "narrow-minded", I don't hate New York City and I have been there. The fact that the districts have Wikipedia articles does not mean that every single thing or every single person in the districts qualifies for a separate article, because notability is not inherited: each subtopic has to be independently notable in its own right, and does not get a "because of where it is" freebie. And it's none of our concern whether the incumbent politician he's running against is good, bad, corrupt, pure or any other adjective besides "incumbent" — Wikipedia is not a free hosting platform for unelected candidates' campaign brochures or a news organization. It's not our role to take any position at all on who should or shouldn't win any election — our job begins and ends at neutrally documenting who did win the election once it's over. Wikipedia's rules about this kind of stuff exist for real reasons: our entire value as a project depends on ensuring that we're not devolving into a free public relations platform for people who aspire to become notable but haven't gotten there yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is notable as having been the subject of a documentary and the first to challenge Sheldon Silver since the 1980s. Wikipedia has articles on the most minute of fantasy video game characters and it's hypocritical that we can't budge on this for someone who's been elected to a district of 500,000 people.--A21sauce (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether someone is the first, second, tenth, fiftieth or nine hundred millionth person to challenge the incumbent in one, two, ten, fifty or nine hundred million years — if they don't already have enough preexisting notability to have earned a Wikipedia article regardless of their candidacy for office, then they have to win the seat to become notable enough.

Wikipedia simply cannot allow itself to become a repository of campaign brochures for every non-winning candidate to every political office in the world. There are 435 seats in the US House of Representatives alone and typically four or five candidates for election to each seat, the elections take place every two years and there are usually a handful of special elections in between if an incumbent congressperson dies in office or resigns — thus meaning we would have to keep and maintain over 10,000 articles about non-winning candidates for election to that body per decade. Then we have to do the same thing for the US Senate, and every individual state legislature in all 50 US states, and every mayoral candidate in every city in the country — which easily gets us over 100,000 articles about non-winning candidates, before you even take into account that then we would have to do the exact same thing for Canada, Australia, Japan, South Africa, Germany, France, Brazil, Poland, India, Spain, Mexico and every other multiparty electoral democracy in the world too.

That is simply not tenable — which is why we have specific notability standards, namely being elected to a notable office, that politicians have to meet before they become eligible for Wikipedia articles. And "district leader" is not a notable office, and the sourcing here is not good enough to make him more notable than all the other district leaders who don't have articles. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure about the additional stipulations the nom has mentioned, as the subject seems to pass WP:GNG, which should be sufficient. From this version of the article, sources 2, 3, and 9 look like significant coverage. Additionally, I've found this Gotham Gazette piece, which is an even more significant piece of coverage focusing more closely on the subject. Notice that these sources are covering two different elections, so I think WP:BLP1E is handled as well. A big chunk of the article's current sources are extremely poor, however, and should be trimmed out. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Local media have an obligation to grant "equal time" coverage to all candidates in an election taking place in their local coverage area, so coverage of a candidate in the context of his candidacy in the local media falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot assist in meeting GNG. If that kind of coverage were enough in and of itself, then every candidate for any office could always claim a GNG exemption from having to pass NPOL. Rather, coverage of a political candidate only counts toward GNG if it nationalizes far outside of their own local area, along the lines of what happened to Christine O'Donnell in 2010. If he got to the point where newspapers in Miami or Seattle or Chicago or Las Vegas were writing about his campaign, then there'd be a case for inclusion under GNG — but if the coverage just represents local newspapers doing their jobs by covering local candidates in local elections, then it doesn't exempt him from having to satisfy NPOL by winning the seat. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your initial premise. Plenty of local candidates receive nothing more than their name being listed on a sample ballot, or being mentioned once at the end of an article about another candidate. This might be more common in local elections that are non-partisan, but it happens all the time, especially with third parties. And this is not routine coverage, specifically, the source I mentioned is a fairly in-depth profile. Outside of all that, WP:NPOL does not supersede WP:GNG, it supplements it. In other words, it provides a potential alternative to a subject simply meeting the standard GNG, which this one does. #3 at NPOL even explicitly says that: "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'". —Torchiest ^talk_edits 06:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not true that any local candidate for office ever goes entirely uncovered by any media — the media have a legal obligation to provide coverage to all candidates. Even the fringiest no-hopers do get coverage — they may not get as much of it as the major party candidates who are likelier to actually win the election, but they do all get enough coverage that they could certainly try to make a "notable because GNG" claim. And by the way, the Gotham Gazette is a blog, not a source that can count toward whether a politician has gotten over GNG or not.

And NPOL is not an alternative to GNG, either — you're correct that they supplement each other, but you're incorrect about how that works in practice. Even the passage of NPOL still has to be referenceable to GNG-worthy sources to constitute an NPOL pass — and if a politician doesn't satisfy NPOL on their role itself, then it takes a certain specific class of coverage — i.e. nationalizing far beyond the bounds of what would be normally expected, or already having preexisting notability for something else outside of politics, neither of which have been shown here at all — to get them over GNG instead of NPOL. A politician can't get over GNG just on the basis of local coverage in the local media if they haven't passed NPOL on the basis of the role, because all politicians get local coverage in the local media.

This isn't a rule I made up myself just to be tendentious, either, but the consensus position on how GNG applies to political candidates — the problem is that politics is one of those fields of endeavour in which people are especially prone to trying to misuse Wikipedia as a public relations platform or a POV agenda farm. The fact that we're so vulnerable to getting exploited as a webhost for unelected candidates' campaign brochures is precisely why we have to be so strict in our inclusion criteria for politicians. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, there are tons of categories of people and things on Wikipedia that really count as miscellany. I'm not sure why you're harping on this, and say, not EQUALLY on a fantasy video game character or a TV show that aired for a week. One wonders what your real beef is. Your repetition of the word unelected is intellectually dishonest, so please quit that at the very least. --A21sauce (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out to you before, not all political offices that exist automatically get their holders past WP:NPOL. He is a candidate for, but has not won election to, the state legislature — a level of office that will get him a Wikipedia article if he wins it — but has not held any ofice that gets him an NPOL pass today. The word "unelected" is not "intellectually dishonest"; you're misrepresenting the context in which it's being applied. And kindly read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: I can only deal with articles that I personally come across, and it is not my responsibility to go gallivanting all over Wikipedia looking for every bad article about some piece of miscellany that you don't like. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that "the media have a legal obligation to provide coverage to all candidates" has no basis that I'm aware of. If it were true, every media outlet would have to give coverage to every local candidate, yet that simply doesn't happen. I've seen plenty of elections where essentially every third party candidate gets nothing beyond their name on a list. Perhaps in Canada there are laws requiring such coverage, but this person is in the United States, which doesn't have any sort of equal coverage laws. If you disagree, I'd like you to point to a U.S. statute saying they're legally obligated to provide coverage of all candidates. Without such a statute, this is not routine coverage. Outside of that, your criteria for notability go beyond GNG: "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That's it. The reasons for the coverage don't matter, beyond surpassing WP:BLP1E, which has also been done by the fact there has been coverage spanning two elections. As for the Gotham Gazette, it's not clear why you're saying it's just a blog. It has a full editorial staff, which implies fact-checking and everything else that we generally require for a source to be considered reliable. And I've also never heard that local coverage is somehow insufficient. A reliable source is a reliable source. Your concerns about articles being political ads is quite reasonable, but if we're following reliable sources independent of the subject, and not just regurgitating primary sources, we won't have to worry about that. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For just one example, the FCC does have an "equal-time rule" for coverage of candidates — and yes, there are some loopholes to it, but the rule still exists. And you obviously don't follow our incredibly frequent AFD discussions on unelected political candidates very carefully, if you think it's difficult for a third-party or independent candidate to make a claim of passing GNG on the basis of having gotten media coverage — locating two or three or four pieces of local media coverage of a local political candidate is actually not an even remotely difficult thing to do. I have never, in fact, seen a single article about any unelected candidate for office in either Canada or the United States, major party or minor party or independent or total fringe nutter, that couldn't be referenced to enough media coverage that somebody could at least try to mount a claim that GNG had been passed and therefore NPOL was moot. And that's precisely why we have specific rules about how much, and what type of, coverage it takes to actually get a candidate over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That FCC rule only applies to radio and television, neither of which are used for this article. I'm sure there are plenty of candidates who don't meet the GNG standard; that's my whole point. And I can list dozens of candidates who no one has ever even attempted to write articles for because they received zero coverage. This is not such a case. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said the FCC's rule was one example of the fact that such obligations do exist, in response to your claim that no such rule existed in any form of media at all, not that the FCC governed newspapers. The fact that the coverage here is in newspapers, not broadcast media, does not inherently exempt it from being the type of coverage that candidates routinely get — newspapers do cover "So-and-so wins party's nomination for the next election", newspapers do cover "local political organizer does local-organizer things", newspapers do cover "independent or fringe candidate wants your vote". Coverage of that type is not hard to find for almost any candidate at all, and its existence does not inherently prove that one particular candidate is automatically more notable than all of the others who are getting the same treatment.

And you're entirely missing my point — there are plenty of candidates who don't meet the GNG standard, true, but that's because we have strict rules about the volume and type of coverage that a candidate has to get to actually pass GNG. There are lots of candidates out there for whom the coverage isn't enough, because the standards are purposely designed to require more than the normal volume and type of coverage — but there are not a lot (certainly not "dozens") of candidates for whom no media coverage exists whatsoever. And the volume and type of coverage shown here does not lift him into a higher realm of GNG-worthiness than the others — nothing here is outside of the ordinary level of local coverage for a person at this level. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Routine coverage does not equate to WP:GNG. Nom's rationale is sound. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bearcat. WP:POLOUTCOMES provides useful guidance when dealing with local elected officials . "Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." Nothing sourced to date suggests that the subject received national or international press coverage. Enos733 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, see notes #10 and 11, just added. Or here. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I guess not. Did anyone bother to do a search at nytimes.com? A21sauce (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's a local organizer and candidate in New York City, so The New York Times is a local paper in this particular context. To count as "national coverage beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected", the coverage would have to be coming from papers at a geographic remove from NYC, such as the Washington Post or the Chicago Sun-Times or the Miami Herald or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or the Los Angeles Times — but if he's living and working and running in New York City, then NYT coverage falls under "what would ordinarily be expected", not "beyond the scope of", and thus does not get him a free pass around our criteria for local politicians just because the local paper involved is the NYT. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 12 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Phi Society[edit]

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

Article about a university student group with no strong claim to encyclopedic notability per WP:ORG. This is written very much like the kind of "about us" profile that one might read on the group's own website, and very much not like an encyclopedia article -- and it's sourced exclusively to the group's own self-published social media content about itself with no indication of reliable source coverage shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service where any group that exists is automatically entitled to create or keep an article about itself -- we're an encyclopedia, on which notability and sourceability have to be present for a group to earn an article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Reliable Sources, no evidence of notability. Preaky (talk) 12:15, 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 18:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a newly founded local group, no better independent notability claims. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 9 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Welsh (rugby union)[edit]

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

Did not make a professional appearance, only on the bench. Played amateur rugby, and did not make a senior international appearance. JTtheOG (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But since my intention is to have an article for every Glasgow Warriors player; it would seem very churlish indeed to leave him out on that basis. Every squad player in all the previous seasons has an article, his omission would raise more questions than answers.Aedis1 (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete narrowly. This is a very tricky case I think. Welsh came as close as possible to playing for a pro team without actually doing so, if a prop had been injured during the game he'd have got his run on and the discussion wouldn't be taking place. However, he didn't get that run on and from the Scotsman source it appears he wasn't a full signed member of the Warriors squad ("East Kilbride’s Andrew Welsh in the stand-by squad of emergency front-row cover, in line with ERC rules.") so it's difficult to make a case for retaining the article despite the completeness angle. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pages for Glasgow Warriors on wikipedia are the most complete early history of the club. If wikipedia claims to be encyclopaedic then this entry should be maintained in the spirit of completeness. It would be difficult to justify his exclusion particularly when he was named as part of Glasgow's Heineken Cup squad at the start of the season.

Furthermore, it is not as if Heriots and Watsonians are not big enough clubs in their own right. Many player biography articles list these clubs as 'senior' teams. If Heriots and Watsonians were listed as 'senior' teams - as others have it - and Glasgow listed as a provincial team, which it is, would this article even be proposed for deletion?

