< 19 March	21 March >

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totorro[edit]

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

Questionable Notability. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability standard for bands. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 03:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BAND; No significant chart listings, or notable appearances/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanlu121 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red gummy[edit]

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

This article was deleted twice on February 8 as A1 -" Very short article lacking sufficient context to identify subject of article "(the first time), and "Short article without enough context to identify the subject" (the second time) The article has now been recreated yet again, and it is not better. — Maile (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I assume this has something to do with it (though I can't find a corresponding "Five Nights at Gummy Bears"), so it's either a reference to a non-notable browser game or just WP:MADEUP. Plausibly the page could also be redirected to gummy bear, but it'd be a redirect of dubious usefulness. (edit conflict) —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, and possibly made up as Nizolan said. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability. This appears to be nothing more than one of the many Five Nights at Freddy's parodies. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 17:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Havana Solaun[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 without addressing the notability concerns. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs cleanup and ref improvement per WP:ATD, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Simply saying "article needs cleanup and ref improvement", without explaining why the editor who said so thinks it is notable, is not a reason for keeping. The king of the sun (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article's references have been significantly improved to meet WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that Solaun is on the Seattle Reign pre-season roster, has apparently recovered from her injury, and, according to her Coach, is expected to see "significant minutes" this season, it doesn't make much sense to delete this article now -- just to re-post it a month from now. Let's wait and see. Plus, I would add that earlier this month she was a starter for the U.S. Under-23 team in an international tournament.Smallchief (talk 01:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very well established consensus that WP:NFOOTY should not be applied pre-maturely in anticipation of possible future appearances. (See this and this for example). Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sufficient independent articles covering Solaun that she meets GNG. Should the final decision be to remove the article from mainspace, then I volunteer to have the article moved to my userspace until she meets NFOOTY by playing for the Seattle Reign. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the following sources amongst others:

All of these are already sources in the article. Seems GNG is met in this instance. Fenix down (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per the above sources, I believe they just about pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Crossing the Chasm. MBisanz ^talk 12:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-chasm[edit]

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

merge proposal doesn't satisfy my concern to PROD it. WP:NEO spam with nothing sourced to merge. Widefox; talk 23:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crossing the Chasm. Here's another source using the term indicating that it's not just a spammy neologism. I agree that it's not independently notable but it is a term that people are searching for and linking to and should be kept at least as a redirect. ~Kvng (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook WP:NEO "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted,..." (emphasis own): yes

"... as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. " : yes (COI spam)

Here's is just a passing mention. Widefox; talk 09:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect over to Crossing the Chasm. I think the current 'pre-chasm' article here is, as argued above, pretty useless. The term would be helpful as a redirect, however. I think I would only add something like this to the book's page: Commentators such as ____ remarked on how Moore advises an ambidextrous approach to product development alongside marketing to achieve product-market fit (and that's it). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Believers Never Die.[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The hell is this even? It doesn't say what band or artist has made it.*Treker (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources and failure of WP:GNG. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current contents (which are non-notable) and turn this into a redirect over to Believers Never Die – Greatest Hits. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 17:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Shelby Groner[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Has not received significant coverage, except for this entry in the Handbook of Texas. This person is certainly accomplished, but the position of executive secretary does not meet Wikipedia's threshold for notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Failure of WP:BEFORE. The Handbook of Texas Online cited above does includes additional sources. But besides that, there's a long entry in Baptist Biography[1] and another long entry in Veterans of the Cross[2]. He seems to have been a significant figure among Texas Baptists.[3][4][5]--Jahaza (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:BEFORE. Also has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists. St Anselm (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as principal of what became East Texas Baptist University under his immediate successor, he is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the encyclopedia entry and many reliable sources presented above ,so that WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Neff Groner[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Has not received significant coverage, and few of the sources cited in the article are about him, except for routine obituaries. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best girlfriend (painting)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no evidence of significant coverage of this painting in reliable sources. The painter themselves doesn't appear notable enough for English Wikipedia, and doesn't even have an article on Portugese Wikipedia (despite being Portugese). So, a non-notable painting by a non-notable painter. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Ghits on the supposed painter are negligible; hard to decide whether this is hugely obscure or a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - personal comment/fantasy, not an encyclopedia article - editor is adding vast personal comments and obscure trivia/fantasies to numerous articles - Arjayay (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNon-notable painting by non-notable painter...and the article does not seem to be about the picture.TheLongTone (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Three photos more confirm that the ship was in mentioned days in Aveiro, Portugal, and the artist Lopes de Sousa photo at exhibition hall entrance confirm that it is not fantasy. Any person train of thought is not fantasy. According to oral information one medium size painting placed in Queen Elizabeth privat Intelligence service museum in England from 2011. That was her initiative to create a series of paintings.

Just because it exists, doesn't make it notable enough for English Wikipedia- we require evidence of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Also, photos, and "oral information" are not reliable sources.

It is why I mentioned "Seems one medium size painting in privat museum in England from 2011." Seems. Any way I stopped to increase this article. It is possible to call the artist Lopes de sousa to ask who bought the pictures and how many total. Contact detail are in Internet - via references of article You can found out the call number.Грищук ЮН (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Both I and TheLongTone (talk) have come to the same conclusion regarding the lack of notability. Sure his works may be in Private museum and that is just what they are. Sure they they have been on display in galleries – this is an artist equivalent of retail out let stores. Sure they have be proclaimed by some art sellers as bargain of the week ( – buy now as next week the price will go up etc). That is sales and marketing in the art world. Without casting dispersions on this artist skills but simply his notability in the art world... Delete--Aspro (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how this could be rescued. There are no independent, reliable sources that establish the artist's notability. If the auction estimates in one of the sources are anything to go by, the artist has little, at best local, significance. The paintings themselves have no references at all. Mduvekot (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless much better sources are presented. The otherwise unpublished thoughts of one person viewing the painting are not encyclopedic. There is no evidence that this work is notable, and if there were, the article would need to be edited down to encyclopedic details supported by reliable sources. At the moment, this is the existence of the painting and no more. DES ^(talk) 02:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable work, no significant coverage. Coverage is limited, and Wikipedia is not the place for artists to promote their works. Scr★pIron^IV 13:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete! I posted more photos in the article and it is confirm the course of events. I also do not understand most of modern artist that already present in Wikipedia and any way I do not like to say that any paiter is the bad. I very like Van Gog paintings and any way about some of his pictures I can not say that we see modern art, and paintings realy are good. For example you can see two photos and one of them painting of Van Gog and another one is the realy photo in Arles:

As you see the color expression is not Gan Gog idea - the same colors realy in Arles in the evning ot morning. About this picture of Van Gog you have not any text, no any history in Wikipedia. But any way this painting refresh memories any tourist that visited Arles. More interesting pictures that have history. For example: Rembrandt "The Night Watch". The some pictures of famouse painters were used during activities of this captain and he had to say how he understood each of them and to give own name as the realy name he did not remember. That was paintings of Salvador Dali (his wife was from Rossia and Moscow tried to use his pictures to give visual directions (what to do) to anybody, Pablo Picasso, Vincent Van Gog. I will not increase the article any more as during the captain's explanation he received some questions about the paintings of the mentioned great painters and had to reply. Can be iteresting for anybody, can be no. I have not contact with the painter Lopes de Sousa, this article mostly not about the painter, it is mostly about the his one painting and the explanation of this painting. Next painting "Geisha", he is Geisha, was not his painting. And any way I see via Internet his paintings and the gale in the sea or ocean, then the sea water cover the deck of the ship is godd, on my opinion very good. I am not advertising the artist. I want say that every painting, picture must have history or explanation to be intersting. In this article realy described explanation ,the way of thinking, had place. When I entering the most paintings of other modern artists in Wilipedia - nothing, only painting and no any explanation. The same like "Cafe Terrace at Night" of Van Gog. It this case the "Cafe Terrace at Night" like postcard due to cal memories about Arles colors only. But and post card call memories sometimes but no any explanations. Can be somebody will write explanation and history of the "Cafe Terrace at Night" of Van Gog? Due to the greater paiter's names were used in the next explanation this painting "The best girlfriend" can be also interesting. But I afraid to write any more due to during explanation were used shor frazes (cuted frazes) as was talking between him and them. In this case anybody can say that do not understand everything what about, but anybody do not must understand all and have to think what about only. This article not about the painter mostly, this article about explaanations of the paintings during the specialy circumstains. Theremore the next 3 painting were discussed (I have heard) before the pinting was maden and can be next painting are absent due to was enough explanations only. But in the next explanations were discussed who, poses, colors must be painted, was dispute which colors have to be, good history af the circumstances. The next 3 can be like explanations for all painters what mist be painted to do the competition of the paintings that must be painted as per explanations. And no any more painting from mentioned series I have. More intersting this picture can be if I will write the article "The best Girlfriend (Intiligence activities)", but I see that all like this article will be deleted. And again - I mostly do not see interesting arcticle about any moders art paintings, only the photos. I can give my small explanation, my opinion, about the painting "Cafe Terrace at Night" as the mentioned here photo is my photo and I understood that Van Gog did not have very big color expression, he only increased the brightness of the colors. The picture "Cafe Terrace at Night" calls anly memories about the Arles or looks like postcard. The painting "The best girl friend" or "Mom & daughter" calls the memories good enough people that can put own history on this painting.Грищук ЮН (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BunsenLabs[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of anonymous editor.

Reason for deletion tag: non notable, citations are all to the official website of the software which the article covers. It has been this way for 6+ months with no edits (and in my research) no notable coverage. Until it gets some, why does it need an article here that's only a stub? 2601:603:4302:79BB:221:6AFF:FE95:653C (talk) 3:05 pm, Today (UTC−7) ([6])

clpo13_(talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Linux distribution. It is so easy to create a Linux distribution, especially when you base it off an existing one like they have done. No evidence that this example of doing it (like many others) is in any way notable. SJK (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Prison Girl. Sandstein 08:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Female Prisoner Ayaka: Tormenting and Breaking in a Bitch[edit]

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

Fails NFILM and the GNG. "Honorable mention" (below 10th place) is not well-known/significant/major. Negligible sourcing; all sources/references are self-published, promotional, or unselective databases. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement by IP without edit history. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more...

