< 3 March	5 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 redirect to Alien vs. Predator. And merge as desired. Sandstein 18:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alien-Predator universe[edit]

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

This article is merely a copy & pasted composed from the content of Alien (franchise) and Predator (franchise). This page is supposed to correlate with Alien vs. Predator as a franchise, but the content is from two separate franchises. The Alien vs. Predator page suffices for information reserved for the franchise, which doesn't count Alien and Predator as being the same, so this page does not warrant existence. As Alien and Predator individually do not share canon, this page is factually misleading, as it presents otherwise. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect The "Alien vs Predator" page is sufficient for any actual material in which the Alien and the Predator appear together, this page merely duplicates work which appears and is better covered in other articles.--KTo288 (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an appropriate action. Really, there isn't anything uniquely substantive, (and accurate), from this page that isn't already on the AvP page. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 06:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, looks like it might be a WP:SNOW situation due to the reference Toddst1 found. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hellum[edit]

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

I've done independent searching to try to establish WP:VERIFY but have had no luck. After reading WP:NACADEMICS I do not believe this article fits the criteria (significance) necessary for WP:BLP Garchy (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC # 5, which specifically includes those who hold "an equivalent position [to named chairs] in countries where named chairs are uncommon." She is a full professor at "a major institution", that is her country's preeminent and oldest university which regularly ranks among the world's top 100 universities, and which is Norway's "equivalent position" of a named chair (Norway doesn't have named chairs). This is also evident from the article itself (and the linked, relevant articles). Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this article asserts that the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC #5. Specifically that the person "holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." While it's clear she is a full professor, I don't see her appointment satisfying the distinguished requirement. It seems she is just a run-of-the-mill full professor at a major institution - without distinction. Can you show how she is "distinguished?" The criteria in NACADEMICS are sometimes summed up in an "Average Professor Test". Put simply: when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field? Toddst1 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "distinguished professor" or "named chair" in Norway. A full professorship at the University of Oslo Faculty of Law is the equivalent, if not better, than a distinguished professorship at an American first-tier university. She is an internationally known expert, and Norway's leading, in her field, but her chair alone is more than enough to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC # 5. Professors at the University of Oslo Faculty of Law are not "run of the mill professors" anymore than those holding named chairs at Harvard, on the contrary many of them regularly serve as acting supreme court justices. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being a faculty member or professor at the university does not make her more notable or accomplished than others in the field. Toddst1 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand WP:ACADEMIC, which specifically states that those who hold a named chair, or an equivalent professorship in countries where named chairs don't exist, are notable. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#General_notes section of that policy you don't think I understand. Nothing presented says she is more accomplished than others in her field. Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found plenty of other faculty from law schools in Norway, but they all appear to have another attribute which makes them exceptionally notable (dean of a college, Nobel Laureate, or has been Knighted) - University_of_Oslo_Faculty_of_Law#Notable_academics Garchy (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that she is not "more accomplished than others in her field" is very strange indeed. She is Professor and Director of the main institute "in her field" in Norway, and she obviously meets WP:ACADEMIC # 5 by holding "a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." Holding a named chair, distinguished professorship or an equivalent position is a clear indication that she is "more accomplished than others in her field." "More accomplished than others in her field" is a strange wording that I have not seen in any policy or notability guideline, and I'm not sure what it means. It certainly makes very little sense when discussing someone who is obviously one of her country's preeminent academics "in her field" as is clearly evident from the positions she holds. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "strange wording" is lifted verbatim from NACADEMICS. You should read it before commenting further! Toddst1 (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Note - Is there any material (in English or other language) that shows her as a chair-person or Director-level faculty member? This ~~was~~ would qualify, and if it can be added in would win my support for keep. My issues are that, whether true or not, nothing is substantiated within the article itself. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Toddst1's most recent edit: It says she has served as "Director" of the Institute of Women’s Law since 2000. [1] If this is similar to a chairperson, and can be added/referenced in the article, that would be a good start, correct? Garchy (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Directing the Institute of Women’s Law seems to play to #6, not #5. However, it's not clear that the Institiute is a "major academic institution or major academic society." It isn't even mentioned on University of Oslo Faculty of Law. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing I've been able to find (and I've asked) says she is more accomplished than others in her field (see discussion about NACADEMIC #5 & 6 above). I'm more than happy to change this position if such differentiation can be uncovered. Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This does it for me[2]. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- She is indeed in all likelihood about to be nominated as the joint Nordic government candidate for the CEDAW committee, the principal UN committee covering her field (so far they have always been elected). I didn't put this in the article because I thought it was premature before the election, and in any event, such a role is far above the treshold required by WP:ACADEMIC. One of her colleagues at the same institute happens to be the chair of another UN committee, and many other professors at the same institution hold similar roles at the international and/or national level. It illustrates the point raised above that her chair (full professorship) at the University of Oslo Faculty of Law, her country's premier law school, is the equivalent of a named chair as per WP:ACADEMIC #5 and not a "run of the mill professorship". In Norway, all professors were until 1990 appointed by the King-in-Council and the idea that such a thing as a "run of the mill professorship" even exists makes little sense in a country where the title professor is reserved only for the most distinguished academics. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should not be judged on academic status alone, although IMO she qualifies here too. The subject is notable as a writer and as a supporter of women's rights and the establishment of legislation in support of women. It comes well within the scope of Art+Feminism. The article in Apollon makes Hellum's contributions abundantly clear.--Ipigott (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:ACADEMIC the subject need only meet one of the criteria to meet Notability for an Academic. She is the equivalent of a chair - or distinguished professor as per Norway standards, she is co-editor of an international journal. She holds the highest post in her field in a major academic institution. Even only reviewing English language sources she seems to be quite the individual. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 16:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Bjerrebæk (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not have to meet "ACADEMIC" but she does as the editor of a journal in her field (criteria 8). All that is required is that she meet GNG, significant coverage, overtime, in reliable sources, which she does. Multiple on line sources confirm that she is the editor [3], "Studies in Women’s Law Editor: Professor Anne Hellum" SusunW (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:ACADEMIC University of Oslo credits her as "Professor and Director of the Institute of Women's Law since 2000." The link provided points to the said Institute affiliated with Oslo University. Among other things: The Institute of Women’s Law is part of the interdisciplinary research program Cultural Complexity in Norway (CULCOM). It hosts the interdisciplinary research program Democracy, Gender, Human Rights and Religion. The Institute of Women's Law participates in international cooperation on teaching and research. The most important cooperation partner is The Southern and Eastern African Centre for Women's Law at the University of Zimbabwe (SEARCWL) that offers a master degree in Women’s Law. — Maile (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in several fields, not just Academe. Over and above that, there is WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. And there was evidently no attempt to comply with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. - Wrong venue - This is a case for WP:Requested moves. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bugatti Chiron[edit]