Welsh was a Scotland Under 21 internationalist. Many professional players don't reach any international level, yet they are listed! I'm quite prepared to relist the article once the other Warriors players - that currently are not on wikipedia - are added, if that helps. There are only around 30 players left which need edited and the entire Warriors squads from 1996 season onwards will be listed. That shouldn't take too long to do. Welsh would be very conspicuous in his absence indeed!Aedis1 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he has played with teams but none of this has claims for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 13:15, 11 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, discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindrakirti Swami Ji[edit]

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

Notability asserted, but not supported. —swpb^T 21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 21:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 21:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about a very highly followed Jain Guru. There should be a wikipedia article/page about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktsema (talk • contribs) 13:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Swami Ravindrakirtiji is a very renowned Jain Guru. His sheer dedication towards the development of Jain pilgrimages and temples is emphatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKasliwal (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There should definitely be a page about Swamiji. His work speaks volumes about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZAngami (talk • contribs) 14:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This page deserves to be on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrAPatni (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above comments are confirmed sock puppets, and have been blocked. —swpb^T 14:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find only passing mentions in a couple of newspaper stories. Fails WP:BIO. utcursch | talk 22:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 2 passing mentions in news stories -- and the rest unsourced -- does not notability make. The sockpuppetry doesn't help, either. GAB^Hello! 21:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 3 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leading U.S. Advertisers in 2011[edit]

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

Outdated and more or less a straight copy/paste of the source list. Conifer (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Outdated is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. It's a reason for creating articles on 2012, '13, '14 and '15. It also isn't a straight copy-paste. p b p 04:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Depends on one source for the article. It's a clear WP:COPYVIO even if it's just paraphrasing the style of the AdAge chart. Nate • (chatter) 05:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only a copyvio if their list used some kind of subjective or creative inclusion criteria. If all they were doing is, for example, reporting and comparing the numbers the companies themselves released in their 10-Ks, then this information is not copyrightable even if they were the first (or only ones) to do the work in assembling it. postdlf (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply not convincing enough for this of a separate notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per points above. GauchoDude (talk) 13:15, 11 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 consensus for Dawod Al Saeed was keep Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Assiri[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - neither player has played in a fully pro league Spiderone 11:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete both - Fail NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mohammed Assiri - 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. Keep Dawod Al Saeed - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dawod Al Saeed has played a couple matches in the Kings Cup (Saudi Arabia) (1, 2, 3, & 4) Does this confirm notability? Inter&anthro (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It does, thanks for pointing that out, these are competitive matches involving clubs from FPLs so fulfill the spirit of NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as noted above player meets spiriti of WP:NFOOTY. Nfitz (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dawod Al Saeed per Fenix down & Gene93k's reasoning. Mohammed Assiri should be deleted as it does not seem the subject of the article is notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dawod Al Saeed - As nominator. I missed the fact that this player had played a cup match between two FPL clubs. As such, I am withdrawing that nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dawod Al Saeed for meeting the spirit of WP:NFOOTY. Delete Mohammed Assiri for failing NFOOTY and GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dawod Al Saeed per WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:25, 8 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. With the exception of the article's creator, unanimous consensus that this doesn't meet our requirements for reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Flint[edit]

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

Non-notable album. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the attitude by the 'person' deleting my work to be reprehensible and vandalism at that. The fact that someone else has joined in to attack my very blatant words expressed about my unhappiness with the a for mentioned person's vandalism, is indicative of a USA biased attitude on this site. You need to change that attitude quickly. Notable in the USA means nothing. If I put up work solely based out of Australia, then you say thank you, not mess with it. How dare either of you have the attitude you have. How dare anyone on here delete work by others, with a proper debate, just at their whim.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of the history between you too, but the article is little more than a track listing, and the sources listed aren't reliable, so hounding or not, this is at least a valid nomination, unless there's some large failure of WP:BEFORE I'm missing... Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is little more than a tracklist, sources are unreliable and/or violating WP:USERG. I'd be happy to reconsider should someone dig up some better sources, but live albums like this often don't get much in the way of coverage that would help meet the WP:GNG, which the article certainly doesn't now... Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This 'person' just started deleting my work. Thats not acceptable. For any reason. By anyone. As for the three Clutch albums that are part of this whole mess, they are all live albums which I've been meaning to add info and cite's. Until this 'person' arbitrarily vandalised my work. Other than that I was happy for any reviews to be conducted, and I am looking for better, reliable, source material, but for a concert so long ago it's not easy. I have a very serious problem with the attitude of 'Editors' deleting work by others without such a proper course of review. So I will continue with my research..Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment - I'm on the fence here. The album looks to have been on a top chart in Australia (see here), but I'm not sure of the reliability of this source~~. It appears to have some reviews and in-depth coverage by secondary sources ([35], [36], [37]), But I'm not finding enough in-depth coverage to assert that this satisfies WP:GNG (which is also a requirement for WP:NMUSIC). I do see many sites listing the album and its tracks, but nothing about its coverage in-depth. I'm going to present what I found, keep an eye on this page, and see what others come up with. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Delete" vote; see below. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked those cite's and the first is one of my home countries independent Album Chart review sites, the second is from the year after the concert (and imo pretty good source) and the third is of a review by a 'fan site', so to speak, about seeing them years after hearing the album in question...I'll keep searching and watching Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if those sources help the article meet the WP:GNG though, they're not really what Wikipedia usually would deem reliable. "The Obelisk" (link 2) is just the self-published blogging of one person who doesn't do it professionally or for a living (See About Page.) "Pro-Rock" (link 3) is just a directory/tracklist, no actual prose. Even "Ninehertz" (link 1) while probably the closest to acceptable, is pretty iffy. They do actually have an "About Us" page (see here) but it doesn't say much for their credentials. For instance, the article writer, written merely by "Pete" with a Leslie Nielsen picture as his photo, only credential listed seems to be...being a locksmith? If that's really all that's out there, then I think it really just needs to be mentioned in the band's article or discography page. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete - I have edited the article, removing two cite's that were considered unreliable source material, have found the best cite's I can find, which include journalist reviews, added a small amount of information about the concert and its recording. I think I have made it more to the standard required in this learning curve of mine in editing lessons.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These sources mostly either look unreliable, or contain a mere 2-3 sentences that basically define the album as a Clutch live album, and then list off the track list. That's not significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be blunt it's the best there is and I do not consider that a cause for deletion of the article. The amount of article's missing form various bands releases because they haven't been made or they have been deleted, or the amount of articles that have 1 source cited and have no reviews, makes me consider the efforts being put into the articles that I have done work on to be very arbitrary to say the least and quite blatantly an attack on the 'new guy' buy various 'persons' to add. I do not require links to Wiki this or that for the list of acceptable material to be sourced and used, because as I have stated it's become quite evident that it's a 'click' of 'editors' that very arbitrarily are making these decisions, without being diligent in the work they claim is required by them to do for the sake of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. And no I'm not going to list the pages I'm referring too as they are numerous in the Music section of the WIki. I expect 'editors' that want to make these decisions to find some source material themselves and actually make more effort than just deleting a page.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is a valid reason to keep an article. Please read WP:OSE and the WP:GNG. Third party, reliable sources covering the subject in significant detail is what matters. There's been no evidence of this so far. Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? That is not a good enough response mate. You have to come up with a much better attitude towards the whole situation then that for me to be satisfied with you and those involved, and yes I bluntly expect that to be the case via a much higher authority than the response you just gave..not impressed.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IE go and AfD every single other article as proof before you come anywhere near my work here on the Wiki.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sorry, but I believe you've jumped into article creation and deletion debates without understanding how Wikipedia works. You need to provide reliable, third party sources that cover the subject in significant detail. If you can't, the article generally gets deleted or redirected, it's how the website works. Please read up on the WP:GNG. Anything else is probably not relevant to this articles deletion discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added many more cite's to the page, and as it's regarding an album that was released 12 years ago that's not easy. I have found this entire subject to be very biased, based around 1-3 individuals. Out of courtesy I have re-read the 'GNG' and I consider each cite material to be of at least 1 of the requirements on the list. I will expect more than just those who have commented on this debate so far to have a review of the article before any decisions are made.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please list here, which sources you believe to be reliable, third party sources that cover the subject in significant detail? Sergecross73 msg me 04:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cite's 6 & 7 are of non-English reviews of the album; 6 is from 2005 and 7 from 2011 - both are quite significantly longer reviews than 3 sentences (and I get your point about such an issue and can agree with the Wiki rules about such); all the others are of mention to the recording in the past tense or used to reference release date or track listings of the album itself. I've avoided iTunes and Amazon so far. Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to tell, since they're in different languages, but Google Translate makes it roughly sound like they're more self published bloggers... Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More Info & Comment - I have amended some of the cite's used and added one from Allmusic; A source that has been extensively used by other editors as a reputable, and notable, source material on extremely numerous articles here on Wikipedia. I hope that this is a more sufficient notable source, as per our policies and guidelines etc., as I'm doing my best to adhere to, now that I have a much better understanding of such things. Nuro msg me 01:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you added Allmusic user review, which is not usable per WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...right....Nuro msg me 05:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the changes to the article since I nominated it for deletion establish its notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the best efforts of the keep editors, the album simply doesn't pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. After taking additional time to search for sources and listen to the responses brought by my earlier comment, I feel that the required criteria isn't met. The album doesn't appear to have in-depth coverage from many sources (not enough to constitute significant coverage), which means that GNG is not met (which is also a requirement for NALBUMS). Aside from that, I agree that the source I cited in my earlier comment regarding the "Top Chart" source I found doesn't appear to constitute a "reliable source", and no other sources discuss or point out any top charts or notable awards that this album has won. Hence, NALBUMS is also not met. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:32, 11 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 Userfy. The discussion is just on the edge of the numbers I would normally like to see to call a delete consensus, but I find the arguments to keep rather unconvincing ("She almost won, and other people near her are notable").

Moving this to User:Athomeinkobe/Yuuki Tanaka. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuuki Tanaka[edit]

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

Fails wikiproject Tennis guidelines and nsport for notability. Not on any fedcup team, no main draw entries on the WTA tour, no wins in a $35,000+ minor league (ITF) event. This (so far) is simply one of a thousand other minor-league players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at the multitude of aticles that link to this one, I can readily understand why it was created. If she is such a non-notable player, then surely it begs the question of whether or not all these (presumably notable) articles linking to her need to exist as well.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all those links are tournament brackets from barely notable events. They are minor league tournaments. Just like baseball has minor league teams that are barely notable yet have 1000's of players listed through the years in list-form that are not notable. that's the case with these players. You'll note she hasn't won a notable event. What has happened is editors red link her name (wrongly) in all these brackets in hope that one day she becomes a notable player... heck she might one day. Then this article actually gets created and BAM... she has lots of instant links. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She came runner-up in a $75,000 tournament, is that not enough? And with the score at 9-9 in the tie-breaker, she was two points away from winning and becoming notable. Her teammate and two opponents in the doubles match are all notable. Yet she isn't? It appears that one of her opponents Akiko Omae only satisfies the notability criteria because she won those two points, while Tanaka lost them. So this AFD could have been about Omae instead. It seems strange that notability can be decided so arbitrarily.