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

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

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

Merge and redirect to the existing and better sourced article Prison Girl (same film... different title... found with diligent WP:BEFORE). Essentially duplicating an existing topic, we can do a partial merge and then redirect to the more searchable title. A thought is that while this film may be thought non-notable in the United States, a cogent point is that Japan does not judge their it by U.S. standards, so a case can be made under WP:CSB that "notable to Japan or in Japanese is notable enough for us". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Keep - Good sleuthing by MichaelQSchmidt. The two articles together are sufficiently sourced to warrant an article on Wikipedia. By the way, "Honorable Mention" here does not mean "below 10th place," it means 11th place (jiten or 次点--the "next place"). Whether that is notable or not by Wikipedia standards is open to debate, but some of the big best ten lists in Japan (Kinema Junpo, Eiga geijutsu) occasionally list "jiten" because it is considered significant to publicize what got a lot of support but just missed the best ten. Michitaro (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
M&R per MQS & Mitch. –Davey2010^Talk 03:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When did self-published fan sites become sufficient to establish notability? These may be more elaborate than usual, but I don't see anything showing them as genuinely significant sources. "City on Fire", for example, describes itself as "Proudly powered by WordPress", a prominent piece of blogging software. We discount fansources like this in virtually every other field, from music to webcomics to romance novels. Why should we make an exception for erotica? If the Volokh Conspiracy isn't an RS ([7]), why are fans of erotic horror films considered more reliable? This appears bizarre and ridiculous! The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I laughed at the title, but the consensus of the discussion is obvious, and laughable titles are not a notability criterion. joe decker ^talk 02:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tony Blair Witch Project[edit]

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

I don't give a shit if this film is on the IMDb bottom 100 films list, it's a non-notable film regardless. The only coverage is from user reviews or reliable sources only mentioning the name of the film only, that's it! editorEهեইдအ😎 21:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source, and it seems to be the only place that this film has such recognition/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'll have to thank you for at least making strong a argument here, unlike the participants involved in the other Blair Witch-related discussions I started. editorEهեইдအ😎 04:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to meet the general notability guidelines nor does it meet those for films. I also cannot find any information outside of IMDB. Opencooper (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The world is full of goofy films, and only a fraction of them are notable enough to have their own page. As stated above, this movie just doesn't seem to pass the bar in terms of our guidelines. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warren N. Scott[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a cardiologist, written like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article and based entirely on primary sources with not one shred of reliable source coverage shown. As always, Wikipedia is not a platform on which anybody in any occupation is entitled to have an article just because they exist -- but nothing here demonstrates or sources that he passes our inclusion criteria at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a W N Scott who publishes a lot on knees, but it doesn't seem to be this person. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I did not find anything that would contribute to WP:PROF. I am also convinced that the highly cited W. N. Scott works in a completely different specialty. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, well Britney did go in to hospital for a knee operation and somehow came out with enlarged breasts so maybe doctors can co-specialise in both knee chest surgery? Quentin Q. Quackenbush (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Barron[edit]

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

This is a cirriculum vitae with very subpar sourcing. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bessie Barnes[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. A google search revealed no reliable references to support the claims made in this article. 4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search of Newspapers.com for both Illinois and Wisconsin over the 20th century, as well found no article relating to this person's musical work, show promotion, or teaching work. Found one advertisement from 1928 for a "Bessie Barnes" as a featured dancer in a show, but not clear at all if this is the same "Bessie Barnes" as it appears to have been a common name for that time, with numerous other Bessie Barneses clearly not related to this person coming up in the search. So far it appears the only source on this lady is her own collection of donated papers, which being a primary source is not sufficient to establish her notability. TheBlinkster (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Royal broil 19:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the facts stated in the article are probably correct. The Newberry Library's summary of her collection [8] should count as a secondary source. It includes a useful biography of Barnes. I also found a Chicago Sun-Times article that describes her as the "legendary Chicago nightclub producer of the '20s and '30s" [9]. My guess is that some additional material is "out there", beyond the internet (eg non-digitized newspaper articles, and other ephemera from her era). The Newberry collection may have some newspaper articles that could be useful. That said, I'm not sure that a 21st-century figure with equivalent accomplishments would be considered notable enough, anyway. But I wanted to throw some thoughts into the mix. Zagalejo^^^ 15:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah Fowle[edit]

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

Sourced only to IMDb and no claim to notability otherwise. While she did have a starring role in a film, is a thespian, and was an actor on an award-winning TV series, the latter's article doesn't even mention her and NACTOR requires evidence of significant roles in multiple films/shows/productions, which hasn't been shown here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two sentences here, a mention here about starring in a film, mention in NY Times, a review (negative) in People magazine, coverage in The Guardian (including her photo in the article), a brief mention in a French publication. So there is coverage, admittedly not much in-depth, but she's clearly getting roles, and people here know how articles about actors tend to stick in our media-focussed world. Can anybody explain why her pageview statistics limp along at 2 a day, and then -- on one day -- go over 900? So I'm thinking it's an article problem, not a notability problem.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable source coverage has been presented above such as The People Magazine, and The Guardian, not in depth but a growing list of sources combined so that WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lou Bruner[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E of a person notable only for having made a few controversial statements during her campaign as a not-yet-elected candidate in a forthcoming election. This was initially tagged for notability, which was reverted on the basis of "sources exist", but it's almost entirely WP:ROUTINE local coverage in local media that have an obligation to cover local politics — and while there are a couple of non-Texas sources shown, the volume of nationalized sourcing is not sufficient to make her candidacy encyclopedic in and of itself. Nothing here exempts her from having to pass WP:NPOL by winning her seat, because none of it makes her anything more than a temporarily-newsy WP:BLP1E. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Despite what the nominator asserts, there is little routine about the coverage her. When a candidate like this receives substantial coverage in national media, including profiles in The New York Times and the Washington Post, notability is clearly established. As NPOL itself states candidates "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'", as is the case here. A campaign is not a single event under BLP1E, and an extensive history of controversial commentary isn't either. Dismissing the Times, the Post, Slate, Breitbart, Salon and The Daily Beast as "a couple of non-Texas sources" may not be as far removed from reality as the article subject's commentary, but it's not appropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of a candidacy is WP:ROUTINE until such time as it credibly demonstrates that the subject is someone that people will still be looking for information about 10 years from now. Very few candidates ever pass that test — Christine O'Donnell is the baseline for how much coverage of a candidacy for office it takes to make that candidacy a notability claim in and of itself, and this isn't even approaching that volume. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, and the O'Donnell article is hardly the minimum standard for inclusion -- it's more or less the high-water mark for unsuccessful candidates. As NPOL itself points out, and your analysis ignores, it does not override or derogate the primary notability criterion of significant independent coverage. To argue that highest-profile national media coverage of a school board election is WP:ROUTINE simply defies empirical reality and simple logic. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Numerous sources => passes the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a bit amazing that an article with so many sources would be challenged for deletion—it's the long tail aspect of Wikipedia that drew me to it in the first place. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG, with plenty of reliable sources. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is excellent. She said these things, and has these views, and they have been reported on by an abundance of excellent sources.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not that it's really needed, but here is a source from Russia Today that proves international notability... on top of the dozens of excellent American sources. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nurpur (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Both Nurpur, India and Nurpur Noon are distinguishable with different names. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 20:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added more entries now. Uanfala (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid dab page, and move back to the base name of Nurpur as no primary topic is established. PamD 09:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Skyllfully, did you look to see if there were further possible entries WP:BEFORE starting an AfD? Would you now consider withdrawing your nomination? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator, as there are alternatives. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 00:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article already deleted at 21:12 UTC on 22 March 2016 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon Consulting Group[edit]

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

There's lots of PR stuff on the internet (including the cited references), but I can't find anything truly independent that would show notability. Note that there are several other businesses with the same/similar name. —SMALL JIM 20:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawing nomination due to clear consensus to keep the article. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Larive[edit]

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

After reading this article. I don't see anything that makes this person notable. I doubt a college degree merits notibility. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VegasCasinoKid: did you overlook basically every sentence in the whole article except the one in the "Education" section? The first sentence of the whole article says she's a college dean, the section about her career says she's editor-in-chief of one of the NSF's libraries, and there's a whole Awards section detailing her several from ACS, and a fellow of both AAAS and IUPAC? Keep per all that. DMacks (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks:, I did read it yes, but the name doesn't ring a bell with most people. Should we write an article about every college professor that wins an award? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DMacks; she's a college dean, AAAS Fellow, and former ACS division chair. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. At best, nominator has misread the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea what the nominator was thinking but "the name doesn't ring a bell with most people" is one of the dumbest arguments I've seen for why an article should be deleted. Fame=/=notability.*Treker (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. That said, the lead isn't very strong, so I'm going to improve it. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She may or may not pass WP:PROF#C1 (reasonably well-cited pubs in Google scholar [10]) but the much more clearcut case is WP:PROF#C3 (fellow of multiple societies for which this is a highly selective honor). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A GS h-index of 39 is a super-pass of WP:Prof#C1. Nominator may like to withdraw. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep. Per David Eppstein and Xxanthippe. Astro4686 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this all seems clear enough proof of importance. Blythwood (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotherapeutic postural integration[edit]

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

There are no review articles that cover the topic on pubmed and books that discuss it are nearly all copied and pasted from Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Doc James This is a highly promotional article filled with New Age hogwash such as:

"In the presence of a supportive therapist, the clients can release the weight of emotional charge which holds them down and often, like a keystone, links different webs of tension in the bodymind. The result can be a lightening and softening and greater sense of aliveness. To engage aliveness is a fundamental strength of PPI".

This kind of language tramples on the neutral point of view and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, not notable and redundant. Compare to: Postural Integration, Rolfing, Vegetotherapy, Bodywork (alternative medicine), Body psychotherapy, Somatic Experiencing, Kinetic Awareness, and Sensorimotor psychotherapy. I can't tell them apart at least. PermStrump(talk) 08:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no RS for notability. (Being promotional is irrelevant, if the subject was notable the correct action would be to keep.) Tigraan (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retain: First of all it is not possible to understand why this discussion for deletion is based on the grounds that the method does not comply with MEDRS. It has nothing what-so-everto do with medicine, with medical treatment, medical healing nor is it Medicine-related. Therefore is very strange and not comprehensible why medical doctors should need to concern themselves with PPI, claiming it requires scientific validation according to the criteria of their medical profession.