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

I think this page is not needed or be rewritten that the page be filled with contents of the Bugatti Chiron 2016 instead of being an disambuation page Winterysteppe (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G6, move Bugatti Chiron (2016) here (since it is clearly the primary topic), and add a hatnote linking to Bugatti 18/3 Chiron. The page has never been more than a disambiguation. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no need for deletion here. If you think that Bugatti Chiron (2016) is the primary topic, then request an article move, Winterysteppe. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Smart thermostats[edit]

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

WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and unsourced. We are not a smart thermostat catalog. shoy (reactions) 20:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory or product comparison site. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of household sewing machine models by weight[edit]

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

WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. We are not a sewing machine catalog. shoy (reactions) 20:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unlike laptops, weight is not a major consideration for sewing machines. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This is an unnecessary collection of statistics. /wiae /tlk 13:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTCATALOG. Pburka (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y2AJ[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

No notable tag team. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They lasted a week and it was to set up a storyline. Bye bye article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJW7X (talk • contribs) 15:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Team only lasted a week for a storyline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have policies that people always ignore. Every time a tag team is created, a article is created. Y2AJ has 2 weeks, just weekly matches WP:ROUTINE. Right now, I don't see the team notabe. If tomorrow Styles and AJ disband, it would be a no-notable article. Also, half of the article talks about their feud. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It comes up every time a new team forms because it's usually WP:TOOSOON, as it is in this case.LM2000 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. New users continue to make articles for every new tag team of the month. Prefall 09:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way too soon, next we'll have artices of the random six-man tag teams we see on an episode of Raw or Smackdown. MPJ -US 12:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. oknazevad (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON. Nikki♥311 03:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable whatsoever. If anything, it's obviously too soon. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 04:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the team has disbanded already.--65.94.252.62 (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was an angle more than a tag team.-- AnOrdinaryBoy
Delete It was a storyline to set up their feud to WrestleMania... A mediocre team with no accomplishments. 2A02:C7D:3B50:2400:BC02:6A7D:DFF8:F8C6 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Sims[edit]