But putting that aside, I am sure there is enough out there to satisfy GNG. I will add more to her actual biography from the Japanese sources already mentioned in the article and see if I can find anything else. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not arbitrary at all. It is our guidelines, it is consensus.... one won and one lost. Certainly someone can meet GNG over and above our consensus Tennis Guidelines. Certainly this particular player could be the 1 in a 1000 minor league player that is truly special. That does happen. I just don't see it this time. The only thing that would make me pause is the item on the 2013 Summer Universiade, but even that is 10,000 university students. The rest is just low-level minor league tennis with no victories in $50,000+ tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a biography using what I have found so far. In addition, this blog (belonging to a Nagoya sports massage therapist) notes that she was the subject of a 2-page profile in the March 2011 edition of the Japanese "Tennis" magazine. Getting my hands on the actual magazine is going to be difficult, but there is confirmation at the back number page of the magazine, where she is listed in the index as the first profile in a new series titled "Challengers". So there is certainty that she has received significant coverage (a 2-page profile) in a national magazine at least once. I will keep looking for more, but I think what I've found so far is a pretty good step towards meeting GNG. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AtHomeIn神戸's argument. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So far she does not meet consensus Tennis Guidelines, Wikipedia NSport guidelines, nor have we seen multiple sources (or any except from a blog of a massage therapist) that would show GNG. Yet you agree. Sorry but that seems strange to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be a bit more accurate in the description there. The blog refers to her having a 2-page spread in a national magazine, and I provided a link to the contents page of the magazine, which confirms she is the subject of her own article (but does not confirm the length). To summarize the blog, the writer is telling the regular customers of his business that a former customer is now living in Tokyo and the subject of an in-depth article in a major magazine. He finishes with "I've bought a copy, so you should too". That would be a very strange lie to tell to your customers, so I think it is very reasonable to accept that she was in fact the subject of this significant coverage. That was now five years ago and before she turned pro, so I'll keep looking for more. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that she was part of the gold medal winning team of the Universiade in July 2013. The team was featured in a report in the October 2013 edition of Tennis Magazine. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I just don't see this article meeting WP:SPORTCRIT. Ameba clearly fails WP:BLPSPS and the subject obviously requires a fishing expedition into obscure Japanese print sources. She is tagged in tournament coverage here [38] and here [39] by sources which qualify for WP:RS but she's just tagged by name. I find it more than a little questionable that a Japanese tennis player who doesn't even have her own page on Japanese Wikipedia [40] should merit a page on English Wikipedia solely on the basis of two print sources which are not readily accessible and a blog post which is inadmissible as WP:RS. I went to her blog page as well [41] to look for anything substantial to justify Keep but there is nothing. Jun Kayama 06:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this requires clarification, but I will say it once again for clarity. (1) I provided the blog link purely to give indication of the magazine's contents. The magazine is the source, the blog was the way I found it. (2) The magazine is far from an "obscure print source"; as far as I know it is the most widely-circulated tennis magazine in the country. (3) Accessibility of a source is not an issue (WP:SOURCEACCESS), nor is whether articles exist on other projects. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - スマッシュ [42] is bigger than テ二マガ. There's only three magazines to speak of with significant readership in Japan for tennis, and most niche magazines like this absolutely do not qualify on their own as producing articles which meet WP:N on a national consciousness level in Japan. I don't mind whether an article is behind WP:PAYWALL usually since I already know Japanese sources tend to be very hard to find online, but I am not going to Jinbocho to look for an out-of-print two-page spread in a 2011 monthly magazine column which may or may not be dead, which apparently profiled 「挑戦者」 or rather 「選手歴のメチャメチャ浅いまだブレイクしてない新人」 with no WP:N achievements. If the subject somehow meets consensus Tennis Guidelines then 拍手万万歳 but as of right now there's nothing that meets WP:SPORTCRIT. If she has even been profiled in even any of the tabloid sports newspapers, I will pause to review thoroughly and if this gets stupid past a certain point I will just order the back number of テ二マガ myself to look at it. Jun Kayama 07:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And per GNG it require multiple sources that feature her, not one. She may very well reach tennis guideline notability in the future so I would archive this page to be ready "if" the time comes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of course all she needs to do is win least one title in any of ITF Women's $50,000+ tournaments for consensus Tennis Guidelines which she has not achieved yet - her ITF Doubles win at Aschaffenburg on clay was a $25,000 Tournament [43]. There's an interview after the 90th All Japan Tennis Championships [44] but it's run by one of her sponsors and is nothing but her singing the praises of her new racket by Dunlop Srixon. I would like for the subject to meet the criteria for Keep in some way, shape, or form but it's not justifiable on the basis of achievements right now. Jun Kayama 18:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: The week is almost up, so I will write my summary of the situation. Tanaka was an MVP of the national college championships and a gold medalist at the world university games. She hasn't had a $50,000+ tournament win yet, but was a runner-up at a $75,000 tournament. There has been some coverage in a national magazine and there is an actual biographical article that is sourced, rather than a bare table of victories which is standard for articles concerning players at her level. Her name appears in many articles, including the one for the $75,000 tournament where her teammate and opponents in the final each have articles, so her having an article would make that article more complete. Despite the above, if failing the consensus guideline is the turning point in this discussion, then I ask that the article be sent to my userspace so that the work is not lost and can be moved to mainspace if and when she gets that necessary win. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know you can copy the article and put it in your user space yourself, just in case. As for your summary, I think the person who closes this is well able to summarize. If they feel she meets gng, then fine. But she is not notable for tennis by virtues of her minor, minor league and college accomplishments. She has not been in a WTA event or even won a minor league 50,000 ITF event. But I do think she will qualify one day so this should be saved to user space. Fyunck(click) (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass the criteria for athletes, and not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy - does not meet WP Tennis or sport guidelines for notability. See insufficient evidence that she meets general notability requirements per WP:GNG.--Wolbo (talk) 13:41, 12 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NAVEX Global[edit]

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

There's no evidence of notability in the article or references, this is all one big ad. Nothing there establishes notability, certainly not the only 3 independent sources, local newspapers/companies. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 00:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company worth 1/2 $ billion, important in Oregon and world economy, with sources. Take complaints about style of writing to the Talk page. --do ncr am 03:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A half billion is barely anything in terms of company worth, no evidence of importance in the "world economy", and this article is written like an ad and doesn't give any truly unique or encyclopedic information establishing notability. This is very relevant here. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 04:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as whatever there may be here, my searches found nothing better and the current article is still questionable. Nothing else convincing for solid independent notability of an improvable article. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though I did find one additional reference--an interview in a WSJ blog: [45]. But we really ought to decide these by size of company as an option to the GNG, because, frankly, all it would take to include even insignificant companies is a few of us switching to argue that such interviews and purely financial coverage are sufficiently RSs for notable . Which statistic and what value we pick might be an issue, (eg they have only $200 million revenue, but they were sold for $500 million) but we could have a fuzzy zone. Just for example, for US non-financial companies such as this , No for <$100 million revenue, maybe for 100-500, yes for >500. We'd still have to decide the maybe, such as this firm would be,, but at least it would take care of the two ends of the spectrum. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Dutch & Benelux Formula Ford champions. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Dutch Formula Ford Championship[edit]

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

Low level motorsport championship left unsourced and with little indication of notability since creation. I'm struggling to find anything more than trivial mentions of this championship's existence, let alone anything regarding this individual season, so fails WP:GNG. QueenCake (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep look up "Van Uitert Nederlands kampioenschap Formule Ford" and you'll find more results. Seems notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dutch & Benelux Formula Ford champions. The sources that the above user added recently, would not exactly pass WP:RS. Apart from those ordinary Google hits, I cannot find any reliable sources (0 hits on both GNews and GBooks for "van Uitert" "Jaap van Lagen"), so it seems to fail WP:GNG. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as questionably notable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 3 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. Consensus is now clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Lines[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding Memory Lines Blog to this nomination, since the article was moved to that title. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as none of this seems enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I am the page contributor and working for Wikipedia to make it a better place of Information Encyclopedia.user:stalinsunnykvj.This article on memory lines blog is made for the people who are in search of this project work.This is a non profit project.Also notability is clearly given in the following newspaper daily Mathrubhumi and Deccan chronicle.These are the local dailies and these help inspire each writer to go beyond their dreams.Everything starts from blank page.Wikipedia must not Contain any Irrelevant or Fake information and I being a contributor wish to keep that on but editors should verify the requirement of articles to be included in wikipedia which helps local people and natives.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalinsunnykvj (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 February 2016‎

Stalinsunnykvj For this to be notable and acceptable, this would need solid in-depth third-party sources overall, not trivial passing mentions and press releases. If need be, we can draft and userfy. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 3 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 17:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at most of the cited sources. None meet our requirements in WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The total lack of third party sources points to no major notability, which violates WP:GNG. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SFS Homes[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:CORP: Dubious claims of notability, coupled with a bunch of spurious sources. Most are reprints of press releases or real estate listings. Some of the ratings, such as the CRISIL ones appears to be legitimate, but they do not seem to be of a significance to accord notability. They appear to be more akin to a Chamber of Commerce membership or BBB rating than a particularly significant journalistic or industry distinction. In essence, this is a promotional linkfarm masquerading as a legitimate article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article have many credible news citations like hindu, business line, muscatdaily, kuwait times. Hope it is retained. — 185.89.218.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as this is another company article made to seem like it has convincing enough coverage when it's actually still questionable, delete for now as this is questionable for companies notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SFS homes is a noted real estate developer in India. They are in the papers both nationally and internationally on a regular basis. Hope that solves the notability issue. They recently got the best residential property award in South India. Hindu, Business Line, Yentha, Kuwait Times and Muscat Daily are top tier newspapers. — 202.83.47.52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Business Line is not a newspaper, it's a press release syndicator. Those few articles that are in actual newspapers about this company are merely reprints of press releases. That's not enough to secure notability. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Business line is a business newspaper owned by the renowned Hindu group in India. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.47.52 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah quite, I seem to have mixed Business Line up with Business Wire. Nonetheless, the rest of my comment still stands. None of the articles here are substantial coverage, and all or virtually all are reprints of press releases. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources in the article:
1. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-business/crisil-rating-for-sfs-homes/article216848.ece
2. http://news.kuwaittimes.net/great-opportunity-invest-home-kerala/
3. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/night-shopping-for-sfs-homes/article3710255.ece
4. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/sfs-homes-enters-hospitality-sector/article2823158.ece
5. http://www.technoparktoday.com/sfs-homes-ties-up-with-hdfc-bank-home-loans-for-a-home-expo-in-trivandrum/
6. http://www.centralmarketingsyndicate.net/newsroom.php?id=4
7. http://softsolutionslimited.com/news/component/content/article/98-real-estate/2114-sfs-homes-project-sfs-grande-awarded-gold-rating-by-the-indian-green-building-council
8. http://www.m.muscatdaily.com/Archive/Oman/India-Property-Show-in-Muscat-to-feature-Kerala-s-best-real-estate-companies-3n8r
9. http://www.yentha.com/news/view/4/Real-Estate-Boom-In-Trivandrum
10. "SFS Crisil Rating DA2". sfshomes.com. Retrieved 2016-02-02.
11. "7 star crisil rated award". sfshomes.com. Retrieved 2016-02-02.
12. "Best residential property, South India". sfshomes.com. Retrieved 2016-02-02.
13. "IBGC Gold rating certificate". sfshomes.com. Retrieved 2016-02-02.
Cunard (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article (which I have listed above) are press releases and trivial coverage.
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SFS Homes to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough independent coverage in reliable, independent sources to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. G. George[edit]

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

There is a lot of puffery in this article, but nothing that indicates the subject passes either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. He was Principal of a seminary, but there is nothing that indicates it is the "major academic institution" described in WP:PROF #6. St Anselm (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have had only a small impact on the world of scholarship. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- I agree there is a good deal of puff, which needs pruning out, but he sounds like a major figure in an indigenous denomination. I accept that theological schools tend to be small, because they are typically not part of a multi-disciplinary university, but that does not make them insignificant. Dean and Principal are higher than professor (using that term in the British sense. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a waak keep,but we need to compensate for our difficulty in finding sources on this subject.I did some cleanup. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per DGG's argument on difficulty of finding sources and Peterkingiron's notion of the level of Dean and Principal. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the clean-up efforts, no longer has such a high degree of promotionalism. Barely meets, but does meet, notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus - No objections against speedy renomination - AFDs been up 3 weeks and has been relisted twice and so I think relisting for another week won't achieve anything in terms of discussion so closing as No Consensus - No objections against speedy deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Court[edit]

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

I can't see much evidence of notability for this organisation, that would prove it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. A Google search for articles or books reveals little, and several refs on the page don't mention it at all. — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article exists for two years and it's original form included some references from New York Times and some other serious sources. I definitely can't stay as is, being overloaded with non relevant and misleading references. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Only one person arguing to keep, but he presented sources which nobody explicitly refuted, so I'm assuming they're valid. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Ocasio[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Has an interview in a teen magazine, but nothing else in-depth. Is in the main cast of a television show but has otherwise had bit parts—doesn't meet any part of WP:NACTOR. I'd entertain a redirect to Sam & Cat, if needed. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 10:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar 10:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no signs of better satisfying the creative entertainers notability, and I would've also suggested adding a redirect to Sam & Cat as 35 episodes may be enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes criteria 2 of WP:NACTOR of having a large fan base, as he had third billing in all 35 episodes of Sam & Cat, which was shown worldwide.However, WP:NACTOR are only guidelines that indicate whether reliable sources are likely to be found, so will look for RS to pass WP:Verifiability Atlantic306 (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For NACTOR#2, I don't see any reliable source evidence of a fan base specific to Ocasio. czar 05:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a lot of web activity on him, with a lot of interviews including The Huffington Post. An example of his popularity here [46] picking up an award for the show at an awards ceremony voted for by children. The interview here [47] is followed by some decent prose which could be sourced to the article . I'm still looking for more sources but iI think it should be remembered that there is nothing contentious or even personal in the article.Atlantic306 (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment more examples of coverage of the actor [48] and [49] (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haruka Kohara[edit]

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

No evidence of independent notability outside of AKB48 and SDN48, neither of which she now appears to be a member of. The article basically consists of a list of singles and events in which she participated - all sourced to Studio48.net pages, which are fan-edited and wiki-based. No biographical details and no in-depth third-party coverage, so this does not pass WP:GNG. DAJF (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I would've suggested moving to one of the band articles but, obviously since she's not part of any of those, there's unlikely solid chances of that and this is vulnerable to being restored again so, with no better convincing signs for the applicable entertainers notability, delete at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think she loses the notability just because she is not a member of the popular band. I don't really follow the band, but it seems she was popular when she was a member. She might be less so now but in Wikipedia, a person cannot lose notability after she retires or (god forbid) dies. We don't delete the article after the subject of the article is dead even though there will be no new reliable sources. Yes, the article should have more just lists, but that's not an argument for the deletion. -- Taku (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's actually been on a number of radio programs and television variety shows as a guest (most guest spots are cannon fodder really) and for the last three years she's had a decent run playing the titular character in Anne of Green Gables on a stage production [50] but there is nothing to suggest she meets the requirements of WP:N. She's not in the spotlight for much. Jun Kayama 07:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She clearly meets at least WP:MUSICBIO #6 ("is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles"). --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Google News search [51] shows many news articles about her (25 at least). I think she passes WP:GNG. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Calling most of those links "news" is a bit much. Reading through them, most are name drops of stage productions she's been cast in, or a few photobooks events she's held. Considering the tags mostly consist of this type of content [52] does she really qualify for WP:N? She doesn't have an independent music career, she's not on Japanese TV, she does stage productions which would have difficulty meriting their own articles on Japanese Wikipedia and if it's not photobooks, it's puff pieces like this in Sponichi [53] which are not carried elsewhere. Jun Kayama 17:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A JaWiki user gave news:

"Searched by Google News. After AKB48,

One Anime news site reported , In this year, she was acting as 'EIKO' on the stage of Pripara. And another news site said she appears on fishing TV program in 2013." - ja:利用者‐会話:Strangesnow

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Subject is not even in the main cast line, but in the bottom as a minor supporting character for stage of Pripara. Fishing program? [54] talks about her having a DVD shoot for a グラビア in Hawaii, not a fishing program. Every single young female tarento in Japan has a turn at being a gravure idol and getting coverage for it, which hardly qualifies all of them as WP:N. Jun Kayama 14:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Every single young female tarento in Japan" doesn't get articles about her published in major press outlets. She does. She passes WP:GNG. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:30, 9 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 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While she may meet one of the Musicbio criteria, that only means that she may be notable. Based on the totality of the sourcing available, she does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at any of the news articles about her that pop up in a Google News search? It doesn't look like you did. For example, why isn't this "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail"? It is. Just as required by WP:GNG. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semmel Concerts Entertainment[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. There are lots of claims of notability in the article, but I could not find any coverage to verify them. ubiquity (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sampling the news on him from the past year or so, it seems to mostly be sporadic mentions, news releases, and one-off quotes. I can't see this passing WP:BIO, as the individual mentions together don't really contribute much beyond identifying him by his name and role. As for the company, there also seems to be no in-depth coverage. GAB^Hello! 21:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as searches found only expected mentions, nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Pandita (photographer)[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion, autobiography. Fails WP:ARTIST. The "references" cited in the article are not proper citations. utcursch | talk 17:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 17:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A local photographer with none of the sources being detailed enough to suggest a better improvable article and also satisfying WP:CREATIVE thus there's nothing else convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This even satisfies speedy. A local photographer that may be notable in future, but definitely self promotional and fails even WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article's subject is certainly not notable, and the citations are obviously not authentic; besides, the article itself is a mess, with unwarranted bold phrases, deplorable grammar, and a link to Instagram. Like Arthistorian1977 said, this article is self-promotional, and reads much like a poorly written resume. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (talk) 20:04, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Azin FSC[edit]

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

This club has played only in the second tier of Iranian futsal league system. Non-notable. XXN, 17:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real references, nothing to indicate that this is a top-division team. Google search in fact turns up a reference to Steel Azin as "one of Tehran’s minor clubs". Rockypedia (talk) 18:29, 3 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dressipi[edit]

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

Brief article, SPA/COI issues for promotional reasons. As for notability, there's little except this DM article by Liz Jones from 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2058368/Online-shopping-websites-Dressipi-promises-virtual-stylist-size-right.html and let's be honest, with the amount of articles churned out by them these days, one article from them isn't enough to give notability. tiny following on social media (barely >1000 twitter, <4000 fb). Rayman60 (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the coverage is only trivial and none of this satisfies the applicable companies notability, nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:HEY, in particular w.r.t Ironholds' research. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Lowater[edit]

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

I'm obviously not going to get very many Google hits on someone who lived a century ago, but even then the only things I'm finding are a brief bio (which is paraphrased entirely in this page) and her three publications. I'm not seeing anything that implies she was any more than a MILL researcher (i.e. I'm not sure she meets WP:PROF, let alone WP:GNG). Primefac (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She was a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the London Physical Society, which meets WP:PROF criterion #3, "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". (For what it's worth, I know there's more out there about her, but it's in physical sources I don't have access to.) Keilana (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Membership in FRAS is open to anyone (there is no official selection criteria). Previous FRAS members have had their pages deleted, such as Shannon Bohle. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is nice but says nothing about the membership of the London Physical Society, which from looking at it was a pretty distinguished grouping. Ironholds (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmn; so I've done some background reading on this and it seems you're both right and wrong. Yes, Fellowship is now totally arbitrary - but it wasn't always! In fact, historically it required things like internal nomination by a Fellow who would attest to their expertise and work, and then a ballot of the existing Fellows. Historically, like in 1922, when (according to Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society) Lowater was nominated. By Edward Emerson Barnard, whose astronomical credentials were good enough for him to end up with a galaxy named after him. So, yes, FRAS status is meaningless - but it wasn't. Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mentioned in this newspaper as being a secretary for Bryn Mawr and a "demonstrator" in physics, this one as being president of the college's Graduate Club. Sam Walton (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And not an independent source, but usable: [55] Sam Walton (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Lowater was a fellow of the RAS (see my comments above), a member of the London Physical Society, and a member of the Royal Institute. (She was also a member of the Illinois State Academy of Science but that's slightly smaller fry). She easily, convincingly passes the WP:PROF criteria. Ironholds (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as promient early woman physicist, passes WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as someone who easily password WP:PROF with their membership in multiple fellowships and the above mentions in the Times of London. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion is insufficient for informed consensus: On the keep side, many assert notability but do not argue why the subject is notable or indeed make any argument at all. On the delete side, many cite WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE but do not link to any place where a deletion request by the subject might be documented; or argue why the subject is not notable. I recommend a renomination after some time with a discussion that is more focused on the underlying question of notability. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is only useful as a tie-breaker in case there is no consensus about notability, but the request would need to be documented. Sandstein 14:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene McMann[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is about a person, while doing admirable work in raising money for cancer research does not seem to meet the WP:GNG for notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads more like a resume or LinkedIn page. While alluding to notability, there is nothing substantive enough to establish it or really justify an encyclopedia entry. In light of the notability and BLP issues present in this article, I say delete it. -- John Reaves 16:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE amongst other things, as documented on ANI and elsewhere. I don't mind articles being kept with a cursory amount of sourcing provided WP:BLP is being met, but when the coverage begins to become severely negative, we should take a different stance. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only because restoring proper balance to the article makes me feel icky, but we cannot maintain a hagiography for someone who indisputably stole money from a charity. Marginally notable, so willing to defer to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but the hypocrisy and emotional blackmailing by the subject's alleged friend doesn't sit well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am mostly in agreement with Floquenbeam. One thing to note is subject also goes by the name of "Charlene McMann-Seaman", and has written a book on surviving cancer. It would also appear she hosted a TV show on a weekly basis, but I have no idea how long the show lasted? [56] --Cahk (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have seen nothing to change my mind since I nominated this for deletion five years ago.—Chowbok ☠ 17:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's should be obvious, though, that if this article is kept, the information about the arrest be restored.—Chowbok ☠ 22:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: It should be restored now. As in right this second. That it isn't there is insulting. --Tarage (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - the sooner this is deleted, the better, in my opinion. --Ches (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral; the page either needs to stay with all its information or needs to go. The sources seem to be there for notability(barely) but the cited request policy would seem to be relevant here. We can't give in to legal threats and keep the page without her conviction (where apparently she pleaded guilty so I'm not sure what the source of all the trouble is) which may be what the user doing the removal of it wants, but deleting the whole page seems a reasonable compromise, even if the notability is there to keep it. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the comment below by Jbhunley, I would tend to want this kept until/unless a proper request is made, as we should not give in to legal threats and this person seems notable enough for a page. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the above, especially that we should delete the article if it can't demonstrate notability and neutrality without the contested parts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This subject has received significant recognition in reliable sources both before and after the criminal conviction as easily evidenced by simple googling, the article's been around since 2010 without issue and when nominated for deletion before the consensus was a unanimous "keep". The extensive news coverage since then, regarding the criminal issues moves this further from "marginal" notability than it was even before. Now that it's been updated with well-sourced, non-contentious information about a criminal conviction we're in a rush to delete it because someone claims "she's suicidal and it's Wikipedia's fault". BLP requires strict application of policies and guidelines, not fearfully nuking whole articles so we don't have to include negative content, just because the subject is upset that the information is included. Sheesh. The may be the worst case of BLP-creep-induced hysteria and censorship I've ever witnessed. Swarm ♠ 23:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - as a deletionist and per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. This article should have been deleted the first time around. Everyone wants articles about themselves or their friends when things are going good, but the instant negative press occurs suddenly they want privacy and think they're no longer notable enough. Part of me wants to keep this just to prove that point, but that would be POINTY I guess. Just delete this as a correction to a past mistake. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 00:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - This is certainly an uncomfortable situation, although I believe that deleting this on the basis of the legal threat could set a bad precedent and perhaps even lead to a chilling effect. As it stands, the article is too promotional and CV-like, and while the disputed content (ironically) adds to notability, I also cannot agree with excluding this well-sourced material. I think 331dot has made a solid point overall. GAB^Hello! 01:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the original patroller who made the reverts, and subsequent reports here and on ANI, I feel the edit pattern of the user is consistent with pressure tactics that cannot be reconciled as a 'friend' in distress. I know I can be wrong, but if Wikipedia is to remove negative information simply because 'friends' demand it, I feel Wikipedia would have lost its purpose.--Cahk (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's not a massive amount of notability here; also, the article claims that she is still "co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Chicago Blood Cancer Foundation, a non-profit committed to curing lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma", an organization which appears not to exist any more, which was only mentioned in the part of the article that was removed. If consensus is to not delete this, the part about her conviction needs to be restored, or otherwise the article is simply an unbalanced hagiography. Laura Jamieson (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia should not and must not bow to editor threats. --Tarage (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems the article in its whitewashed state is below the bar for notability, but coverage of the criminal proceedings do seem enough to tip the balance in favour of notability; I feel that the hagiographic version also serves to prevent the article seeming like a WP:BLP1E violation—the subject isn't known solely for one thing, just most prominently for it. GRAPPLE ^X 12:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be helpful if I went into more depth about the sources and explain why I'm sticking with !voting delete:

A news search right now brings back the Chicago SunTimes, WQAD and NBC Chicago sources covering the arrest, and a cursory bit about the book as mentioned above.

Three things strike me as being insufficient to make a WP:BLPCRIME article stick. Firstly, they're local sources, not national. No New York Times, no USA Today. Okay, the Sun-Times has got the 8th highest circulation in the US, but it's still a bit of a red flag that this is not a major national news story that deserves a footnote in the history of all human knowledge. In particular, what does strike me as odd is that the headline doesn't even mention her by name, merely describing her as a "west Chicago woman", finally getting round to naming her in the second paragraph. How much more "not really that notable actually" do you want? Secondly, the sources seem to all be repeating the same press release from the court, which is pretty typical for these sorts of reports, and we generally discourage writing something that cites effectively the same source multiple times.

Thirdly, there's not the sustained news coverage that I would expect from a genuine BLPCRIME article. Now compare and contrast this article with Adam Johnson (footballer) who's mugshot was all over The Sun and The Daily Mirror when I popped into the local shops this morning over the rather more severe charge of child rape. As you can see, there is an impeccably sourced three-paragraph section with sources spanning the past month, including heavyweights such as The Guardian, The Independent and BBC News, all of which are unquestionably about him directly and name him straight up in the headline ( i.e.: "Adam Johnson this...", "Adam Johnson that....", "Adam Johnson the other...."). THAT is the sort of coverage I want to see before I think about including serious criminal activity in BLPs. If you spin back a year or two, you should find that we were well behind the broadsheets, let alone the tabloids, in documenting the full extent of Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris abuse scandals, and by the time they deserved a place in Wikipedia, they weren't really telling anyone anything they didn't already hear about from anywhere else. That's nowhere near what we've got here - I suspect if I got a room full of you and said "hands up everyone who heard of Charlene McMann" outside the recent dramafest?" not too many hands would be going up.