Admittedly it has not been made clear that this psychotherapeutic method had been developed over here in Europe towards the end of the last century, in which future practitioners are trained and supervised over a long period of years before they become qualified and certified. Briefly, the method includes elements of psychotherapy, psychology, traumatology, psychosomatics and bodywork. But is in no way related to medicine, nor have any claims of that nature ever been made. Here in Europe the medical profession has long accepted that this and similar methods are complimentary in supporting individuals with ailments or short-comings not necessarily requiring primary medical assistance, such as helping to release an individual's potential, promoting positive change, lowering anxiety, alleviating depression, relieving insomnia, improving posture, increasing confidence, resolving and maturing emotional expression, attaining betterment in relationships, overcoming trauma of various kinds, and so on. The page is factual and not "self promotional".

Perhaps some of the present wording, as has been quoted above, could do with updating to a more appropriate language. Thank you for pointing this out. However in no way do the arguments made justify in any way the rather rushed attempt to erase a long standing page that erroneously is made to appear to infringe on the medical profession outside of Europe, which this page in no way does. The www.eabp.org website of the European Assocation for Bodypsychotherapy, who valided this method after a several years survey, is temporarily off line. Osioni (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that your core argument is that PPI is not medicine, hence MEDRS does not apply. I guess you would disagree with Necrothesp's inclusion of the AfD in "medicine-related discussions". One can argue forever of the exact meaning of "medicine" but the thing is that "medical content" according to MEDRS certainly includes side therapies like alternative medicine or this one. I would say anything that claims to use stimuli on the body to cure/alleviate negative states of said body is within the scope of "medicine" by the common understanding of the word (even if it takes place outside hospital clean rooms).

Now, even for medicine-related topic, MEDRS only applies to medical content but (1) that's 99% of the current article, and (2) WP:RS and WP:N still apply to the rest.

Oh, and long-standing article —> WP:LONGTIME, The page is factual and not "self promotional". —> The method supports them to become more aware in their bodies and empowering them to change their "bodymind" (and other examples). Tigraan (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This method was approved over a decade ago by the European Association for Bodypsychotherapy (EABP) as having fulfilled all criteria and qualification requirements needed for scientific validification of bodypsychotherapy according to standards existing here in Europe where MEDRS are not called for in the case of non-medical side therapies. This has never been questioned by the medical profession in any country in Europe. The EABP is held in high esteem as an absolutely independent authority. Scroll down on their page to see the approval of Postural Integration Psychotherapy listed amongst others. This page here may need an "also called" name. The present name possibly originated from the IFCC institute in France, who first applied for institutional accreditation for the method. Osioni (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The EABP is held in high esteem as an absolutely independent authority." - says who? Your first link does not do you any favours, frankly. Give independent, reliable secondary sources. Tigraan (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This topic would merit an article, even if all the page does is detail how misguided the ideas are, if we had reliable, established medical sources covering this. Yet we do not. I agree with the arguments made by other users. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Namasteui[edit]

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

Prodded because it fails WP:GNG. Article creator removed the PROD and all of the maintenance tags (and added a LinkedIn link). Based on this message, it looks like a blatant WP:COI issue, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that this online publication is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete yet more spam Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 (non-notable web content) and G11 (unambiguously promotional). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. SJK (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by author's request DES ^(talk) 04:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Games, Anime, and More[edit]

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

Article is of WP:LOCAL importance and coverage as with a local art and wine festival. WP:TOOSOON to have a Wikipedia-level article. Also consider WP:ORG and notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment creator of article has written himself into article per WP:COI. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Nz17: This convention needs to have sources to show that it is notable. One source by Vernal Express is nice but we are looking for more than that per Wikipedia's notability policy. It would be a good idea to make an article when the convention is covered by multiple news outlets, and mentions of the convention are not just announcements (ex: "Games, Anime, and More is going to be held at x at x date tickets are now being sold") or the like. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing much evidence of actual notability yet. valereee (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I reviewed this at NPP and searches simply found nothing obviously better. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (or however the formatting goes on these things): I can toss a bunch of links onto the page going to a bunch of articles if you want, but somehow I doubt you would find the blogs containing these articles to be 'notable.' Also there was some television coverage from VTV Channel 6 but it doesn't archive all of its videos onto its Web site nor YouTube page, only some. Additionally there was coverage from the radio station X94 but it doesn't archive its audio. Nz17 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could say "yeah sure we can go with that" but I cant. If there were mentions of this convention over at Anime News Network (non encyclopedia portion), or a national newspaper then maybe. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. If this event gets wider coverage after a few years it could be added. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Relatively minor anime convention which has only been held ~~once~~ twice so far. A search for sources resulted mostly in brief mentions or false positives. If this becomes notable in the future, it could get an article but now is not the time. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "which has only been held once so far." Twice so far, actually. What is the policy about articles on people's blogs? I could provide some of those such as http://goodmoejo.blogspot.com/2016/03/gam-con-new-website.html and http://suspendeddreamsart.blogspot.com/2015/08/sohow-was-gam-con.html and other entries from those two blogs. Nz17 (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blog reliability is determined on a case-by-case basis. As a rule-of-thumb, if the author of the blog is a person who is an established authority in the field, whose authority has been established by peers and other sources, then the blog is notable. But neither of the blogs you've linked appear to be notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, fails WP:EVENT. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So can we just kill it already? I'm tired of suffering in agony waiting for the ax to drop. Delete the page. There is no current dissenting opinion. Nz17 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have tagged the article for speedy deletion per G7. Time to put the article out of its misery. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, there is nothing stopping you from recreating this article in the future if you can show that it has the notability through multiple reliable sources. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bratz: Rock Angelz Soundtrack. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 17:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So Good (Bratz song)[edit]

Non notable song. Seems a lot like advertising to me. All of these Bratz songs articles need to go.*Treker (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONG due to lack of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bratz: Rock Angelz Soundtrack. Not enough to warrant a standalone article and charting info is in the soundtrack article. That Emmy nom needs to be properly sourced and cited. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael W. Koontz[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Claim of notability is not inherited from office they ran for. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Reddogsix: You're at least the fourth person who thinks that by removing an A7 tag, I'm implying inherited notability. Anyone who thinks that doesn't understand A7 properly. A7's standard is lower than notability. Adam9007 (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: That is not what I think. I was led to the conclusion by your statement "Candidate for notable offices" in the edit reason. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Reddogsix: By that, I meant it is a credible claim of significance. Adam9007 (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A perennial candidate for political office who has consistently received a tiny percentage of the votes. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Clear cut case.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Khalid[edit]

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

Classic case of WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS.