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

Not quite there yet in terms of notability for biographies. She's been part of many beauty pageants but none of them significant enough to generate coverage by third-party sources. Likewise, I could only find one blog post mentioning her album debut (as well as a sort of "like" from another artist on the same label [4]). Pichpich (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this person is not famous by anyone's standards. However, I think her many titles and major participations allow this article to outrank others like it that have been maintained by Wikipedia (see Maggie_Bridges). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fridou01 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to notice is that Bridges actually won a state-wide pageant and participated in the Miss America pageant. But more importantly for this deletion debate, Bridges' pageant career resulted in press coverage whereas Sims' did not and we can't write a Wikipedia article if its content isn't based on solid third-party sources. Pichpich (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject has not been the focus of sufficient reliable third-party coverage to cross the notability threshold. Sims is a state title holder (as Miss Georgia's Outstanding Teen 2010)[5], a fact strangely omitted from the biography as it stands, but the apparent lack of news sources is a problem. Sims was 4th runner-up at Miss Georgia last year and if she fares better at Miss New York this year there might be sufficient coverage to revisit this. - Dravecky (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum I've followed this up with extensive clean-up and some expansion of the article. A deep search for sources turned up only glancing mentions, sufficient for verifiability only. Sims was in the Top 10 for Miss New York in 2013 and Top 5 for Miss Georgia in 2015 so perhaps 2016 is her year for the Miss New York title. If so, these improvements will be the groundwork for a resuscitated article. - Dravecky (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article's only author has requested deletion.[6] postdlf (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of most followed Twitter accounts in the Philippines[edit]

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

PROD removed by author. The article appears to be a list for list's sake and doesn't have encyclopedic value. While "listcruft" isn't necessarily a deletion reason, it certainly fits in this case. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how is it different from List of most viewed YouTube videos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBdemigod (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article meets the notability guidelines. Yours does not. See WP:LISTN and wP:GNG

Delete - Does not meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure listcruft. No real world notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 05:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaddai (god)[edit]