Sorry, but disregarding everything that's happened on ANI (and we should as it's not really relevant for an AfD debate after all) this looks like a typical WP:BLP1E, not much different from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Stierch (2nd nomination) all things considered. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has been said elsewhere, if the subject was notable before, then this would NOT make her less so. Regards, Aloha27 talk 17:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BLPREQUESTDELETE is only applicable if the subject of the biography makes the request. There is no OTRS ticket linked here saying the requesting account is the BLP subject nor do they represent themself as such but rather as a "friend". Until and unless the request is made by the subject and the requestor is verified BLPREQUESTDELETE should have no bearing. Jbh ^Talk 19:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notice than I am not “voting” to keep or delete. I just want to bring up something that we should keep in mind when examining cases like this one. It is the statistical concept of “Selection bias”. If we keep deleting “borderline notable” BLPs that have “soured” (conviction, scandal, job loss, etc.) then we would be introducing “Selection bias” into BLPs. In this case, Wikipedia would be giving a “rosier” picture of society than it is in reality. Wikipedia should reflect society in a truthful and unbiased way. Tradedia^talk 02:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There appears to be inside conversations and potential animus based upon in the back and forth between editors. Objectively, it appears that notability is lacking in the first instance and the article exists solely as an attack piece. This is not appropriate for an online encyclopedia. A clear delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Followthefortunes2016 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why hello there, mysterious new editor whose only other contribution is also related to the subject of this article. GRAPPLE ^X 20:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charity watchdog[edit]

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC) ((move to wiktionary))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedia article. Andrew D. (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve if needed. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the sort of article we could accept at WP:TAFI, It's certainly a notable subject and could easily be expanded to include most if not all of the world, Fails DICEDEF (IE doesn't meet it) and Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 11:57, 8 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. No prejudice to competent recreation. Sandstein 22:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cologne patricians[edit]

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

It looks like an attempt to create family genealogy. Some statements look like an invention and fiction. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another of the family tree articles where none are notable, this article fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic is certainly notable, and a translation of the German Wikipedia article on it would, I think, be welcome. However, very little or none of the present article would be likely to survive in an acceptable article on the topic - it concentrates on one particular family (admittedly, apparently the most important one during the 13th and 14th centuries, the main period of patrician dominance in Cologne), presumably because it uses as (unreliable) sources genealogical websites and 19th century books on the then leading families of St. Louis, one of which claimed descent from the family concerned. At that, the article leaves it entirely unclear that over a century elapsed between the Battle of Worringen and the entirely unrelated dispute that led to the (partial) expulsion of the leading patrician families (apparently including the St. Louis branch's ancestors) from Cologne. Basically, Wikipedia will lose nothing worth having by the article's deletion unless it gets thoroughly rewritten meanwhile. PWilkinson (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As PWilkinson points out, the subject of the Cologne patriciate is notable, and so (judging from the German article) is the Overstolz family, but this looks like a WP:TNT case. If the claim about Roman origins, taken at face value in this article, is indicative of the quality of the work behind the rest of the article, starting from scratch seems like a better idea. --Hegvald (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support another article being created, but this one has no encyclopedic value. If someone unconflicted and fluent in German wants to translate the German article, then that would be fine. This family tree thing is not though. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quodia[edit]

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

No evidence of real significance (let alone notability) for this organisation. I only refrained from speedying it because I don't think we should delete such old pages (it's been around since 2006) on notability/significance grounds without discussion at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The group was notable at the time of it's creation, since it's a collective of two well known artists. It actually turned to be one item project, releasing only one album. All the requires information exists in Trey Gunn article. Since no new projects were created by this group and the last performace helf in 2007, it's real that no additional coverage will appear independently from Trey Gunn. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches only found a few passing mentions, nothing for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Three weak sources:[57],[58],[59]. The last may or may not be RS, based on what I read here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy1339, how is the third one a reliable source? It's just a web magazine written by people with no credentials, as far as I can see. Are the others? The "about" page of the second one, according to Google Translate, makes it seem as if they publish everything from solid articles to press releases; we have no business trusting something they put up unless the person using it understands Polish or has otherwise examined the article carefully. Of course, if you do or you've done that, great; I'll trust your words. For whatever reason, Google won't evaluate the first source, and the page itself won't load directly for me, so I can't have an opinion. Could you comment at all about it? Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bachana Arabuli[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Giorgi Kulua

Articles for deletion/Bachana Arabuli

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion here, and closed no consensus without prejudice to speedy renomination due to bundling issues. The underlying notability concerns remain however. Arabuli has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not played in a fully pro league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment - a user in the previous discussion said that this source shows that the Umaglesi Liga is professional. I did very slight research and found mixed results. If the Umaglesi Liga is found to be professional than the article should be kept, if not than article should be deleted. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused between the notion of a professional league, one in which there is a degree of remuneration, where some teams may pay their players sufficient that they do not need other employment, and a fully professional league, where the level of financing in the competition as a whole is such that essentially all first team players are full-time. I don't think there is any doubt that there are elements of full professionalism within georgian football. The doubt remains whether the league is fully professional given the level of attendances amongst other statistics and comments in sources. Fenix down (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only confusion here is that of the football wikiproject groupthinkers who believe that such a thing as a "fully professional league" actually exists anywhere in the world, and, even if it did exist, whether it bears any relationship to actual notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you seem to confuse consensus with group think,. You probably ought to review WP:FPL then as there are plenty of sources there which confirm the fully professional nature of a large number of leagues. As always, GNG trumps any subject-specific guidelines, so perhaps rather than popping into AfDs to post bitter comments, you might find your time more productively spent trying to find sources to satisfy GNG, it would certainly be morehelpful to the wider project. Fenix down (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with doing that. Firstly I don't read Georgian - it has a beautifully looking alphabet but I'm afraid I can't make any sense of the language, so can't make a stab of getting anything out of these potential sources. The other problem is that deletion discussions for any footballer outside the major European footballing nations always start with the same few editors claiming that they don't meet WP:GNG, but without saying what evidence thay base that statement on. Maybe Sir Sputnik and GiantSnowman could tell us what steps they made to determine that this player does not meet WP:GNG, which is the usual way that deletion discussions on other topics are conducted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue appears to primarily be whether the league is fully professional or not. If someone can read Georgian and is interested in this AfD, I recommend reading the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Georgian_Umaglesi_Liga, visiting the site listed by FkpCascais, and updating the list of known fully professional leagues to reflect the appropriate status of the Umaglesi Liga. To avoid further controversy, please consider posting (at the above-linked discussion) an English translation of the applicable paragraph(s) from the Georgian football regulations.--Rpclod (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem. The anglocentric football notability criteria make the issue whether the league is fully professional or not, rather than recognise that this player has played ten matches for the most successful football team in Georgia, and so is, from any sensible standpoint, more notable than someone who has played ten matches for the 92nd most successful team in England. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While Umaglesi Liga is the top league in the Republic of Georgia, it is not on the list of fully-professional leagues, and thus cannot be used to meet the current requirements of WP:NFOOTY. Arabuli has not played for the Georgia national football team and has not appeared to garner enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the current requirements of WP:NFOOTY are fit for purpose. Does anyone really believe that someone who has played ten matches for York City, a perfectly respectable team but not a particularly successful one, should be presumed notable but not someone who has played 10 matches for Dinamo Tbilisi, by far Georgia's most successful team and one of the top teams in the former Soviet Union? Can we please base the discussion on real life rather than wikilawyering? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:16, 8 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 00:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow reading[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and may be WP:OR. giso6150 (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting subject matter. I searched a bit and found numerous other scientific papers about the same matter, but all of them were seemingly made in China like the ones already in the article. I used google translate to translate "shallow reading" into simplified Chinese, and then googled the resulting 浅阅读. It gave me 3 million results, and the first pages of the results seemed to all be about the exact matter of shallow reading. The exact first result was a big Baidu encyclopedia article about shallow reading. Maybe this "shallow reading" doesn't apply to English or Latin characters as much. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This concept is similar to what I'd call skimming and we have some content about that at speed reading. There's plenty of scholarly sources about this under a variety of names. Andrew D. (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that merit a merge? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There might be some merger but the direction is not clear and it would all be ordinary editing, not deletion. AFD is not cleanup. BTW, while I'm here, here's a book about the topic and its implications – The Shallows. Andrew D. (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't enough material for an article of its own then it merits only a section at Speed reading, doesn't it? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Speed reading. How surprisingly poorly we look to cover this topic. It's a toughie because there's definitely a notable subject around here somewhere (though I'm inclined to think there are more common or broader terms than "shallow reading", e.g. skimming, scanning, Adler's "inspectional" reading, etc.). The biggest problem here is that we do cover this topic elsewhere and the content of this article looks to be based on a single source. Given the combination of these facts, this article does more harm than good and redirecting seems most appropriate for now. I do agree that "speed reading" is not ideal, though, as it emphasizes time rather than comprehension in the relationship between the two. Some other articles to consider when thinking about the best way forward: close reading, reading comprehension, reading (process), slow reading. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to speed reading. This seems like more-or-less the same thing as that. If there are different aspects to it, they can be explained (hopefully better) over there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to get better consensus on keep or redirect Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the Li reference, shallow reading was popularized by Nicholas G. Carr in his book The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. It is partly about skimming, but also partly about the shortening of attention span through clicking of hyperlinks, checking Facebook as you read, etc. Hence I don't think this is synonymous with skimming. The book was a Pulitzer prize finalist and stimulated a lot of discussion; here is an example PBS Newshour segment on the idea. Searching for "The shallows" carr in Google News yields lots of articles in RS. So my sense is that this topic is notable. --Mark viking (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Gore And Perkins WWE World Heavyweight Champions[edit]

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

The article is a list of champions from a web show that plays video games, specifically in this case WWE '13. I originally tagged this with a CSD tag, but the tag did not apply.

In any case none of this content is remotely close to being encyclopedic, as it's simply a table for gamers playing a video game. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would have speedied if I could have found the right criteria (A11?) but I struggled to find something that fit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know I tagged it as A7 for web content as this was based off a nn YouTube channel, however A7 didn't apply. It's one of those weird areas where I know it's deletion worthy, just not able to pinpoint exactly where. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - doesn't serve importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. Absolutely nothing encyclopedic about a video game results on a non-notable webshow. This is an embarrassment. oknazevad (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the speedy deletion criteria apply in my view. "doesn't serve importance" is not one of the criteria. Nor is "nothing encyclopedic". However, if this is actually merely the records of a series of video game encounters, and not records of actual wrestling matches involving very notable wrestlers, then delete as lacking and demonstrated notability. Should such a web series become a matter of frequent public comment so as to pass the WP:GNG there could perhaps be an article about it, but I don't see that here. DES ^(talk) 23:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 03:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. V. Srinijan[edit]

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

Biography of a person who does not appear to meet WP:GNG ; as a politician, WP:POLITICIAN is not met and they appear to be known mainly for one event (WP:BLP1E) - according to the article there was "media attention" around the event (which apparently involved some kind of minor tax evasion) but I can only find a few brief notices in the press. Perhaps the newspaper articles have expired from their articles as this was six years ago. Attempts have been made to change the article into a promotion piece, and also to create a new article about him, but no new sources have been forthcoming. bonadea contributions talk 12:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to nomination: I have (mostly) restored an older version which had more references, but I still think WP:BLP1E applies here. A couple of the references are more about his father-in-law than about the subject of the article himself. --bonadea contributions talk 15:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:BLP1E. Non-notable low profile individual. Vipinhari || talk 17:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. The only substantive claims of notability here are that he was an unsuccessful candidate for election to a notable office and that he was involved with the youth wing of his political party — but neither of those are things that get a person into Wikipedia in and of themselves. Which means the tax evasion charges are the only thing left — but per WP:PERP, an otherwise low-profile person who was not already notable enough for an article does not get over the bar on the basis of criminal charges, and the article is not claiming or sourcing that he was convicted of the charges. (And even if he actually was convicted and the article just forgot to mention that, tax evasion is an all-too-common low-level crime for which we can't feasibly maintain an article about every single tax evader who ever evaded a tax — so that still wouldn't really get him over the bar, as the crime itself isn't a noteworthy one.) Accordingly, nothing here grants him enough notability to be a suitable article topic, and the volume of sourcing is not compelling enough to claim WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 5 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tosin Opaleke[edit]

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

Non-notable entertainer. No indications of any significant coverage of this individual. His claim to notability is his appearance in various shows, but these are only referenced with his own Instagram pictures, so the significance of these shows is difficult to assess. His appearance on the Unilorin radio station cannot be verified, because their website does not contain any content about him. No other independent coverage can be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero independent news coverage, and Instagram and other social media sites seem to be all there is. Even searching his name at http://www.fm.unilorin.edu.ng/ (cited in the article) yields nothing. GAB^Hello! 22:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:44, 3 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of console RTS games[edit]

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

Same as other AfD; it's a list of games in a certain genre, released for everything but handheld and PC. An unnecessary distinction. There's already Category:Real-time strategy video games. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary cross-section better served by a category. Not stand-alone WP:GNG notable as WP:LISTN. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:30, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of console game franchises[edit]

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

Unnecessary and redundant; there's already List of video game franchises and Category:Video game franchises. It doesn't just list game franchises that have been released exclusively on consoles, but every franchise, also the ones that started out on PC. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List of video game franchises and the associated category serve the purpose already. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary cross-section better served by a category. Not stand-alone WP:GNG notable as WP:LISTN. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to have been discussed as a group in reliable sources--Prisencolin (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (A7) Alexf^(talk) 13:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdishakur channel[edit]