Unnecessary article created through 2016 JNU sedition controversy. --Greek Legend (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it is unfair to label the subject as a WP:SINGLEEVENT. He is a symbol of the Indian youth's resistance against the rising nationalism and intolerance in India, an event billed as the "Indian Spring" of 2016 by BBC News and various commentators. It concerns Kashmir, arguably the single biggest problem facing the Indian subcontinent. His profile indicates that he is a leader and a rebel, and he is here to stay. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving away your POV with this comment. --Greek Legend (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Symbol of the Indian youth's resistance against the rising nationalism and intolerance in India"? Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. Please find strong reliable sources suggesting that the article subject was notable before this event. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E. I find no significant coverage of this person before this single event. He could be mentioned in the main article of the event, but there is no need to have a separate article for him. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic case of WP:RECENTISM --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I knew Kaultilya3 will comment keep, but I didn't expect such a ridiculous argument that he represents India's youth. Majority don't like this guy. Lets watch what Joshua Jonathan comments here. Greek Legend (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of a Wiki page is based on notability, not popularity. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It has significant coverage in national and international media. InspireTheWorld (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of coverage but this is due to it being a recent event (see WP:RECENTISM). I cannot find any significant coverage of this person before this event. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can find continuous significant coverage after that event. InspireTheWorld (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:RECENTISM. Media coverage is continuing because it is a recent event (less than 3 months). The person's main claim to fame is that one single event. When building an encyclopedia, we think of how relevant this will be after 10 years. And as I repeated before, I haven't been able to find any significant coverage of this person before this event. If this person's role is important in this event, it can be mentioned in the main article of the event. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This person and the event will be relevant in the future. Already movement to remove the sedition law from the statute started and this person will be hailed as the one who ignited the debate on the issue. We should not wait for 10 years to include in Wiki. InspireTheWorld (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This person and the event will be relevant in the future." is just WP:CRYSTALBALL. It may or may not happen. If it does, we can have an article on him at that time. But right now it is not needed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can nominate for deletion at that time (in future), if we find it less significant. InspireTheWorld (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- WP:SINGLEEVENT and fails notability.. He is a "symbol" of something but only within JNU walls..Adamstraw99 (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only within JNU walls. Significance International coverage is there. InspireTheWorld (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this "significant coverage" is all due to WP:RECENTISM ---Adamstraw99 (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You actively edit articles related to Aligarh Muslim University as Cricket Club, Aligarh Muslim University and Muslim University Riding Club. The IP below came right after editing Jamat E Islami page. Both of you have your POV in your keep votes.Greek Legend (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say that Umar Khalid being a Muslim and as I edited and some related to Aligarh Muslim University which seems to be a Muslim university by name is not a co incidence. I think you are trying to give it a communal color. InspireTheWorld (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It has had significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.148.95.16 (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. This person is a low-profile student notable for only one event. Vipinhari || talk 05:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been a subject of constant media coverage ALONG with JNU controversy and Kanhaiya Kumar for over a month now. WP:SINGLEEVENT suggests : "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified". There have been various media coverage items profiling specifically Umar Khalid, both in positive and negative light, apart from his role in JNU sedition controversy. e.g. Media reports linked specifically Umar Khalid with Jaish-e-Mohammad and then Govt denied the report. Umar Khalid was reported to have visited Pakistan twice by the media. Hence WP:SINGLEEVENT may not apply here. May I also add that apart from Kanhaiya Kumar, other 6 students who are charged under sedition were not covered like Umar Khalid and Kanhaiya Kumar. WP:SINGLEEVENT would apply on those 6 students but not Umar and Kanhaiya. I would urge people opining Keep as well as Delete, to purely judge this on the basis of coverage in the media, and not their own subjective views. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edits are related to Aam Aadmi Party and the politicians linked to it. Thanks, I understand everything. Greek Legend (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to point out any COI, please be direct. Sly comments may not be very useful in an AFD. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And secondly this AFD is not for Kanhaiya Kumar. So, don't bring him in this discussion. Greek Legend (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with my opinion and the reasoning behind it, please say it as is. If you wish so ignore references to Kanhaiya Kumar, still WP:SINGLEEVENT would not apply here as there is enough media coverage for both the incident as well as the individual.ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will request User:Greek_Legend please not make sly comments in the discussion. a COI / POV may be pointed out in a plain language, and thereafter debated like mature good men :) IMO Previous edits , unless pointed out to be biased must not be used to discard opinions in an AFD Regards ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic case of WP:SINGLEEVENT there's no need for an separate article for a low-profile person notable for only one event. He could be mentioned in the main article. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 13:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It cannot be a classic case of WP:SINGLEEVENT because the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered in such circumstances. We have seen that after the event which was held on 9th February after which controversy erupted which led to his arrest under Sedition Law and subsequent bail by Court, he is still being covered by national and international media. So, it is not a single event. It has surpassed single event criteria. Now with the passage of every day it is becoming multiple event. InspireTheWorld (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep The rationale of WP:SINGLEEVENT went out the window when this guy got coverage again and again and again. I think single event is one of the weakest rationales to be mentioned here. Notnews is the same. I mean how does one call something "just news" which is covered by reliable sources for a long period of time. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What's the difference between Kim Davis (county clerk) and Umar Khalid. One is an American. One is an Indian. WP:GEOBIAS. AusLondonder (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The misuse of WP:NOTNEWS is extremely tiring. NOTNEWS says this "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". WP:NOTNEWS actually is not a blatant prohibition on coverage of recent topics. AusLondonder (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For you first comment about a WP:GEOBIAS, if you look at the decision Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kentucky_same-sex_marriage_license_controversy, the articles were merged into 1 article at Kim Davis (county clerk). That is exactly what should be done here as well; keep a single article for the event. As for your second comment, an article already exists about the event. The debate is whether we need separate articles for the people involved considering that they are notable only because of their connection to this event. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that AfD removed one of three articles. Two currently exist. The BLP and Miller v. Davis. AusLondonder (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event, and Umar Khalid's role in it specifically, has received a volume of coverage such that the "Recentism" argument is a dodgy one. I'm hardly a person to default to "keep" in every such situation; but a google search for news stories with the phrases "umar khalid" and JNU brings up half a million results. Yes, most of these will not be detailed, but the volume still says a lot. What's more, he has a central role in the whole event, not a peripheral one, and has received enough detailed coverage to pass GNG to boot; more than enough reasons to keep, in my book. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed with. Around 630000 results in google search.InspireTheWorld (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borders WP:NOTWHOSWHO and WP:CFORK as well. The parent article 2016 JNU sedition controversy is sufficient to cover these individuals. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Ruling party of India keeping his notability alive almost everyday by using his name in political rallies across nation.Today news TY of ^Walk 16:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Creative Computing[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. (As an aside: I cannot find any other issue apart from the inaugural issue published in 2013)." Article dePRODded by article creator, who explains on the talk page that some of the authors in the single issue published up till now are notable and that therefore the journal is notable, too. However, notability is not inherited and I also note that there is a long-standing consensus in the Academic Journals Wikiproject that lists of notable authors should not be included in articles and do not contribute to notability (unless the implication of a notable author with the journal has been the subject of significant independent coverage; see als WP:JWG). Taken together: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — for the reasons given on the article's talk page, IMHO. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How this can be "certainly the leading journal in the area of creative computing" with only 1 issue published since the journal was established in 2013, no independent sources, and no indexing in any selective database really is beyond me... Sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is the only journal specifically covering creative computing to my knowledge, so how can it be other the "leading"? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's hilarious! --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly "leading" in the sense that no other deals with the same exact subtopic, but then there is not a single journal that is not "leading" if you restrict the topic enough. And not all of them are notable. Tigraan (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although it could be userfied. To meet notability guidelines it needs to have more issues published/ Just one, and that a few years ago, is a worry. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Publishing in a journal ≠ thinking it is influential (especially for a first issue!), so I fail to see the Jpbowen's claim on WP:JOURNALCRIT #1. Tigraan (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears that this article does not meet the notability requirements enumerated in WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Barr[edit]

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

Fails WP:Artist by a country mile. TheLongTone (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is completely unsourced and does nothing to establish that Barr meets WP:ARTIST. When I looked for sources, I found no award(s), no monograph(s), no public collection(s), no auction record, no reviews. Mduvekot (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it was written above he faild WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Nothing that can establish the notability. Local artist. And the article itself is heavy promotional. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...if you think the article is promotional now you should have seen it before I stripped out the more egregious bubbles o'guff!TheLongTone (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA unsourced BLP. There is a brief blog post on the subject [11] but neither that not anything else that I can find indicates that he meets any of the WP:ARTIST or broader WP:GNG notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 17:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth[edit]

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

In this edit article creator acknowledges citations were cut and pasted without being read. I consider the article to therefore have few valid citations (I am familiar with a few of the sources). Article is also a fork of Nativity of Jesus. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created as a spinout of an existing article, as per WP:SPINOUT, and therefore it was created by relocating existing material together with their existing references. It is NOT a content fork, it is a spinout - this topic is a detailed issue in its own right, and the originating Nativity of Jesus article was already over 100,000k long. Also, other Jesus-related articles repeat the same material in detail, so having its own article allows all those other articles which address this topic to simply link to the material in one place.

There is no reason at all to ASSUME that the references are inappropriate - a lot of editors have worked long and hard on fine-tuning this material in the original article, including me. Furthermore, if we delete this article and relocate all this material back to whence it came, the ASSUMED problem doesn't disappear. If we are to question the appropriateness of the references here, then we will also need to question the appropriateness of the references once the material is back in the original article as well. That would imply a need to audit the entire encyclopedia again - which is hardly feasible. However, if we are willing to accept the appropriateness of the references once the material is all back in the original article, then there is no reason to question the appropriateness of the references in this spinout article.

If any editor has concerns about a particular reference then by all means let's address it, but to simply ASSUME that a number of perfectly valid references have become suddenly inappropriate merely because a daughter article has been spun out, looks a bit like an over-reaction. Wdford (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:SPINOUT reasoning might apply if only one article were split out. But in this case, it appears that parts of Anno Domini, Chronology of Jesus, and Nativity of Jesus were combined to create the new article. At most, one of these articles could be regarded as the source of the spinout (which should be properly documented as explained at WP:SPINOUT). All other additions should have their citations verified at the time the material is added, because all Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for "Furthermore, if we delete this article and relocate all this material back to whence it came, the ASSUMED problem doesn't disappear. If we are to question the appropriateness of the references here, then we will also need to question the appropriateness of the references once the material is back in the original article as well." We have never required that sources be reverified when being added back to the same article; otherwise we would have to reverify all the sources every time a vandal blanks a page. By regarding Wikipedia articles as unreliable, we create firewalls between articles, and prevent mistaken citations (and a few outright fabrications) from being copied from article to article, perpetuating the errors. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "problem" is easily remedied by referring to the prior articles and their edit histories and placing such reference clearly in the edit history of this article. Editors are not required to research each source ab initio when creating articles using such prior articles with their edit histories, and, yes, it was improper not to make sure the prior articles and edit histories were clearly noted, but not "fatal" to another article. Nor can I find any Wikipedia requirement that a new article can only be made into a sub-article of a single original parent article. Leaving only a question as to whether it is an improper fork, for which argument no evidence has been given. Collect (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:SPINOUT was done originally from Nativity of Jesus, but then I summarized and linked Anno Domini and Chronology of Jesus as well, because they were duplicating the same material almost verbatim. Over time some editors have added their tweaks to one or other article, and I attempted to preserve those tweaks which were valuable so as to not unnecessarily discard valuable material.

I take the point re firewalls, but I dispute that these citations are "mistaken" – in the original articles they are all clearly addressing the exact same points. However, if there are specific concerns about any particular citation, please tell me and let’s fix it. Wdford (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the creation of this was in effect a Spinout followed by a selective WP:MERGE of content from related articles, neither of those processes require re-verification of citations. If a citation is assumed to remain valid while normal editing goes on around it, and need not be re-validated with each change to the article, neither need it be re-validated when chunks of article text with their accompanying citations are moved or copied from one article to another. As long as the same citation supports the same article text, then all is well. If the article text supported by a citation is rewritten in a way that might change its meaning (not just grammar fixes or the like), the citation should be checked to be sure that it supports the altered wording. But even then, a "cite needed" tag and/or discussion on the talk page is the proper remedy, not article deletion. DES ^(talk) 12:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Fix - The topic is obviously notable, so this is clearly a keep. If the cut-and-pasting involved in a merger/spin-off results in broken citations, those broken citations do need to be fixed. However, broken citations are not, on their own, grounds for deletion. On the issue of double checking the citations to ensure that they actually support what is stated in the article ... It is never wrong to do so... but again the lack of a double check is not grounds for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for finalization : It seems that there is no support for deleting the article, and that we should indeed keep the article and finish building it up. Can a decision be finalized please, so that we can move forward? Wdford (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a useful article on a controversial subject. I have heard the view that the taxation (census) would have been held after the harvest in a slack season for agriculture. John's gospel indicates a minimum duration for Jesus' ministry, but we do not really know how long it was. Luke's gospel appears to give a precise period, but we lack the collateral sources to convert that to a precise date. The article provides a useful statement of the problem. Issues over sourcing imply tagging for verification, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of top-selling candy brands[edit]