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

This seems to have appeared as a WP:COATRACK for some notion that El Shaddai represents some absorption of some other god of the region into YHWH. Nothing in either article, however, supports this case, and there's no indication that "Shaddai" (other than John Bunyan's idiosyncratic usage) was ever the name of a god in ancient times. The only unique content of this article is the uncited claim in the first sentence. "Shaddai" is a place; it's (perhaps) an attribute of the Hebrew god in one of his names; it's a synecdoche in The Holy War; but it's no "west Semetic deity" as far as anyone knows, that I can see. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now merged the material into El Shaddai (which I then moved to "Shaddai (name of God)"). I have changed "Shaddai (god)" to a Redirect. I think we should just leave it in order to preserve its History. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One shouldn't redirect an article in the middle of an Afd discussion. Still, I think this was the right call. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is fine as obviously only one article is called for. As for the content, it is quite poor and is missing many citations. Also see the talk page about the identity of Shaddai. Zero^talk 07:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now keep -- I came to this after the merge had been done and found myself redirected to an article that is not tagged. I assume that there is a redirect that is tagged; if so, it should be kept as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn given that the main article has been moved back and this is now a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the organization does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Students for Britain[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:ORG. They got some passing news coverage for heckling a talk by David Cameron. Most of the other citations are to their own social media accounts or webpage. No evidence of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Note I have also just AfD'd committee member Luke Nash-Jones, article created by same editor as this one. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up is fair, but deletion not - this is a valid organisation, that has appeared in the news, as references show. The references feature BirkbeckTories, LondonUniBrexit website, newspapers, as well as YouTube clips of News reports from French and Swiss TV featuring London University Brexit Society. Considering that Bondegezou supports the Liberal Democrats who are opposed to Brexit, I would suggest there is clear bias in his call to delete this page. He has blatantly ignored that the organisation appeared in national newspaper the Spectator http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/chris-bryant-brings-blair-into-the-brexit-debate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 15:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per my comments at the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Nash-Jones, the YouTube clips are on the society's own YouTube account; I can't verify their use by French or Swiss TV. One is under a minute long, one about a minute and the half. A brief appearance on TV does not constitute "significant coverage" about the subject under WP:GNG. The Spectator article is a short piece about what Chris Bryant said at a debate organised by the society. The society gets one brief mention. This also does not constitute significant coverage. The society's biggest claim to fame is when they heckled Cameron, which was covered in a number of places, but again this isn't significant coverage about the society. I do personally support the Liberal Democrats, but would remind Jonadabsmith of WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You admit you support the LibDems who are opposed to Brexit, and thus you naturally, good faith or not, would want this page removed. Those clips did appear on French and Swiss TV. Why are you not making this fuss about the Students for Britain page, which has similar brief references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I refer readers to my additional comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Nash-Jones. I agree that Students for Britain may not meet notability criteria either. Jonadabsmith, feel free to propose deletion for that article yourself. However, that article's fate is irrelevant to this discussion. Also, please sign your posts -- thank you. Bondegezou (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou, having admitted your political position, you are not in any neutral position to judge this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's some rather obvious canvassing or WP:PUPPETry going on at Talk:London Students for Britain with two new accounts rapidly appearing echoing arguments by Jonadabsmith. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou, if you want to just improve the quality of Wikipedia posts, you would co-operate with my suggestion to clean up and not delete the page. Instead you analyse Wikipedia submission guidelines to try and find an excuse to delete the page, and hence are driven by political motives. Even half what you said about it is nonsense; it has more references than you imply and than other pages you don't complain about. Rather than trying to delete pages with political ideas you disagree with, you should hit the streets and try to convince people of your ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou (Dr Henry Potts) regards your reminders to all of the canvassing guidelines, the account JohnInDC which supports you appears not only to be fake but to have been deleted multiple times, calling into question the reliability of those supporting your harassment of those with other political views. It is clear that Dr Henry Potts of UCL is furious that a Brexit movement has started on his beloved left-wing campus and is trying to "no platform" it rather than support democracy and liberty that he claims are his ideals. As a lecturer, he should encourage learning and ideas, rather than silencing those he doesn't personally agree with. He should help students to express themselves, suggesting to improve articles but not seeking childishly to delete them.

Comment Is this an attempt to out a Wikipedia editor by naming them? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only apparent off-campus publicity for this group are two quick informal man-on-the-street interviews. Article is full of promotional text pushing the group's political position, supported by citations that don't mention the group at all. Too many of the citations are self-published (youtube, twitter, blogs) and unsuitable to establish the groups notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outing someone? Don't be silly - his name is on his profile with a link to his uni page - he wants the publicity. You ignore the Spectator and the Beaver article, which is far more than many other pages have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Spectator article doesn't mention the group at all, and the Beaver article is unlikely to be very independent of the article subject. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Spectator Article mentions London University Brexit Society which has been renamed London Students for Britain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexicon83 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Oh, there it is. I was expecting some actual discussion of the group itself as a mere mention of the name is no indication of the group's notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate there may be some misunderstanding, but The Beaver is a left-wing student union paper, so suggesting it is biased in a favour of Brexit is frankly ludicrous. User:Jonadabsmith

I don't think anyone has claimed that The Beaver is biased in favour of Brexit, have they? The claim is that it is not independent from the University of London. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find evidence of significant coverage of the group in reliable, independent sources, so it fails the notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete - the group has been cited by a national newspaper and television stations. The move to delete this neutral coverage page is entirely politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexicon83 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Alexicon83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- What we need is significant coverage, Alexicon83. If you can provide links to this newspaper and television coverage, that would help establish whether it is significant. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why? Cordless Larry ? Students for Britain page has no greater coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMcCabe2 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