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

Foreign Language page Prof TPMS (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:A7; it's a YouTube channel that makes no claim of significance. (A page being written in a language other than English can be translated, its language isn't a reason to delete it.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Man (Ruby Gyang Song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG with no secondary sources. No suggestion that the song has charted, won awards or had significant independent releases. McGeddon (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Artist does not have own article. Attempts to speedy this have been blocked by claim that artist is represented by a notable label, but the artist is not mentioned in the article about the label. ubiquity (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable under WP:GNG creator also blocked now --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have waited in case coverage in reliable, independent sources could be found, but it has not been forthcoming. Even if the newly created article on the artist stays, this song appears to fail WP:NSONG. - Arjayay (talk) 17:56, 8 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony McGee[edit]

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

Appears to be a completely promotional article for a non-notable photographer filled with dead links to questionable sources. Jacona (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really tried to find some confirmation for him being notable, but unfortunately no information is available. So, unless someone is more lucky in finding sources, delete. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:24, 3 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 WP:SNOW delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bring Chrome Home[edit]

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

Not an obviously significant fan club for a horse. There is a small amount of sourcing, but most of it is just cursory mentions; not really enough to sustain and write a full article on the subject. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Group that second guesses racehorse ownership looking for publicity? Waste of time. Lois433 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems basically a 'fan' written page, lacking in notability and neutrality. Eagleash (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion declining speedy at [60]. It's a Facebook group. Clearly fails GNG and restating their allegations here is a BLP violation as applied to the people discussed at DAP Racing. Also appears to be attracting the drama there to here. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another bunch of yahoos who think they know better than a professional trainer. Not notable in the least. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is an anonymous FB page claiming to be a "fan" page. Obviously written to promote dissension and bias with questionable motivation.greensodagal^(talk) 15:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This topic might be worth a sentence or two in the main article on California Chrome but isn't notable enough to be a stand-alone. Tigerboy1966 23:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG. I couldn't find any sources that provide in-depth coverage of the article subject, nor could I find enough sources to assert that significant coverage exists to satisfy the criteria. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis Wiki page seems like a ploy for another outlet of harassment upon trainers and owners in the racing community.. chromieismyhomie (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fan page for a non-notable thing, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 6 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 with no prejudice against creating an article at this title about the 1880 building. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Customs House Port Adelaide[edit]

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

Non notable building that is miles away from meeting the general notability guideline. Seemingly created by the property's owner. SmartSE (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the 1987 building that is the focus of the article (as presently written) is not particularly notable, and that it does appear that it's been written by someone with a very close connection with the subject. However, there is another "Customs House Port Adelaide" which is much more notable as it was built in 1880, in a prime location adjacent to the historic precinct and the waterfront, and is nationally-heritage listed. As it's been left empty for many years and neglected by the owner, this is a source of concern to the local community (see: Masonry work starts at Port Adelaide’s Customs House on Commercial Road). IMHO the article title needs to be kept, and the whole article completely rewritten with a major focus on the 1880 building, as well as mentioning earlier buildings with the same name (going back to 1840) which have not survived. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article about the current building is non-notable. No objection to creating one about the 1880 building though. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I noticed this, assumed it was talking about the 1880 building, and was wondering why the heck anyone would try to delete it. Once I read the detail, I was wondering why anyone would create this one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - fails WP:GNG Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but with no prejudice against the creation of another article on the 1880 building. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mollee Gray[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE, Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Appears to be non-notable. JMHamo (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better and none of this solidly satisfies the creative and entertainers notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Cindlevet (talk) 22:03, 5 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pukaar Magazine[edit]

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

Local magazine that does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There is some coverage in local news sources, but not much else. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No wide coverage in reliable sources to meet the notability guidelines. Opencooper (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-US Marriage Culture[edit]

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

This is the author's class project that I previously deleted as a copyright violation. This seems cleaner, but looks to me like original research by synthesis, and chunks of the Marriage concepts section look more like unsourced stereotypes than encyclopaedic content Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this type of comparative essay does not make for an encyclopedia entry. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe this could be moved to AfC with the coda that it could only be moved to the mainspace if it's accepted? I'm always reluctant to remove student material entirely because some teachers require it for grading purposes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, his deadline for submission is 3 March, so he's happy that it's still standing. Although Wikipedia isn't a repository for student projects, i respect your judgement and I'll go along with whatever you see fit to do Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I figure that if it goes to AfC and doesn't get accepted and/or doesn't get edited, it'll eventually be G13'd. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Barn PKT[edit]

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

Individual chapter of a fraternity with no sources for notability . A7 removed with the comment "Oldest in large county, references are available online - http://www.dailytitan.com/2010/02/phi-kappa-tau-then-and-now/ " -- but that is merely the college paper, which is not reliable for the notability of a student organization on its own campus I don't think we've ever considered an individual chapter of a fraternity notability -- certainly not without very strong evidence . DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local fraternity organization, none of this satisfies the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think a college newspaper is at least somewhat independent as a source compared to, say, the overall fraternity (not enough for notability but enough as a credible claim of significance) but regardless I can't find any other sources for this individual chapter. Appable (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Kross Amsterdam[edit]

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

Non notable musical group, can't find WP:RS to show it meets GNG Gbawden (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I patrolled this at NPP and planned to also nominate for deletion as none of this satisfies the applicable music notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 4 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 Varies. Consensus to delete Jupiter Circus, to redirect Pratishodh Ki Jwala and to merge Nagayana. Sandstein 18:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nagayana[edit]

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

Article about a comic "crossover event" with no references that demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article, about a comic story arc and a fictional location with no indications of notability:

Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nagayana must be merged to Nagraj comics and shortened. Jupiter Circus and Pratishodh Ki Jwala must be deleted. From someone who actually read these comics years ago. In what sense the Jupiter Circus article was kept here for years? Captain Spark (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because nobody noticed it, I guess, Captain Spark. There are lots of similarly problematic articles about aspects of these comics, I am increasinly discovering. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Nagayana as suggested above. Pratishodh Ki Jwala should probably be a redirect to Super Commando Dhruva. I don't think any content needs to be moved. Delete Jupiter Circus - there's nothing there worth keeping, and a redirect is unnecessary. The only things that link to it come from a template. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Methanol Synthesis[edit]

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

Reason The article has been dangling for 7 years with a "please improve references". While the reaction discussed is real it is economically impractical. Only two wikipedia pages link here (although 6 user pages do), and the group/category/stub tags show it to be of low importance.

Most importantly, all the content is covered elsewhere, so an aggregation of low-importance data into its own page seems counterproductive.

Riventree (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In short: The useful content is elsewhere on Wikipedia and is referenced there, but not here. In detail: The only reference within the article is to the characteristics of a methanol engine in comparison to a diesel, which is in no way specific to this method of synthesis. Many of the statements within the article are non-neutral, naive expressions of enthusiasm. All are unreferenced. This particular reaction is only one of several approaches to bio-methanol. As stated by nom., it is not generally considered to be the most viable; however, this is not necessarily fatal to the article's existence. What is fatal to the present article is that all the useful content of this article applies to methanol generally, and is in that article already. There is also a unaddressed problem with this article: 1) there are "green field" synthetic plants, which do not use this particular exact reaction, and 2) Green Freedom, a trademark name, seems to have some connection to this reaction. The original editor chose not to respond to a request for clarification in 2008 on this problematic aspect. According to IRENA, [61], "the term 'bio-methanol' refers to both methanol produced from renewable resources and 'renewable methanol' produced from CO2". For all of these reasons, it isn't feasible to merge this content or rename this particular content "Bio-methanol". One option would be to rewrite the article from scratch, using a broader range of sources, such as the above IRENA ref, [62], [63] and [64] etc. This would be a completely new article, and the present edit history would have no relevancy to the new effort. However, there are already 2 articles that overlap in this concept space, methanol fuel and methanol economy. So, if appropriate in the future, "bio-methanol" would probably be better "growing out of" one of these, if hypothetically expanded content there became worthy of a new article. For all these reasons, the best course of action is deletion. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to methanol fuel, although a new article at biomethanol (currently a redirect) would probably be welcome also. Per FeatherPluma. shoy (reactions) 14:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this is worth merging. The salient content is already in methanol and methanol economy, respectively; this partial excerpt is superfluous.-- Elmidae (talk) 13:47, 8 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Song Yunhyeong[edit]

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

Song Yunhyeong is not individually notable outside of iKON / Team B (WP:MUSBIO). Random86 (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I patrolled this at NPP but never planned to nominate for deletion at least not seriously, but looking at this now, it seems the subject is best known for the group and not independently. 07:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC) --SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing offensive to have a wikipedia page as an individual as he is recognized as a public figure. --Michellemicay222 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It benefits the community by providing details on YG Entertainment's Artist for those who are interested . etc , media students to have some background information for research. --Michellemicay222 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

KeepIt is important to have a relatively safe platform for the mass to get information on the public figures , removing the page will result in people looking at blogs , social media etc for such information. This could possibly cause defamation when such information on blogs , social media are circulated with defamatory statement made after inferring from these unreliable sources . --Michellemicay222 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michellemicay222 - You can't !vote twice let alone three times so I've struck your two !votes, You should probably read WP:AFD etc etc, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister; every source mentions the subject in the context of the group, not on his own. I've also opened an SPI on this. GAB^Hello! 16:26, 5 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 Daya (EP). Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sit Still, Look Pretty (song)[edit]

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

Although the song has been announced as a single, there hasn't been a set radio release date for it. [Note: Radio Disney and a few local stations have played it as of January 1, 2016, when the artist announced it as a single] There isn't any significant coverage for the song [Critical reception, radio release date, chart entries, etc.] to have it's own article, making it fail WP:NOTABILITY standards. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 16:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Minimal content present, song did not chart, only references present document the fact that she didn't chart. It's a viable search term, though the disambiguation can be dropped, as there doesn't appear to be any article at Sit Still, Look Pretty. It should be moved to there, and then redirected to the EP (or the artist if the EP is deleted or in danger of deletion). Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:NOTABILITY. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @SNUGGUMS, IndianBio, Sergecross73, MaranoFan, Cornerstonepicker, and Chasewc91: Pinging editors to get their comments on the new consensus. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 00:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow - what new development has happened since I last commented? Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now (though am also fine with deletion); not significantly covered in any reliable sources, but no prejudice against recreation if this changes in the future given that it hasn't been out for very long and could gain enough detail to warrant its own article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: NorthAmerica1000 relisted it for a clearer consensus. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 00:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Apologies, usually when I get pinged back to these discussions, its because someone has reworked an article, found more sources, or something like that, and they want me to consider changing my stance. Regardless, I'm glad a better consensus is now developing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:NSONGS; a single requires its own notability. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EP article. Not notable, but a plausible search term.--MaranoFan (talk) 07:04, 9 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. Sufficient consensus. Any editor may create a redirect if one is desired. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Illinichina Amiella[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) (No secondary sources in the article that cover the character in depth.) A redirect to Gods_Eater_Burst#Characters could suffice. czar 14:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 14:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 14:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect if needed as an unlikely independently notable character. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable video game character, can easily be mentioned at subject God Eater main article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 13:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lilimar Hernandez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

PROD deleted. Not a notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR as does not have significant roles in multiple notable productions. ~~WP:GNG as no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject – only reference is a WP:SPS written by the subject.~~ Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it's not a self-published source, that's the image caption. I found the actual author of the article (Madeleine Marr) at the bottom. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, I missed that, I got fixated on the twitter link. That is a good reference and is non-trivial coverage so works towards WP:GNG, need more like it as GNG says: "multiple sources are generally expected". WP:NACTOR is a bit more problematic. Likely WP:TOOSOON as needs to do more as a actor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilimar was an AfD for the same person closed as delete. This article is eligible for speedy G4 as essentially a recreation of that article under a different name. Lilimar has been creation protected because of multiple G4 speed deletions - I tried to add a redirect to here from there and couldn't. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as per previous AfD (and this doesn't seem to be enough of an improvement over the previous deleted version...), per the article citing only one reliable source, and per the subject's failing WP:NACTOR for having only one "significant" role. This definitely seems like a WP:TOOSOON case, and this article can be draftified/userfied to incubate in the meantime. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment may pass criteria 2 of WP:NACTOR of having significant fanbase, as appeared in all 40 episodes of Bella and the Bulldogs children's tv series shown worldwide. More important is RS for WP:GNG one in article, more.neededAtlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Found a Spanish-language source with more info: http://la.eonline.com/venezuela/2015/conoce-a-lilimar-hernandez-la-actriz-venezolana-que-esta-causando-sensacion-en-la-tv-estadounidense-fotos/ – nyuszika7h (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as coverage in Miami Herald, the Spanish article above, also won award [65] and this [66] , I think she just passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am persuaded by the improvements in the article since I nominated it for deletion that it passes the threshold of notability in WP:GNG. As this article was deleted per a previous AfD and has been salted under its original name, I think it important for this AfD to proceed to its normal conclusion and be formally closed to either support or override the original AfD. Because of that I consider it best to not withdraw my nomination. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Boobzilla[edit]