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

arbitrary and unsubstantiated Rathfelder (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Article clearly meets criteria under WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. This seems like a vindictive attack by a candy hater 161.113.20.135 (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the candy hater comment made me laugh, but IP above is right, this list is useful, and could use expansion to include more information. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This list is limited to the year 2007. What is the purpose? — Maile (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the 2007 statistics on sales are just that, statistics. They could be updated at any time someone has a newer source. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a WP:SPLIT from Candy, to make it easier to WP:PRESERVE this information without overwhelming the main article. I'm not sure why the nominator calls it "arbitrary" (sales are objective) or "unsubstantiated" (there are multiple sources cited in the article). If anyone wants to update it, then feel free. This article is slightly newer. One thing that could be made clearer is that this list is the top seller within each named country, not the top seller across the entire globe. Snickers isn't the #1 candy in any country, but globally, being #2 or #3 in several markets means that it outsells many favorites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:LISTN. Source examples include: [12], [13], [14], [15]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (see below) - If this were somehow a list of best selling candy brands of all time, I would be supporting this, but it's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE hodgepodge based on sources that use different kinds of data from different dates, and cites listicles rather than the data itself (so omits what the listicles omit). We have a combination of the number one candy in each of 25 countries and US sales data put together in the same table. Nowhere in sight is an actual list of top-selling candy brands. Best case scenario would be either reproducing a particular dataset or two and update it every year, but I imagine there are some copyright concerns in doing that (I'm not sure). As soon as we try to draw from more than one source, because the industry research is performed at different times with different scope, we start to form a list that doesn't belong together or have to get into crazy column expansion. The 2008-2009 sales of M&Ms globally doesn't belong with 2007 global sales of Cadbury, and 2008 sales of Reese's in the US alone. Again, there's a valid argument for LISTN, just as there would be for almost any "top selling ____" topic, but right now because of what this list purports vs. what it is, it's not just incomplete, it's misinformation. And it's not clear to me it's sustainable without just copying datasets. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you believe that the sales data for the top-selling candy in (for example) Brazil is the amount of sales in the US, rather than the amount of sales in Brazil (but converted to USD)? If the sales figures were all about the total sales in the US, rather than the country in question, then why does Cadbury's Dairy Milk have different dollar figures for every entry? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @WhatamIdoing: Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I don't believe that sales in Brazil is the amount of sales in the US (?). The point is that it's a hodgepodge of data. It purports to be a list of top selling candy, but some of the data is "top selling in brazil" with the figures for sales in brazil, some of the data is "top selling in the US" with figures for sales for the US, some data is "top selling in the world" with figures for sales in the world... from different points in time, and presented in the same table as though we're comparing apples and apples. It looks to be taken somewhat arbitrarily from the cited listicles and primary sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you give me a specific example, in the table, in the column for the sales figures (not the description), of total sales for the whole world? ~~I wrote most of that table originally, and~~ all countries, all candy bars, and all dollar-sales figures listed are for the single country in question, from the same year, and from the same source. I haven't watched the page closely, so things may have changed, but I don't see anything that justifies your complaint. The line about Brazil, for example, tells you the top-selling candy bar in Brazil alone, with the sales figures in Brazil alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear from the discussion above that the article is at best unclear. What I said it was arbitrary, I meant: Why these particular countries? Why base the list on 2007? - just because of the Bloomberg article? Where does this data come from? It doesn't appear that the references really support most of the assertions.Rathfelder (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why these countries? Because those are the countries that the source included.
Why 2007? Because that is the year that the source included.
Where does this data come from? From the cited reliable source. (Officially, we don't care where the reliable source got its data; editors are required to cite sources, but reliable sources are not.)
Can you give an exact example of a fact in the table that is not supported by the sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only real source seems to be the Bloomberg Businessweek article. That says it is based on a Euromonitor survey, but we aren't told anything about it, but it is clear that it is nearly 10 years old. The other references are mostly links to the manufacturers. If this article is to deliver what it claims to deliver it needs updating and expanding. Otherwise it should be called List of top-selling candy brands in 25 countries in 2007.Rathfelder (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be lovely to have it updated and expanded. However, "contains information from nine years ago" is not actually a criterion for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: So you're saying you basically took a single source and reproduced it to make a Wikipedia article? I was basing what I was saying on the sources cited, but if you're saying only one of the sources is actually responsible for the list, that's what I was saying re: "best case scenario" (which is not to say a good scenario). Do you not see an issue with, effectively, copy/pasting the content of a single listicle to form a Wikipedia article? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I ~~wrote~~ worked on the original version of the table, the information was part of a larger article. The table is only a separate page now because it was WP:SPLIT (for the usual reasons given in SPLIT, e.g., that the amount of space it consumed was tending to place undue emphasis on sales figures).
I see no problem with creating a single table of statistics from a single source, particularly if the goal is to avoid the "WP:INDISCRIMINATE hodgepodge based on sources that use different kinds of data from different dates" (emphasis in your original) that you erroneously claimed it to be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with creating a single table of statistics from a single source - The problem is you haven't created a single table of statistics from the actual source of those statistics. Someone else curated and published a particular subset of that data and it's that which has been copied to make this article. Per my understanding of data and copyright, that's a violation. I'll ping Moonriddengirl in case she's available to lend her expertise. Less ambiguously -- and more straightforward to fix -- while you've expanded on the wording in some cases, there are also a few instances of copied descriptions that have nothing to do with the data. E.g.

"Trident is not only the No. 1 candy in Brazil, it is also the No. 1 brand of chewing gum in the world"

vs.

"Trident, made by Cadbury, is not only the No. 1 candy in Brazil, it is also the No. 1 brand of chewing gum in the world." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here I am accidentally taking unfair credit for work that someone else did. The material was added original by someone else, promptly converted to table formatting by another editor, and cleaned up a bit later by me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi. :) If I'm understanding this situation correctly, the source lists the top X selling candy bars by annual sales. The data is not creative - it's straightforward sales figures. (Not estimates, but pure accounting.) If that's true, and the selection is not creative - it's the top sellers, not the best tasting or anything like that - I don't believe that there are copyright issues with using that data in the U.S., as sweat of the brow is not protected here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonriddengirl: Got it. Thanks for this explanation.

It seems I'm wrong about the copyright issue. Nonetheless, a list based almost entirely on a single source is not a good list and what we have here is still a confusing mess. Still, with some extraordinarily weak possibilities it can be salvaged rather than WP:TNT it, and for lack of a copyright issue, I've somewhat reluctantly struck my delete !vote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The UK, Russia and the USA appear twice in the table. I think that reinforces my complaint that this is an arbitrary list. There is a perfectly good article List of candies. What does this add to it?Rathfelder (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is because each candy brand has its own separate entry in the list. This actually serves to make the list less arbitrary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic, and deletion is not cleanup. SST flyer 17:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 17:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Skelley[edit]

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

Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I don't believe being selected for the 2016 British paralympic team meets WP:NSPORT nor does a third place finish at the blind European championships.Mdtemp (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 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 12:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Competing at the Paralympics should meet WP:NOLYMPICS, the original intent of creating that guideline was that it wouldn't have different rules for Olympians and Paralympians (somewhere along the line that got lost and it now only allows for Paralympic medallists but that's a whole other argument). Admittedly he won't actually compete at the Paralympics for a few more months but for a decently written, well sourced article (his selection and results appear in multiple BBC, BT Sport, IPC, BPA, etc. articles) I see no reason to delete now for the sake of recreating down the road - Basement12 (T.C) 10:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't whether it "should" meet WP:NOLYMPICS but the fact is that it doesn't. Please don't create your own notability rules.Mdtemp (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I did actually create those notability rules, hence the current discrepency is both surprising to me and as FruitMonkey says bordering on a disgrace - Basement12 (T.C) 08:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure if as the article creator I am allowed to vote for this article, but here it is. I believe that he does pass WP:GNG. Unfortunately there is no section for judo under WP:NSPORT which is a bit disappointing, and although he presently fails WP:NOLYMPICS in six months time he may do so, and imho I feel similar to Basement12 that the discrepancy between the recognition of Olympic and Paralympic athletes is a disgrace to Wikipedia, but as Mdtemp states that is a fight for another day. I created the article as I honestly thought that medalling at a European level is notable enough for an athlete. There are only two competitions above this level that this athlete can compete at, they are the Worlds and the Paralympics. He can't gain notability through other means as his sport is not professional, which is often the instrument used to deem if notability is met for sportspeople. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As article creator you are definitely allowed to vote at the AfD. I'm having trouble seeing the multiple significant independent sources required by WP:GNG. There's an article giving the results from the European blind championships (routine sports coverage), several links to judoinside.com (just results), a passing mention in an article names the 2016 British paralympic team, and a brief bio at the British judo site. I do not think any of those are qualify for WP:GNG. The best source is from the British blind sport organization encouraging visually impaired children to study judo and using Skelley as a case study--and even that says his biggest accomplishment was at the Junior Visually Impaired World Championships and junior events do not normally confer any notability. I'm not sure that if he was a normal judoka he would be considered as having passed WP:MANOTE and many consider that essay too lenient. I haven't voted yet because I'm hoping to see what I consider clear evidence he meets WP:GNG. Right now I don't see that. Papaursa (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me towards WP:MANOTE, which I was not familiar with. Section 4 states: Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion). This is something he has done on several occasions, medaled at international events to which he is 1st dan or higher. I understand the frustration at passing mentions, but this is the bane of para-sport. Even an all out world-beating powerhouse like Russian sprinter Evgenii Shvetcov will only pick up brief quotes here and there. I've also added further cites, but again with no in-depth discussion. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I agree with above comments that section 4 of WP:MANOTE is clearly passed and notability established, the guidelines on olympic notability should be changed as a matter of priority as it is discrimination against the paralympics that their notability rules are stricter, and a bad stain on the reputation of wikipedia Atlantic306 (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not voted yet - I think my position mirrors that of Papaursa. I think the idea of stain on wikipedia is a bit much. Competition in the Olympics is presumed notable because it is competing at the highest level. For the same reason competing in Junior Olympics does not have the same cache, as does other age dependent or other special groupings. In this case one could ask would he be an Olympic athlete if sighted. If this article does pass it should be on WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a big fan of your work Peter Rehse, but you are really missing the point of Para-sport if you are trying to equate those with a disability to having parity with an able bodied athlete if that disability was removed. That is not how we equate world class para-sport and actually shows the misunderstanding between notability in Wikipedia sport articles. If the tables were turned could we state that the world's number one judo competitor could retain his title if blinded, or even beat the present blind judo champion in his or her division. We are then playing "What If..." scenarios which no one can answer. Can we cut off a leg from Bolt and expect him to beat Peacock or Brown? A blind David Beckham, an Adrian Phelps with dwarfism. Disability sport must be judged completely separate from able-bodied sport for the sake of notability. They can not and should not be compared on a like for like basis, well not until the governing bodies do so. regards FruitMonkey (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know it's unusual to go for a third relist, but reading the conversation to date, it sounds like there's reasonable arguments being made on both sides and we might still make progress towards consensus if I let this run another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mirroring the comments above. I think it meets WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.113.11.16 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 267[edit]

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

Back-and-forth edit warring to revert it to a useless redirect to a list with no substantial content (and not even bothering to link to a section target).