There are more than 5 million article on Wikipedia, MarkMcCabe2; we can't deal with all the problematic ones at once. Please see ‎WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you want to nominate Students for Britain for deletion, you can find instructions at WP:AfD. I have already tagged it for notability concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:1E, known only for heckling David Cameron. Whilst heckling David Cameron is a great thing to do, there's no depth of coverage to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I ran a sources analysis in the AFD for the affiliated Luke Nash Jones. A number of the sources used in that article are also used here. The two YouTube sources, from French and Swiss news, that link Luke Nash Jones to this association can be used in this case as they are merely confirming that at least Nash Jones is indeed affiliated with this group. I've taken the liberty of moving those two sources against Nash Jones's name in the infobox so it's obvious they are the source for him and none of the others. The sourcing of this article is a mess. A number of the sources have been reused but are listed as unique entries in the reflist. In time, the pro EU exit protests and the groups actions may become notable per WP:EVENT, but that time is not now. Blackmane (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable; fails GNG. Only 1 reliable source (specifically, secondary news source) on the article refer to the group by name ([7]) and even that one screws up the name (dropped "London" from title). One news blog does as well ([8]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 02:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the missing "London" in that source, EvergreenFir, we also have a Students for Britain article and, looking at the histories of both, there seems to be some dispute between editors which group that event was staged by. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is very typical WP:SOAPBOX by a conflicted creator with plain old advocacy mixed in, as well evidenced by almost all the hallmarks of WP:TENDENTIOUS. Sources are poor - passing mentions and WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have struckout comments by blocked socks of Jonadabsmith confirmed by a CU at the SPI on Jonadabsmith. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 02:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible evidence this meets WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus is present herein that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Nash-Jones[edit]

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

Fails general notability guidelines. The only reliable source reference in the article does not mention Mr Luke Nash-Jones at all. Everything else is social media or self-publicity. Bondegezou (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such is totally untrue - the references feature BirkbeckTories and LondonUniBrexit websites, as well as YouTube clips of News reports from French and Swiss TV featuring Nash-Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lists, passing references and about 20 seconds of "man on the street" appearances on TV. Nothing approaching the in-depth third party coverage required to meet WP:BIO. JohnInDC (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Bondegezou supports the Liberal Democrats who are opposed to Brexit, I would suggest there is clear bias in his call to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are currently 13 references in the article. All apart from (9) and (13) appear to fail WP:RS: they are primary sources, or social media accounts (Facebook, YouTube) connected to the individual. (13) does not mention Nash-Jones at all. (9) is a students union website with unclear editorial policy; it's an article by Nash-Jones, so I don't think this can be said to meet RS either. The YouTube clips are all on a YouTube account connected to Nash-Jones; I can't verify their use by French or Swiss TV. One is under a minute long, one about a minute and the half. A brief appearance on TV does not constitute "significant coverage" about the subject under WP:GNG. I do personally support the Liberal Democrats, but would remind Jonadabsmith of WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You admit you support the LibDems who are opposed to Brexit, and thus you naturally, good faith or not, would want this page removed. Those clips did appear on French and Swiss TV, and the French TV clip is not a mere man in the street comment but an interview - the YouTube account is not held by Luke Nash-Jones and the videos are not his but clearly from media outlets. Luke Nash-Jones is not editor of the student union website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The YouTube clips are on the LondonUniBrexit YouTube account, and Nash-Jones is Vice-President of that society. I support the LibDems, but I support Wikipedia having good content about all topics of sufficient notability. Again, I suggest you peruse WP:AGF carefully. Attacks on others' motives are not appropriate. If you can supply details of the student union website's editorial approach, that would help determine if it constitutes a reliable secondary sources under WP:RS. Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any sources that show how they have met WP:BIO. Passing mentions in the news aren't enough I'm afraid, and links to vidoes on YouTube and Facebook are not enough to meet this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I draw people's attention to the related AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Students for Britain. Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou, having admitted your political position, you are not in any neutral position to judge this article. If you want to just improve the quality of Wikipedia posts, you would co-operate with my suggestion to clean up and not delete the page. Instead you analyse Wikipedia submission guidelines to try and find an excuse to delete the page, and hence are driven by political motives. Even half what you said about it is nonsense; it has more references than you imply and than other pages you don't complain about. Rather than trying to delete pages with political ideas you disagree with, you should hit the streets and try to convince people of your ideas. Implying the Student Union is biased in favour of Brexit is ludicrous when rather it is the opposite, as are most university lecturers, of which you claim to be one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou (Dr Henry Potts), regards your reminders to all of the canvassing guidelines, the account JohnInDC which supports you appears not only to be fake but to have been deleted multiple times, calling into question the reliability of those supporting your harassment of those with other political views. It is clear that Dr Henry Potts of UCL is furious that a Brexit movement has started on his beloved left-wing campus and is trying to "no platform" it rather than support democracy and liberty that he claims are his ideals. As a lecturer, he should encourage learning and ideas, rather than silencing those he doesn't personally agree with. He should help students to express themselves, suggesting to improve articles but not seeking childishly to delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would advise you to please do not launch into personal attacks on other editors. The account you mentioned as a "fake account" is an active account that had their user page deleted at their request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RickinBaltimore why do you not make the same protest about Bondegezou's blatant personal attack on myself, trolling me, demanding anything I post is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication that this student politician meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