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

There is very little if any indication of notability. There appears to be very minor local coverage in Oklahoma, but there is no indication of national or international notability. I am One of Many (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I may've PRODed instead as this is clearly questionable for the applicable creative professionals notability, no convincing signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She's apparently been on Jerry Springer and AMC's "Freakshow", but I don't know if this really matters. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely want to see "more" of "the Boobzilla"...if you all know what I mean (wink*). But, until we actually see more about her on the Net, my vote is a delete. Antonio the Boobsupervisor Martin (dime) 06:51, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

Be a little careful about making off color jokes. Part of the reason for this is that if this gets deleted and it's contested at DRV, they could potentially say that the vote shouldn't be taken seriously or something along those lines. (And spammy articles like this tend to have people that make pretty heated restoration arguments.) The best defense against stuff like that is, unfortunately, to be a little careful. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tokyo Girl! :) Antonio With a sense of Humo(u)r Martin (aqui) 11:46, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
No problem, just be careful. There are a lot of people who contest deletions with various allegations of the -isms and it can get really messy sometimes, especially if they decide to start talking about it on social media. I know you meant it as a joke, but you can't always predict that this will be read in the intended manner especially when it comes to article deletion. And I'm saying this as someone who has been accused of various prejudices for speedy deleting articles under basic deletion criteria like A7. It's not fun to deal with. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads like the sort of bio which performers supply to venues they're appearing at, for use in publicity for the show. The sources quoted are all local news sources and I can't find anything which suggests a wider notability. Neiltonks (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hero Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 12:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Universe[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Soetermans. T / C 14:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at minimum to Hero Games; merge (some) content if desired. --Izno (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect per Izno. BOZ (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per arguments above. The notability of Steven Universe is superman compared to this. editorEهեইдအ😎 09:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Hero Games should be sufficient. A lot of the Alien species section content could be trimmed down/summarized along the way.ZettaComposer (talk) 13:19, 4 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. Unopposed. Sandstein 22:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Hatun (wife of Ahmed I)[edit]

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

This article seems to be the result of a mix between two or three different characters (each one non notable enough to have an article) : 1) a daughter of a vizier named Fatma, known for her mausoleum, dead in 1595/6 (thus obviously not a wife of Ahmet), who is the subejct of the 3 first references ; 2) an anonymous (at least in the references given) daughter of the same Pasha who wished to enter the harem (but sources suggest she didn't do it eventually) ; 3) an obscure concubine named Fatma whose description in one source that refers to her (Alderson's Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty) does not fit any of the formers. The children are attributed to her without a source. Phso2 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Support While this article does have sources, and at least one of these women may be notable, the proposer's analysis above makes it clear that this article is a tangled knot. Additionally, most of the sources are not in English, so it would be difficult to find an editor who could undo this knot. Probably best to clear this and let someone start over in the future. 1bandsaw (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. --Phso2 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 6 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, closing in favour of delete. I placed lesser weight on the keep !vote as it did not discuss how the article might meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mohr[edit]

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

non notable. The refs are to his appearances, or to notices, or promotional, not substantial comment about him. There's no reason apparent in the bio why there should be any. But as someone who appears on talk shows, he needs publicity. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I saw him on television quite a bit (especially on Mad Money), most of the sources were CNBC clips, thought that adding all those might be redundant. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 18:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and draft & userfy if needed as my searches only found several expected sources at News and browsers but nothing to convince a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. We are overtime, and I do not see how this discussion can be closed differently from no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Hole to China: Rare and Unreleased[edit]

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

Non-notable album. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Eteethan(talk) 20:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the attitude by the 'person' deleting my work to be reprehensible and vandalism at that. The fact that someone else has joined in to attack my very blatant words expressed about my unhappiness with the a for mentioned person's vandalism, is indicative of a USA biased attitude on this site. You need to change that attitude quickly. Notable in the USA means nothing. If I put up work solely based out of Australia, like the Strange Cousins at the Prince article for deletion also, then you say thank you, not mess with it.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to you to "allow" Afds of articles you may have created or worked on. Please don't keep this WP:Battleground approach up or you will very likely find yourself blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know it can be frustrating. We've all been there. I've suggested to JJMC89 that he refrain from any further deletion nominations of this editor's work, at least for now, as Nuro Dragonfly is clearly feeling hounded. thanks to both of you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So Shawn, you're saying JJMC89 should reward Nuro's battleground approach and personal attacks? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, too. JJMC89 has been very patient in a heated situation and I commend him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to be sourced, and meets the standards of WP:MUSIC. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RickinBaltimore: I don't work a lot in this area. What criteria in WP:NMUSIC would it meet? I cannot find much coverage, even without the subtitle "Rare and Unreleased." Even the Allmusic "review" isn't actually a review. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did find another site, though I don't know if it counts a source here: [67] RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) How so? There is no actual review on AllMusic, MySpace is social media, the third source does not mention the article subject, and the last one is a track listing and user reviews. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that Blistering review, too. I'd never heard of it and their home page says they've shut down but it's a bylined independent review in a bona fide online music mag. That's a WP:Reliable source, for sure. So that's one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder to others to search without that subtitle, "Rare and Unreleased" as the article spans both subtitled versions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the cite's that were added by me and I concluded that, for what ever reason, they went 'nowhere' and am quite perplexed as to how I used them as a link in the first place, but the others are a valid source imo...im willing to find better source material.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can turn up more reliable source reviews and/or substantial coverage, or this meets some additional criterion of WP:NMUSIC, I just don't see how it meets our notability requirements at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am in the process of finding better source material.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of which I have done some more work on.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the changes to the article since I nominated it for deletion establish its notability. There is only one reliable source (Blistering). — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment - I will state as far as I'm concerned the last four ref are all good enough to establish notability here on the wiki. The article has been up for many years without any concerns of 'Editors' with various levels of 'Authority'. It only came to light because someone interfered with my editing in a manor I reacted to badly. Since then 'certain' 'editors' have 'decided' to 'scrutinise' my work here. I consider that 'trolling' and 'harassment' to be blunt after a certain point. My attitude has well and truly been neutral since said issues were brought to light by 'admin' level 'editors' and consensus ensued. So once again I do not see any problem with any of the cite's that I have added to the original single one by the original author, which was the ref to the bands website. I kinda consider that to be an improvement from me to the articles relevance to the bands catalog of albums. Not being aggressive, just being honest. I've also read various WP articles on said notability source material and have since removed any such ones from cite's such as Discogs etc used by authors on articles I've been attending to, form other bands pages as well, as I can see the reason behind such a decision. Nuro msg me 01:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources as of now are
1. AllMusic: This is a database entry, so it does not contribute to notability.
2. pro-rock.com: This is by the band, so it is not indepedent. It also doesn't mention the album.
3. weathermakermusic.com: This is a record label's website, owned by Clutch, so it is not independent. It also doesn't mention the album.
4. Blistering: This is a reliable source and contributes to notability.
5. Sputnikmusic.com: This does not have significant coverage of the album.
6. kingcrimsonprog.wordpress.com: This is a blog, thus not a reliable source.
7. ninehertz: This is a collaborative forum of reviews, articles and a place to discuss music^[68] (user generated content), thus not a reliable source.
Since the album has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it^{WP:NALBUMS#C1} and obviously doesn't meet any of the other criteria of WP:NALBUMS, it is not notable. It doesn't matter how long the article has been around or where it is improved compared to before you started editing it. Also, the condition of articles is not relevant. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't pass WP:NALBUMS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some sources about the subject:
1. Ballard, Michelle. "Clutch - Slow Hole to China (River Road Records)". Blistering. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
2. Condran, Ed (2003-08-27). "0827 CLUTCH". Bucks County Courier Times. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The article notes:
  The band is out behind its latest album, "Slow Hole to China," a collection of unreleased material from the last four years.
  Expect to hear some of those odds and sods tracks as well as some new tunes. Don't be surprised if the band delivers plenty of the gut grind from its aptly titled 2001 album, "Pure Rock Fury." The disc is full of raw, powerful, in your face rock. The album, the band's finest to date, blew away the 1998 Clutch release, the slick, "Elephant Riders." However, "Pure Rock Fury" fell between the tracks, even though it was released by Atlantic Records.
3. Serba, John (2003-09-11). "Stre-e-e-tching". The Grand Rapids Press. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The article notes:
  On top of that, the band will be selling "Slow Hole to China," a compilation of unreleased tracks on River Road, at its shows.
  I'm including this passing mention here because it could be used to source information in the article. Since it is a passing mention, I am not using it to establish notability.
4. Ross, Paige (2000-11-24). "Corrosion of Conformity's Sound Gets Personal". Corpus Christi Caller-Times. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The article notes:
  Power quartet Clutch will also perform at the Centre Theatre Saturday, getting ready to tour with Drown in December.
  Just what the metal guys have been clutching since their "Elephant Riders" album is yet to be made clear, but one of the things apparently caught in their grip is a new album, "Slow Hole to China."
  It's their first in nearly three years and currently scheduled for a mid-March release. The band has said the sound is a bit heavier than their previous work and rich, with each song an exploration of it's own terrain. Expect to hear several excerpts during their set.
  The article was published in 2000 but the album was released in 2003, so perhaps the album was delayed.
I think sources 1 and 2 provide "significant coverage" about the subject and are sufficient to establish notability.
Cunard (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technological Monopoly Capitalism[edit]

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

Poorly explained/translated WP:NEO "mentioned for the first time" in 2015: three sources pre-date 2015 and don't mention the term, the fourth is a 2016 paper that doesn't mention the term either. McGeddon (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A mini-essay only, with no evidence found that the term has achieved any currency. Looked for redirect targets: Monopoly capitalism redirects to State capitalism, while Monopoly Capital is about one book: Noyster (talk), 12:21, 6 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. (WP:NPASR). Regarding the keep !vote in the discussion, WP:BASIC pertains to people, not software. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shane's Chess Information Database[edit]

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

The program looks pretty cool, but I can't any significant coverage of it. None of the sources here do anything to make the subject meet WP:GNG. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 20:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Shane's chess information database" doesn't get many google hits, but "SCID" + "chess" does. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hope to have time to look for sources in the next couple days, but for now I'll just leave a comment to say I'd be pretty surprised if we couldn't find significant coverage of Scid (though it's possible my perspective is skewed because I've spent a good amount of time in those places where it's been well-known since the late-90s or early-00s) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Increasingly, SCID is "the other ChessBase". --causa sui (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already added external references and polished a little bit the article. Please add more content and proof-read what I have done so far.Nicoguaro (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources have been improved, so that I think WP:BASIC is just passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin words with English derivatives[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Half of English is of Latin roots. Totally pointless list. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Greek morphemes used in English Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to wiktionary, probably more fitting over there.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Keshavraj Vidyalaya, Latur[edit]

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

The article was created on 2 July, 2013 and still doesn't have any citations. Attempts to find any reliable source failed and hence owing to the "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)" feature of the article, I nominate it for deletion. Sanket Edits Wiki (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: SSC results does show this school exists per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Otherwise couldn't find any sources. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:52, 9 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Cousins at the Prince[edit]

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

Non-notable album — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am in the process of finding better source material for this article.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More Info & Comment - I have amended the cite's listing basically, as I now have a better understanding of what is considered good source material (as the original author of this article), and I've tried hard, but even for an album only 5 years old, there's not much around unfortunately. Nuro msg me 01:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the changes to the article since I nominated it for deletion establish its notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:12, 6 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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing as delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jarred Blakiston[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Only one significant? role in a notable production, the younger version of Daniel Potts (Shortland Street). (Power Rangers might change that in the future but not yet.) duffbeerforme (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage to meet notability requirements. Article needs a tidy up. NealeFamily (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed stance to Delete as the more I reviewed the coverage the less notable he became NealeFamily (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a writer, removing category. I removed a secondary school writing prize from the page (given by his own high school). He is an actor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violent true believer[edit]