I'm neutral on this, but we delete articles through AfD, not through bickering. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another non-notable bus route with no evidence of notability. Jeni ^(talk) 14:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the definition of notability for a bus route? I'm sure there are plenty of robust printed references to it, but what level are we looking for? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find everything you need at WP:GNG Jeni ^(talk) 19:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the overly generic GNG though, it's an obvious pass, simply for the mass of printed timetables and directories. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be referring to primary sources that are not independent of the subject. Got any non trivial independent reliable sources? Jeni ^(talk) 21:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such as what? It's not hard to show that this is a bus route, that it exists and that a great many people travel on it (there are also plenty of images at Commons). GNG is too blunt though - it's presumably your point here that meeting GNG alone isn't enough to justify an article on a bus route. So what is? We do have article on bus routes, so what is required to show their notability. GNG is both easy, but not enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: The text of this article discusses the route's history. If you (or any other editor) can find secondary sources that discuss this history, then that may be sufficient to substantiate notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL8. I could not find secondary sources that discuss this bus route's significance, history, or impact on local communities. Unless someone can show me sources that discuss this bus route in some depth, I think deletion is appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nordic Dragon 09:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is neutral on this, not seeking to delete it. I'm just trying to clear up some edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would've been noting your suggestion of deletion on edit warring - without anything to revert, who is going to recreate the article once deleted? Nordic Dragon 14:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - ot every bus route is otable ad this is yet aother case, Ayway o evidece of otability fails GG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Morocco Tennis Tour – Kenitra. This is rather obvious. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 17:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco Tennis Tour – Kentra[edit]

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

Empty shell of an article. Possibly a duplicate of Morocco Tennis Tour – Kenitra Rathfelder (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Would be a spelling mistake so I would redirect this to the actual article. Matt294069 is coming 23:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Samir[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Biography of living person who appears to have two different unexplained names Rathfelder (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As unverified. Assuming the article is accurate, Samir does meet WP:NFOOTY, having managed a club in a fully pro league, but this doesn't count for much when this fact can't be verified in reliable source. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot verify that Samir managed the club. If a reliable source can be located, then I could changed my !vote. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite almost a month of debate, there is still deep-seated disagreement about sources, overlap with List of Germanic deities, and other core issues. I don't see how letting this run for another week will resolve those, so tossing in the towel on the debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of the Norse gods[edit]

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

This article rests on synthesis and its topic is not notable in scholarship. The family relationships between the Germanic deities vary between sources (and the situation is complicated by both changes over time and differences between geographical regions: "Norse gods" is in itself a simplification) and are only very partially represented in genealogical terms; what both the original texts and the scholarly sources say is better represented in List of Germanic deities and in the individual articles on the gods and goddesses. To have this article as well misleadingly suggests a genealogy can be constructed on which sources largely agree. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. For example, see Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology. If sources disagree about some of the details, that's not a reason to delete because that's a common problem for all topics. Andrew D. (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that this is already covered on another article, List of Germanic deities? Second, the source you've linked to is not a reliable source on the topic. "General" pieces on mythology regularly produce also sorts of nonsensical bullshit on the topic to uncritical audiences all the time, from Bulfinch to today. Please cite only from specialists in Germanic studies in the future. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That source is fine, being edited by a professor of anthropology. Here's another one published by the Oxford University Press. To suggest that we require better sources is mistaken because Wikipedia is not an esoteric academic work. Thor here is as likely to be a modern myth of comics, TV or movies and, as they're all fanciful stories, the older ones will just have to take their place with the rest. Andrew D. (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source is not fine and neither is the second. As editors, we are expected to use our hands in discerning what is and is not a reliable source. These are both general audience works by individuals with no backgrounds in Germanic studies (!). There's a huge amount of academic discourse on this topic in the field—by those who know what they're talking about. To fob off these numerous issues with a simple Google Books search that yields some general audience "overviews" of mythology is both disrespectful to both academics who work int he field and to the reader of this article who expects accurate information. I have no idea why you're referring to modern popular culture material reflexes as this is unrelated to the subject and discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Bloodofox on these surveys of mythology; I was trying to think of a polite way to say it so now I will just support his critique: they provide a useful overview and many of us owe our original interest in this and other pantheons to them, but they have to summarize and neaten up the material by their very nature, and anthropology is a different field from comparative mythology, let alone ancient Scandinavian or Germanic studies. Thor (Marvel comics) is a red herring here (as would be the versions of the Germanic deities in games going back to Dungeons and Dragons; we have separate articles on the comics mythos for a reason). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; our articles are supposed to represent what the most reliable sources say about a topic. In this instance the geneology of the gods is a complex topic and its representation as a family tree is not even something normally done in scholarly works. Yes, we should cover the genealogy of the gods. But we should not oversimplify it in a misleading fashion in contradiction to what reliable sources - the actual texts and scholarship - say. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My position is unchanged. One might cavil about Marvel comics but even there Sif is Thor's wife and Odin is his father. Works produced by a respectable university press are obviously acceptable and to say otherwise is a violation of WP:OWN. That seems to be the problem here as I've figured out that this is a variation of the infobox wars in which an owning faction insists that their topic is too difficult and precious to be presented in a simple, accessible way. And, sure enough, I find Bloodofox and Yngvadottir on the talk page of Thor taking this stance. Sorry but I don't accept that and I don't accept that deletion is a proper way of driving off editors with a different approach. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Marvel comics stuff—where Loki is conveniently Thor's brother and a son of Odin, etc, etc.—is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Let's stay on topic. Infoboxes are a whole other can of worms with their own multitude of potential problems and are not being debated here.

University presses produce questionable stuff all the time, especially when aimed at general audiences, and the fact that these authors you've cited have no background in a directly related field raises every red flag. Scholars working in Germanic studies are well aware that there are both diachronic and synchronic issues with the source material (and its absence) that raise too many questions and produce too many contradictions for a single "Family tree of Norse gods" to be accurately or reasonably produced. In fact, with the development of historical linguistics, there's no longer question that there was significant regional variation, not to mention major developments over time. With some digging, you may find a chart illustrating the family tree contents of some translations of the Poetic Edda or the Prose Edda (perhaps in tandem given the relation of the texts)—and there a chart can easily be produced when it's a matter of a scope limited to these two sources—but that would, as I said, be a different chart altogether (something like "family tree of the Æsir and Vanir per the Poetic Edda and Prose Edda" or maybe even "Family Trees in the Eddas").

It sounds to be me like you might be assuming bad faith. To be clear, nobody is attempting to "driv[e] off editors with a different approach". They're welcome to collaborate—we need them. But their contributions must be accurate and from reliable sources, without synthesis and original research. That is the issue here. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University presses, by their nature, are aimed at a scholarly audience and so are at least as good as any other source. It is not our policy to instead pick and choose sources which article owners prefer. My position is unchanged. The information in question is notable and, presented in this format, passes WP:LISTN. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you are incorrect regarding how university presses operate. For example, university presses publish a substantial amount of trade and general audience material, including creative fiction and poetry collections. Some material published by university presses goes through a peer review process, some does not. In general, material that makes its way through the rigors of the peer review process is far superior that material that does not, of course, but general audience works don't generally receive that level of scrutiny. That said, it is indeed our policy to sniff out what is and is not an appropriate source, a process that is admittedly complicated but demands that we find the best sources for our material—scholars who are working in the area in which they are publishing, ideally. There's no shortage of works by scholars in the field covering this material out there and there's no reason we should be turning to misleading general audience works composed by individuals working outside of the field in question. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respect the nom's knowledge of mythology, but must respectfully disagree here. The idea that some Norse gods are kin is not in doubt. Indeed, List of Germanic deities through its Attested children column contains family trees in list form. Structurally, this is a well-formed list-class article with notable entries per WP:SAL. Family trees as a presentation format are officially supported via Wikipedia:Family trees. It is true that sources can disagree on family structure, but disagreement among RS is settled by giving a balanced presentation of the alternatives, not deleting whole articles. In this case, I have made a modest start by adding to the article: This family tree gives an example pedigree. With respect to kin relations of Norse gods, there are regional variations and disagreement among sources. A well formed list-class article that is sourced and can be fixed through normal editing suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with every point of your response. This is by no means a scholarly approach and your citing of other problematic mythological family trees (which suffer from exactly the same issues) as a defense of the article is honestly only further muddying our already problematic approach to this material on Wikipedia, which would be scoffed at by any specialist in these areas who is familiar with the problems inherent in the source material. This "family tree" of the Old Norse gods varies from by time, place, and source—potentially even by the agenda of the author. This tree is almost entirely cobbled together from the Prose Edda. We could use an article specifically about the family tree presentation in the Prose Edda, but claiming that it is possible to produce a salient family tree like this is complete nonsense and the mark of an individual ignorant on a fundamental level to the problems inherent in the Germanic corpus. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. This article is a steaming pile of unscholarly WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that duplicates material handled in a scholarly and appropriate manner in List of Germanic deities. Any specialist handling this chart would scoff at its premise given the problems inherent in the North Germanic corpus (and the Germanic corpus in general). All this list does is mislead the reader—it's outright misinformation. A family tree derived *solely* from the Prose Edda would be another matter but that would also be a totally different article. I would be glad to assist in such an article. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete As per above. I could however see the value in merging this as a graphic into existing articles. Maybe. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 10:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Redirect to List of Germanic deities or List of Norse deities if one is created. Goustien (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'd like to see it redirected to List of Germanic deities, as has been discussed on the talk page. It's a plausible search term. However, "turn into a redirect" isn't something one can propose in an AfD rationale. And better would be developing an article on Genealogy of the Norse gods, which discussed the evidence and its contradictions (and might even have partial family trees to illustrate points, including contrasting versions of the relationships) and redirecting this there. But that would involve quite a bit of work, and I don't think it's urgent—it hasn't been a big focus of scholarly work. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to point out that this redirect suggestion is from the article's primary author ([16]). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of full disclosure: I created the original article on English Wikipedia, translating from the article (https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_nordiske_guders_stamtr%C3%A6), which has been on Danish Wikipedia since 2006. I thought it appropriate to have this family tree as an analog to the Family tree of the Greek gods and was not then aware that the Norse genealogy was less consistent than the Greek. Goustien (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom's analysis shows need for article expansion, not deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a diagram. How can it be expanded to show the multiple variations and differences of scholarly opinion? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that an "expanded" version already exists at List of Germanic deities. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Mannus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence this footballer meets WP:GNG or has played in a fully pro league. Previously deleted at AfD in 2006. C 679 10:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 10:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mannus is no more notable today than he was ten years ago. He still has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mannus did play in Northern Ireland's top tier of Football, though I do agree a lot of information needs to be found to get this article up to a good standard. CDRL102 (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@CDRL102: The Northern Irish Premier League is not a fully professional league, and so playing in it does not guarantee that they're notable enough for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not played in a fully professional league, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Also, salt since it's been created before, and they'll never be notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's tons of sources on Google and Google Books, Using all the sources there this could easily be expanded beyond a stub (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol-free bar[edit]