29 references including newspapers and the Student Union website - what more do you want? Other pages don't have such quantity of references; your bias is shameful. Jonadabsmith —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would want to see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. My only bias is against articles that do not meet this criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to acknowledge your conflict of interest, Jonadabsmith. The images used in the article make it clear that this is an autobiography. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect: These are photos taken at a student event; that doesn't make it an autobiography - it's rather a presumption to decide the article is about myself. I am Jonadab Smith at UCL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the selfies. You have labelled them as being taken by Luke Nash-Jones and as your own work. See File:Luke Nash Jones.jpg. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now see this. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start a bulk commons:Commons:DR or tag individual uploads if you think there is an invalid claim of ownership or unauthorized/third-party license release. DMacks (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested an explanation at User_talk:Jonadabsmith#Conflict of interest. I'm sure Jonadabsmith will clear things up shortly. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources are either non-reliable or barely mention him. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's break this down there are 29 listed sources on the page, but one has been listed three times, so really 27.

4 Facebook - Non RS.
3 Youtube - In (6), Nash Jones is interviewed for 11 seconds out of the 58 second snippet, while in (7) he is interviewed for 4 seconds out of 1:34. In neither of these is he the focus of the interview and certainly none of them mention his political activities. He's interviewed as part of the wider activities of the whole Brexit movement. The third one is just a promotional video for the movement. None of these can be used as a source.
6 Birkbeck students union. - non RS
3 Birkbeck Tories - non RS
3 LondonUniBrexit - non RS
1 Allevents.in - commercial event promotion site
1 Heyevents - commercial event promotion site
1 Conservative way forward - non RS
1 Spectator blog article - not even sure what relevance this source has to the statement it is marked against. This source is used three times
1 London Union - of which Nash Jones is president. NPOV non RS
1 Birkbeck informatics society - Trivial source for a trivial statement
1 Membership PDF that is broken for me
1 Eventbrite - commercial event promotion site

Excluding the event promotion, YouTube and Facebook sources, all of the others are Conservative, or pro-conservative, sources which would render the article a totally NPOV mess, even if those sources could be used. Apart from all of this, none of the sources actually state what Nash Jones is notable for. There are no Google news hits and even presuming reliable sources could be found, would it be possible for that coverage to be in-depth, non trivial and not against BLP1E? Blackmane (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Per Blackmane. 15 minutes, no more. Kleuske (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is very typical WP:SOAPBOX by a conflicted creator with plain old advocacy mixed in, as well evidenced by almost all the hallmarks of WP:TENDENTIOUS. Sources are poor - passing mentions and WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenal Literature[edit]

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

Mildly promotional article for new magazine, no independent sources with in-depth coverage, does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This journal is still in its first volume and lacks coverage in independent sources. It might become notable at some point, but it isn't yet. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As WP:TOOSOON - Only one issue to date, and no way to assess whether it will become notable in time, or even release the second issue. - Arjayay (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both as too soon, and as part of a promotional campaign by its publisher DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing for any of these publications. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any reliable sources for the article. Elaenia (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VerbalArt[edit]

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

Mildly promotional article for new magazine, no independent sources with in-depth coverage, does not meet WP:GNG Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent reliable sources for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMAGAZINE. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This journal is still in its first volume and lacks coverage in independent sources. It might become notable at some point, but it isn't yet. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As WP:TOOSOON - Only two issues to date, and no way to assess whether it will become notable in time. - Arjayay (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree--too soon to tell if it's going to be notable ``
Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find anything to indicate it's notable enough. On a related note, the creator of the article is using Wikipedia as a promotional platform, as evidenced by the multitude of pages created and by the promotional nature of said pages before being cleaned up. Elaenia (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth, the article was tagged for CSD A7 and AfD almost simultaneously. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO[edit]