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

A psychobabble bullshit coined by a single person. This is nothing but a well-known "terrorist" concept. The author creates a mil-style pseudoscience by concocting a bunch of abbrevs VTB, HASSOM, SMASI, SMAGI,... to create an illusion of serious research. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wider notability or acceptance of this concept. clpo13_(talk) 17:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not seem to be in general usage Atlantic306 (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yoko Ono. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoko Ono Cox[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person with no particularly strong claim of independent notability in her own right besides having famous relatives. Notability is not inherited, however, and the article is not sourced nearly well enough to grant her notability for anything besides being her mother's daughter: the only sources here are IMDb (not a reliable or notability-conferring source); a video clip of the press conference, which is hiding behind a paywall; and a single news story which is fundamentally about her mother rather than her. Two other sources had to be disappeared because the creator had WP:COPYVIOed their entire text directly into the article, but one of them was just a repeat of the same news article about mom; and the other was credited only to "The Advertiser", with no discernible indication of which Advertiser was involved (thus making it impossible to determine whether it was one of the reliable publications by that name or one of the pennysavers.) And it warrants mention that the more usual form of her name, Kyoko Cox, has always just been (and still is) a redirect to mama rather than a standalone article -- plus she's a low-profile private citizen, so this can constitute an undue invasion of her privacy. She's effectively just a WP:BLP1E, if anything. None of this suggests that we need a standalone biography of her, especially if the sourcing for it is this weak -- limiting our coverage to the relatively few aspects that actually warrant mention in her mother's article is all we really need. Redirect to Yoko Ono. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a seperate article for Kyoto Cox should be kept for ease of reference. It can be tedious and off putting having to read through the Yoko Ono or Tony Cox articles to obtain the particulars of their daughter. AlwynJPie (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ease of reference" doesn't exempt a person from having to (a) attain notability for something in her own right besides "daughter of famous person", or (b) having to be the subject of media coverage in her own right for something, as opposed to merely being glancingly namechecked in coverage in which her mother, not her, is the subject of that coverage. What needs to be shown, but hasn't, is evidence that Kyoko is a person that readers are looking for information about separately from her mother, and that sufficient sourcing about her exists to support an article. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some media coverage inasmuch as Kyoto was the subject of a custody battle between her parents. Kyoko is mentioned in the Wikipedia articles on her parents; and her name, in various forms, is redirected to her mother's article. Having to look through the article on her mother to find out details about her can be slow. How famous does a person have to be to warrent a Wikipedia article? What is the problem with Kyoko having a seperate article? AlwynJPie (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the middle of a custody battle between her parents constitutes coverage of the parents, not of her — because (a) her parents and stepfather are the ones doing something in that coverage, while she's just a minor bystander who's being done to rather than actually doing anything in her own right, and (b) even that coverage wouldn't exist at all if the parents weren't already famous. Being mentioned in Wikipedia articles about other people is not, in and of itself, grounds for a separate article about a person, because notability is not inherited. And we have lots of Wikipedia articles about people who aren't "famous" by any normal definition of that term — but what those people are is notable by virtue of having done something (as opposed to "had something done to them") which has made them the subject of enough media coverage (as opposed to "briefly mentioned in media coverage of other subjects") to satisfy WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yoko Ono, per Bearcat. JohnInDC (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Kelly (radio)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a single-market radio personality with no demonstration of wider notability outside of her own market, and no reliable sourcing. The only reference here is her own primary source staff profile on the website of her own employer, and even that was a dead link when I just tried it two minutes ago — and if I back up to the station's main website and check their staff directory from there, she's not listed anywhere on it. (Yet, weirdly, this is an WP:AUTOBIO going by the edit summary on the page's creation — and while a Google check on "Kate Kelly WKXV" does bring up some Facebook posts confirming her employment there, they deadlink when you try to click on them too. So my working theory, for the moment, is that she quit or got fired from the station last week, thought that creating a Wikipedia article about herself would help her get a new job faster because it shows how important she is or something, and didn't bank on her staff profile disappearing so quickly either.) As always, however, all radio personalities who exist are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because of that existence, especially if they're creating the page themselves — they must be the subject of reliable source coverage, in media independent of their own paycheck provider, which attests to their passage of an actual notability criterion, because we're not a free PR platform or an alternative to LinkedIn. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-created (and admitted) WP:RESUME. Nate • (chatter) 05:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing as delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Marshall[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these. Uhooep (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. He's in Who's Who but I found little else about him. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources found for this ergo it fails WP:V. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junction Fault[edit]

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

No sources found for this. In the edit history, there was an image that shows the fault, but I can't figure out what fault that particular one is — and whether it truly cooresponds to this fault. Appable (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I've been following the deletion talks here and my searches simply found nothing at all. The article is of concern and there are no better signs here. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lol I love Wikipedia. Can we make this deletion discussion last long enough to give this hoax the five year mark? And for the hoax creator, of course, "Revision as of 02:09, 27 March 2011 User:MoobieNews "I have a current boycott against Wikipedia because they inhibit free speech." "Conjuntion, junction what's yo function?" "F-u-c-k wikipedia they will not let you upload any images, even if you took the picture. wikipedia is run by the government they are giving out immensely incorrect information. boycott wikipedia! boycott wikipedia!" May be nothing today, but it has already been copied into one of those crummy "printed from Wikipedia" self-published books. The reason for speedy deletion of hoaxes is to get them off of Wikipedia ASAP.

2600:380:5677:D6F6:2081:2D71:8310:134F (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- ABOVE COMMENT EDITED BY APPABLE who says the article should be kept for this reason, "I still feel like it may be mostly true, if slightly misstated." What? The article was stolen from an image caption, the article contradicts itself, and does not make sense, the article has no sources, the one source originally included was a fake, the account that created the article was a vandalism only account, there are no sources for the article except a book by a self-publishing house that copied the information from Wikipedia. It's a hoax. Move on. Or, try for the five year mark, seems to me Appable is trying to drag it out. 2600:380:5677:D6F6:2081:2D71:8310:134F (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not actually say the article should be kept. The fact that I nominated the article for deletion indicates otherwise. Appable (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the speedy and the prod, admitting there were no sources, but discussing your "feelings" that it might be a real thing because the hoaxer plagiarized general text from a picture caption. Copied it incorrectly, by the way. So, your "feelings" are keeping this article on Wikipedia longer than necessary. Hoaxes should be speedied. They don't belong here. There is nothing that shows this article belongs on Wikipedia. Nothing, but your feelings. Not a reliable source at all. 2600:380:5677:D6F6:2081:2D71:8310:134F (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of the fault was uploaded by user:Pollinator back in 2004, very active then but no longer contributing, the image description uses the name Junction Fault, so it seems very likely that it exists (albeit non-notable, at least under that name). Mikenorton (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader describes the picture as that of a major geologic fault. Whatever is in the picture. The article writer then took the picture, faked a single reference, and declared a minor fault line along with a few other vandalism edits on a vandalism only account. But this is a huge problem on Wikipedia, editors saying someone took a picture, so the thing exists as something notable. Images should require verification, not be seen as starting points for unsourced information, especially by vandalism only accounts. High five to this vandal for this five year long run witb editors defending completely unsourced even falsely sourced info simply because the vandal used the image caption (unsourced, non verifiable, unreliable, unusable, good grief). This fault does look spectacular. But, you claim some expertise in geology. Two major geological provinces divided by a minor fault. Sure. I am going to make.up the San Fault and attach an image. 2600:380:5514:7587:AB7B:FAFF:83E6:23A0 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the uploader was lying about it being a fault called the Junction Fault in Pennsylvania? I don't really see that as a likely possibility. Appable (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly does the uploader say the picture is a fault called the Junction Fault in Pennsylvania? And, that is the beauty of Wikipedia. I don't have to judge his or her truthiness. I just check if they used reliable sources. Was Essjay lying? I think we did that already. 2600:380:5514:7587:AB7B:FAFF:83E6:23A0 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing fault between Appalachian Mountains and Allegheny Plateau. A major geologic fault (directly behind small trees) can be seen in a new roadcut about 10 miles north of en:Williamsport, Pennsylvania on new Route 15. The fault is just about at the line that divides the folded en:Appalachian Mountains and the merely uplifted en:dissected plateau of the en:Allegheny Plateau. On the left hand (south side) is metamorphic rock. On the right hand is en:sedimentary rock, which, as one continues northward becomes mostly horizontal.

I don't see anything in that description that says the fault in that picture is called "The Junction Fault." Pollinators doesn't use that once to say that is the name of the fault within the description.

I have a number of flower pictures I uploaded to Wikipedia. They have file names like "Yellow_cactus_flower.jpg," and very similar, are you going to write the Yellow Cactus Flower article and swear up and down that because there is an image file with the name on Wikipedia, there must be such a species, and it deserves an article? 2600:380:5514:7587:AB7B:FAFF:83E6:23A0 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is too short of an article. 2602:306:3357:BA0:44CE:9F13:491E:FF7C (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No such criterion exists on Wikipedia. 2600:380:5677:D6F6:2081:2D71:8310:134F (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If enough people want such a criterion we could create it, but in this case I do not support the ""too short" idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when I checked for sources I only found faults in other places with this name. Either this does not exist, or is too unimportant for an article. Without a real source the content is not worth keeping. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources found - could be a local name for a fault better known as something else, but that's just speculation. Mikenorton (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 6 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 as an unsourced BLP with an expired BLPPROD. Leave the tag up and it will be dealt with in due course. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joesph laurita[edit]

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

This biography of a living person contains no references. It was proposed for deletion on Monday, 22 February, and is overdue for deletion, which should have occurred on Monday, 29 February. Ethanlu121 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP. I'm sure the expired, uncontested prod would have been processed before long. --McGeddon (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP. Couldn't find coverage in RSs. Fails GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though I would've frankly waited for the BLPROD to have the article deleted (at best, articles have to wait 3 days or so sometimes when deletions aren't immediate) as there's basically nothing here for any applicable notability, nothing convincing so WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 4 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shea Rush[edit]

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

highschool athlete, highly promotional tone DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON Subject will need a page once he attends University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to play basketball. Meatsgains (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a local basketball player, none of this satisfies the basketball notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since there seems to be some interest in the article with other editors and since there are reliable sources confirming he'll be entering a college basketball team, is it an option to move the article to draft namespace and then publish/delete later on if he doesn't end up joining, still isn't notable after joining, etc? Appable (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I leaning towards supporting this alternative. We can decide whether the subject warrants a page once he joins the team. Meatsgains (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Important to note that this player isn't considered a particularly noteworthy recruit - he's walking on to the UNC program, not on scholarship. His father's notability is interesting but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I wouldn't even move it to draft space until it's clear that he does meet notability standards - that is not a given. Rikster2 (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable recruit, high school players are rarely notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:56, 4 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 U.S. county secession proposals#Washington. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade County, Washington[edit]

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

This should have been deleted as a non-notable organization db-a7 and a repost of a previously prodded article. There's still zero reliable sources establishing any notability for the cascade county "movement" which consists of a website, Fails wp:org. Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's much too soon for an article about this proposed new county (organisation???). Adam9007 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect [was "Keep"]. Or perhaps it's rather late for Wikipedia to start an article about this oft-proposed county. As for High Desert County, California (also recently under AFD pressure), the separation of rural, underserved areas from urban-dominated counties is a recurring idea. The Cascade County name is a good one and has been used for the 1973 proposed secession of part of Kings County. Sources include, for example, this 1973 article about the petition drive ongoing. The separate secession drives can be covered in one article now. Do the searches. Was wp:BEFORE performed?

IMHO, it is okay/good to restart an article, after a topic has been prodded, at least if some work is done to develop it, hopefully differently than before. But speedy deletions and prod deletions happen all the time without people having the chance to develop an article, so sometimes it just makes sense to start with the previous version (as I gather happened here, is that correct, that it is an identical copy?) Anyhow here we are, and the topic is valid I believe, so just help develop it.

In fact, IMHO the previous prod deletion was wrong, because it would have been better to redirect the topic to List of U.S. county secession proposals#Washington. And, if the general sentiment in a full AFD turns towards re-removal of the article, again it would be highly preferable to redirect the topic rather than outright delete it (for various reasons including that the next re-start can be based on the previous work, available to all, and that credit is done properly by including the previous version in the edit history). --do ncr am 01:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating from "Keep" to "Redirect" as no more sources have turned up about the new initiative. I added a bit to the article about the 1970s initiative using the same name. Redirect would allow this stuff to remain in edit history, for an article to be revived if/when substantial new sources emerge. --do ncr am 08:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Unless it comes to referendum or even passed accepted petition, this is still a 'dream county' proposal among many the US has seen over the years.~~ Nate • (chatter) 06:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Redirect to List of per 331dot and doncram; I knew there had to be one somewhere but I just forgot the title of our secession proposal article. Thanks for the link articulation. Nate • (chatter) 16:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of U.S. county secession proposals#Washington if there are reliable sources about it(not just this group's website). If this has been covered in the media, it does warrant mentioning somewhere, if not its own page yet(which, as stated, can be when this actually if ever gets voted on). 331dot (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This rural area does seem under-served in Wikipedia: There are articles for only 2 high schools in Kittitas County, currently, while there are 7 school districts so presumably at least 7 secondary schools. And two of the three school districts in the Cascade County proposed area lack articles: Cle Elum-Roslyn School District and Easton School District are redlinks while Thorp School District is a bluelink, currently. To @MistahRigoh:, the Cascade County article contributor, perhaps you could start articles on the districts with redirects from their high school names, or also create high school articles? These would be accepted immediately as valid Wikipedia topics as it is pretty well established that any secondary school, and any school district, are valid topics. And mention of secession initiative at those articles might well be appropriate. --doncram 09:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd worry less about what is under and over served and more about whether sources exist or not. Without good sources, nothing can be done. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The area does need more coverage, but that is not relevant to this discussion. Sounder Bruce 23:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per 331dot. It would be able to stand alone had the proposal reached greater notoriety (like Skykomish County, Washington), but it doesn't look like the current proposal will get that far. Sounder Bruce 23:48, 5 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.