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

No evidence that there is enough to write on this topic beyond its unsourced dictionary definition, which is no more than the sum of its component words. DePRODded without comment by original article creator. There's an article on Temperance bar but that's mainly 19th century. PamD 10:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sources available via Google News (see link above) qualify an article; the topic meets WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not cleanup. Notable topic. SST flyer 07:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Note: the article needs cleanup. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ila Pant[edit]

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

fails WP:NOTE, Self-promotion and publicity, not much in third party sources, only 1 time parliamentarian in past, Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Has been a member of parliament of India. If there are issues fix these by editing. Why delete?Shyamsunder (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Please consider checks and alternatives before nominating. Vipinhari || talk 11:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as it meets the first criterion at WP:NPOL. Uanfala (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep classic case of nominating without checking all the boxes FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per WP:SKCRIT criteria 3. All current and former international, national and state/province-wide politicians are inherently notable per WP:NPOL. Agree with nom that clean-up is required but this does not achieve that. AusLondonder (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep if there is unsourced material, the article can be shortened ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdraw and Keep as I'm not certain this AfD is going to get any other comments and the improvements are enough for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Benson[edit]

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

Frankly I would've PRODed but, considering his two best known works are 22 episodes of a 2002-2003 TV series and then a year for a 2004-2005 General Hospital character. My searches found nothing better than the expected sources which include gossip and the like at News, browsers and Highbeam. Thus everything is questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Fails notability guidelines. Cindlevet (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google News is not where one would expect to find strong sourcing for any notability claim tied to career details anytime prior to the 2010s, and Highbeam isn't a good place to look for Canadian media coverage at all. Ten minutes in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database, however, and I was able to source this into the double digits. Keep; article has been revised for writing tone and sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. References are mostly passing mentions of the subject, but there's enough there to establish notability. Cleanup by Bearcat has salvaged the article. Good work. That being said, the article is probably destined to remain a stub for quite some time, until such time as the subject becomes more notable... But that's quite alright. If that happens, of course- but it usually does with borderline entertainers. Involved editors should keep an eye out for promotional edits and puffery; I'll watchlist it to help in that regard. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 07:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not much discussion, even after two relists. Going to call this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial Season[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 only passing mentions in a music reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 03:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 03:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches at News, Books, browsers, Highbeam, Blabbermouth, Kerrang and Terrorizer found nothing convincingly better at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 12:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Center for Victims of Crime[edit]

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

Entirely promotional. If an article can be written, this needs to be removed first. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps if needed although I found several links at Books and News so far including where it is they are a leading organization and are "poweful" but perhaps nothing yet convincing for improvements. This may need to be restarted if needed, SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I have added more to the article. Please review. I set up this article after researching for US-based NGOs working for victims of crime (a side research project of mine, I typically research Soviet history). This seems to be a major organization receiving funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services, yet had nothing on Wikipedia. Don't know why that wouldn't warrant an article. Haven't come across any news articles yet to express skepticism or criticism of their activities, else that would be included too.--JonathanGodwin (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The organisation was established in 1985 and appears to be the main such body in the US. It gets over a thousand Google news hits (some outside the US) which seem to be using it as a resource on crime stats and as an expert opinion, especially on stalking. The article needs the promotional content pruning out, but does not seem unsalvageable. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's difficult to get past the promotional aspect of the article. Sure, some of it can be fixed (starting with the logo that includes a telephone number). But it's not so easy to get past the fact that ALL of the article's references are first-party sources. I went to the subject's official web site and randomly sampled five of the 'press clippings' listed in the "Media" section. All five of these mention the subject only in passing. Because the article's creator is taking part in this discussion, perhaps he would be kind enough to point us to independent sources that provide an in-depth discussion of the organization itself. If such sources can be produced, I'll be happy to reconsider my position. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nonprofit founded in 1985 and central organization in its country. Good deal of results among media sources including international publications. I agree with Espresso Addict that WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. — Cirt (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article needs work, not deletion. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs work and not deletion. This is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep Here's a description in a reference book on victims of crime out form a reputable publisher [17]. On the other hand, my search for it on Proquest, while it did turn up enough sources to support notability, was dominated by press releases, and although I did not look at all of the 1,627, a scan of the first few pages revealed mentions and quotes, but nothing that looked like serious profiles or reporting on this organization.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good find on the Encyclopedia. But as I read through the organization's entry, I was struck by the promotional language used in it (e.g., "fosters cutting-edge thinking", "a new vision of justice", etc.). Because the book was published in 2008, I used the Wayback Machine to check on the web site as it existed in early 2008. That version is here. And sure enough, the Encyclopedia entry is merely a regurgitation of various pages from the web site and we should accord it the same low status we would give to an organization's press releases. When I made my first posting here two weeks ago, I was sincere in my offer to reconsider my position if independent in-depth discussions could be found. But they haven't been found, and not for lack of looking. We now need to consider the very real possibility that such sources simply don't exist. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Coelho[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, whose sole claim of notability is his membership in a band whose article was itself recently deleted at AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapps). Nothing else here confers notability on him per WP:NMUSIC, and none of it is reliably sourced to media coverage about him. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basically no content. Agree with Bearcat. Delete 45sixtyone (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable musician, per above. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zhejiang Young Cell[edit]

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

Previously I had tagged it for speedy deletion A7 (organisation did not seem to have any credible claims of significance) but the tag was removed. Listing it here now since it fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) as well as WP:ORGDEPTH. The organisation claims to have been set up in 2015 and I cannot find any English language links while a google translate of the references (in Chinese) reveals promotional language. Right now it seems WP:TOOSOON to have an article about this. Young cell might also need to be deleted as well (was previously speedy deleted but has been recreated as a redirect). Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I attached 3 sources and Google translation can not translate Chinese into English properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fu1475369 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non notable company. No search (English language) results in news or newspapers. Chinese sources in Google translation do sound promotional (Anti-Aging with stem cells?). The fact that it has a partnership with a notable organisation does not make the company itself notable: No inherited notability. -- Ben Ben ^(talk) 23:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as G5 Created by a blocked or banned user in violation of their block or ban. — Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

School of Chaos[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 06:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article does not have sufficient reliable sources covering it and it fails WP:GNG. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply not enough to satisfy the applicable video games notability, searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In it's current state it would need a lot of work and rewriting. However there is a lack of notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dushyant Kapoor[edit]

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

Claims of significance are made but the only sources that I can find are social networks and blogs. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 03:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from clear issues as an autobiography, and not meeting any of the criteria in WP:MUSBIO, it doesn't seem that any amount of searching is going to yield anything that would be sufficient for establishing notability here, as the artist appears to be a nonprofessional at this point in his career. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I agree with Tpdwkouaa Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State of Fifths[edit]

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

College a capellla group -- Not notable--has never won an award of made a notable recording. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was created by User:WylieJo, and the group just so happens to have a member named Joseph Wylie? Strange, huh? At any rate, the group doesn't even seem to have any presence in the article for its' school, and doesn't have any major awards or victories to speak of. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Ryazantsev[edit]

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

non notable financier. while he is one of the directora of a football club, he;s not the head, & there is no other apparent notability DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Non-notable football administrator. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete working for a football club doesn't give inherited notability, and not notable enough as a businessman either. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss South Africa 2016. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ntandoyenkosi Kunene[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:ONEEVENT, not sourced conform WP:RS, seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 02:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe someday this article would be warranted, but not yet. The only argument for this article is the Miss South Africa title, but I would very much contest to that being enough. The best argument in support of WP:NOTWHOSWHO in this case would be the long list of Miss South Africas on that page without articles themselves. Does that mean they don't deserve articles? Maybe not, but it is evident that holding that title is not enough to warrant one. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As cited by the editors above.--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss South Africa 2016. The notability of pageant winners is a common issue here at AfD. Sometimes the articles are kept, sometimes not. Here, I'm persuaded by the low quality of the sourcing (one of them is someone's blog), as well as the lack of any claim to notability other than this title. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Winning a national beauty title surely meets WP:ANYBIO #1. There are RS in a number of South African newspapers and more will appear as time goes by. Gbawden (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So, WP:CRYSTAL? The Banner talk 08:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - She won a national beauty pageant - how on earth do you get WP:CRYSTAL from that? Gbawden (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - more will appear as time goes by. At least, that is what you expect. The Banner talk 20:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Miss South Africa 2016. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Toronto District School Board. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cummer Valley Middle School[edit]

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

Unsourced, and so makes no claim of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toronto District School Board. This is our common practice described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toronto District School Board. Being in a list of district schools would basically be more information than is presented in this article. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toronto District School Board. The article has no content at the moment, nor does anything of note immediately appear in searches. Thus, the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES policy of redirection for non-notable elementary and middle schools seems appropriate. Chris vLS (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Not a full high school and on Google News finds no significant news coverage besides passing mentions. Blythwood (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum Vital[edit]

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

Article about a band which does not seem to meet WP:NBAND. I cannot find any relevant evidence this band has ever charted or done anything to meet any of our inclusion criteria. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and draft & userfy because I found some links at Books and browsers but nothing convincingly better so if this is notable, it will need familiar attention for better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph DeWoody[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. He's a managing member of his family's company, so not notable for that. Sole claim to notability appears to rest on his founding of Clear Fork Royalty, a company that is only mentioned in passing in a couple of news articles; there's a also a press release that touts the company's earning of some ethics award. The page was also created in a non-standard way - a disambiguation page, Joyeuse Garde, that had nothing to do with the subject was edited to add all of this content and then moved to the current location. Not sure that's relevant but it seems odd. Rockypedia (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted because Joseph DeWoody has many credible references that I have provided in his wikipedia page. Google and news results show even more credible sources are available. Equally good sources are available from print media too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pejmerre (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the sources are mostly primary sources; see WP:SECONDARY on why reliable secondary sources are needed to establish notability. Also, contrary to your statements, I have seen no Google News results that mention DeWoody outside of press releases (again, those are primary sources). It's also not enough to state "Equally good sources are available from print media too" - you have to provide those actual sources to support a case for notability. Rockypedia (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - None of the listed information and sources suggest solid notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with other users. Non-notable businessman with no convincing evidence -- sources provided are not secondary. They are only press releases. His only notable accomplishment is the founding of Clear Fork Royalty, which based on the sources provided argues he may not be the founder and it is another part of a family company. There is little to no news on Clear Fork Royalty and if it has even been successful. Due to the lack of secondary information as needed, and that this is arguably an autobiography, it should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newstouse (talk • contribs) 03:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — Newstouse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the many things he is involved in are notable in their own right, and the article brings nothing else in support of him. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Paul James[edit]

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

BLP that has been unsourced bar an IMDB link since 2007. Appears to be an unremarkable bit part actor cum writer/producer/director who has not received any real coverage. Michig (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better convincing for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of his credits appear to be significant. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skate Copenhagen[edit]

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

This appears to be a completely amateur club event. It is not recognized by the International Skating Union, nor does it receive any other form of significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It looks to be a club tournament. Though the event does attract skaters from multiple countries, it doesn't seem to attract any notable skaters. Supposable Yuzuru Hanyu did skate there, but that's unsourced. If he skated there, that was before he was notable. All the ref's are primary sources. Btw, I heard about this AfD through an edit summary on Hanyu's article. 15zulu (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yuzuru Hanyu did skate there: [18], [19]. And Yukiko Fujisawa: [20]. And, naturally, many prominent Danish junior skaters like Kristinna Vagtborg Jensen (no article; she was once 2nd at the Danish Junior Championships [21]).
  But yes, I can't find almost any coverage. This article is the best I've found: [22]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1) Those WP:YOUTUBE videos can't be used. The two Hanyu videos were taken at different arenas, per his article he participated in the event once, so chances are, one of the videos is from somewhere else. 2) It doesn't matter how many skaters were there before they were notable. It matters how many skaters were there when they were notable, how much news coverage the event got, etc. 3) Feel free to use the article as a ref on the Skate Copenhagen page. It's better than being solely ref'ed by primary sources. However, it doesn't look to be a high quality source, e.g. a mainstream newspaper. Good luck, 15zulu (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Medical massage. Whether to merge anything is subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 08:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remedial massage[edit]

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

Lacks any reliable sources, fails to establish notability. Moreover, it contains medical information with zero WP:MEDRS. Someone suggested merging with medical massage back in 2014 but that article suffers most of the same problems as this one. Doing my due diligence, I did search the term "remedial massage" but most sources are not reliable and it seems to be related to "alternative medicine". WP:NUKEANDPAVE and if there's anything notable this, it can be recreated with decent sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 19:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am tentatively in favor of deleting this article, unless someone can show me sources that substantiate the assertions made in this article. It is entirely unsupported by reliable sources and it seems to be a magnet for editors who fill it with promotional language. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At least within Australia, the term Remedial Massage has meaning, and there are two national vocational Diploma-level qualifications, http://training.gov.au/Training/Details/HLT52015 and http://training.gov.au/Training/Details/HLT52115. There are a number of [text]books using the term (This RS contains comprehensive and clear information). There's also been instances of brothels using the term as cover. (I'd be a little uncomfortable with a redirect to "Medical Massage", with Australian standards for medical claims and all) ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 06:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Medical massage, as suggested in the article. There seems to be some legitimacy to the term, but not enough to prop up an article like this. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Might have considered closing this as NC, but most of the delete arguments are rather vacuous, and the list of sources supplied by TheBlinkster seems well researched, so going with keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Human–animal marriage[edit]

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

Indiscriminate collection of nonsense reports. E Eng 01:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yeah, just a bunch of tabloid junk from the looks of it. Not even any anthropological description or analysis, just people doing things to get in the news/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolute nonsense. This is not a real topic. Legacypac (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense and collection of tabloid posts. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve The topic is a real topic. There are a number of book and scholarly sources on both Google Books and Proquest (where I'm seeing 3 dissertations, 2 journal articles, and 2 book sources), some of them dealing with human-animal marriage in mythology or in particular cultures, some with the subject as a modern legal topic. Howver, the article as it stands is very poorly written and just a list of trivia which does not properly show the credence of the topic. Someone needs to write a real article on the topic that doesn't read like a sensational tabloid. The sources are out there to do it. If for some reason the article absolutely can't be kept, even though the topic is clearly notable based on the many good sources, then it should be merged to Zoophilia, but frankly I think the topic of human-animal marriage with its both mythological and legal ramifications is quite different from that of just humans loving animals. TheBlinkster (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can list a few of those sources, you may have saved the topic. Theses/dissertations don't count at all, though, and there needs to be GNG-worthy mass for all the rest. E Eng 18:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's see what books we have...

Margo DeMello, Animals in Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies has it listed in the index as being discussed on pp. 310-311 although those pages are not part of the free preview so I don't know what they say.
Sadhana Naithani,Folklore Theory in Post-war Germany discusses it in the context of folktale themes
American Folklore Society, Journal of American Folk-lore from 1898 has a whole list of tales involving a human-animal marriage
Mayako Murai, From Dog Bridegroom to Wolf-Girl has a whole discussion of this in the context of Japanese fairy tales (there are also other book sources talking about human-animal marriage in Japanese fairy tales as it is a frequent theme)
Anthropology, vol. 5 (1982) appears to have substantive discussion of the topic although it's snippet view so I cannot see what exactly is said.
Rather than list each one, here's a list to a second page of my Google search showing at least four or five more books on this topic in folk mythology of different cultures and countries

There are more out there, but I think this establishes that human-animal marriage is a real notable topic about which someone has written a lousy article. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add on, here are a couple more from the animal law/ animal ethics perspective, as the topic also has some significance in areas like animal personhood. I am willing to bet there are more in the animal law literature, but the databases I have available aren't great for searching those (you need specialized legal databases).

The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics talks about the subject in the context of whether allowing animals to have rights of personhood would lead to marriage.
Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions mention that animals historically did not marry in the context of the bigger question of animal personhood. (Sunstein and Nussbaum are pretty eminent legal scholars.) TheBlinkster (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just discriminate and make sense. Problem solved. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject has received serious kinds of discussion and debates, as pointed out above, and that the article has a lot of problems isn't necessarily a justification for deletion. I'd also like to point out that concepts explored in fiction as well as thought experiments are perfectly valid for articles even if not applied in the real-world. The 'time travel' page comes to mind. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination with thanks to those who scared up sources. The article should be cut to a stub and the sources listed on its talk page for future development. E Eng 01:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baghir A. Suleimanov[edit]

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

Not notable. Google book search result doesn't show anything about his works. Greek Legend (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They must be verified with an RS source and look at the name of the page creator. Google book search is not showing any result. Greek Legend (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR Close this AFD. He is popular as BA Suleimanov and not Baghir A. Suleimanov. And that's why I couldn't find any mention in google books with the article name. Searching BA Suleimanov gives many reliable sources. Greek Legend (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. It gives very few. The AfD should continue. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Greek Legend: If that's how you now feel, you might make this clearer to a closing admin (or non-admin) by entering WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR as a bolded comment and edit summary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 4 for "B A Suleimanov" is insufficient to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep (but do not close the AfD early). I don't think the Google scholar citation record is enough for WP:PROF#C1, but corresponding member of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Science is enough for #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that one of the reasons there are not more google returns is because the Azeri writing system has certain diacretics that might intefere with search returns. Hawaan12 (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide evidence for this claim. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BHARATplaza[edit]

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

Not notable and fails WP:GNG. There are no source in news search. Greek Legend (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin F. Walker[edit]

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

Not notable. Greek Legend (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first two references do not discuss him. Those that do are published by his former schools. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also maybe promoting the subject, if the first two references not talking about the subject but being cited here to get through the guidelines is any indication. editorEهեইдအ😎 17:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RocketOwl[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable, fails WP:CORP JMHamo (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing particularly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, only mentioned in passing in RS'es. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it was interesting in its environmental spin, none of the articles actually support a notability claim. Some small coverage of the launch, but little after that. If it then became notable, we would see more. Chris vLS (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG is met by cited sources but more demanding WP:CORPDEPTH requirement is not met. ~Kvng (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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