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

I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss this person in any detail. Fails WP:BIO. - Mr X 13:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Edward "Fingers" Jauch[edit]

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

Author of the article is an account which belongs to the subject of the article. The user claims to be using the account to edit on behalf of Jauch from his office (please refer to talk page for more information). The article should either be deleted, or have the references checked and improperly cited material removed. In the case of the latter, very little information would remain with the references currently available. Personally, my vote is to delete the current article. If the subject is truly notable, a third party will create a more factual article. BeowulfBrower (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Comment – Here's some sources: ^[1], ^[2]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "In Grown Farms Nearing Production". WIFR. Retrieved 4 March 2016.
^ "Ex-drug unit chief shares view on medical pot". The Times. 5 September 2015. Retrieved 4 March 2016.

Delete as searches simply found nothing better than expected mentions at Books and News. Notifying past user Appable. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pixable[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

this is not more than a web-site (+app). It got some exposure on blogs and the like (that looks like advertisement), but I don't see it reached notability (during it's lifetime, since it's already defunct).

Notice that this page was already deleted in the first AfD, but recreated as advertisement.

Llaanngg (talk) 21:15, 26 February 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 February 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again as searches only found expected mentions at News, browsers and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still no sources to indicate notability. The page has been deleted 5 times already and was created by a single purpose account which is likely connected to the subject. Elaenia (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard d'Anjolell[edit]

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

I found this 2009 stale draft from a single purpose account. This person appears to fail the criteria for entertainers at WP:NMODEL. Several editors insist that MfD can not consider WP:GNG so I've moved the page to mainspace to allow a wider discussion on the merits of this article. I say delete it as likely self promotion, but maybe he passes GNG. Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't really find that many sources for this. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also found this and none of it satisfies WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

2016 Phoenix murders[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. It's a tragic event, but it's a routine familicide and the coverage I've seen so far seems to be local. Parsley Man (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That actually seems about right at this moment in time, and I tend to side with the inclusionists. But given the way national news is focused on the presidential primaries, I'd say wait a day as it's an election year and someone's bound to dredge this up on the campaign trail.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It did hit the national wire with ABC. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/authorities-shooting-reported-phoenix-home-fire-37131834 Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm kind of mixed on this one. While it does seem like a random family shooting, this falls into the category of a mass shooting and is higher than most familicides that you are going to see out there. I don't see any reason to delete it (otherwise, I would have nominated it last night), and there is national coverage for this as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have familicides with body counts higher than this one, some of them recent, and a majority of them don't have articles out of issues of notability. See here, here, and here. Parsley Man (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, mixed. I'm not convinced of notability 100%, but it's enough to have a "wait and see" approach to this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – textbook application of WP:NOTNEWS. With such a fresh incident, all coverage is routine and googling through some of them I see nothing demonstrating that any news organisation is treating this as anything other than just another story. (Also, the title needs desperately to be changed to something more specific to this incident. Can I suggest we do that now in spite of the general practice not to do so during an AfD?) Aspirex (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've read several articles about events who received far less coverage than this tragic event which-the articles I've seen-have not been put for deletion or deleted. This event received wide national media attention, and also we have to remember, it only happened a couple of days ago. Perhaps next week there might be more coverage on outlets such as People and Time Magazines. Time, no pun intended, will tell, so let's at least wait a bit before we end up deleting it. Antonio Without A Brain Martin (loser talk) 12:44, 27 February, 2016 (UTC)

Well then, can you give me those articles that you speak of? I would like to nominate them for deletion, now that you mention it. Parsley Man (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, events like these are pretty common in the United States. Also given that this was a domestic incident in which the victims were known to the victims and not a public rampage targeting strangers, that makes this event even less notable. Rossbawse (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Rossbawse. This sort of thing happens too often for it to merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ROUTINE news coverage that won't expand outside the Phoenix metro, especially without a trial for the suicidal suspect to continue it, and I generally disregard People's coverage in every way as hardly editorial and mainly emotional for murder stories. Nate • (chatter) 03:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Makes me think that we need a list of deaths by gunshot in the U.S., by year and state.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

2008 Parma earthquake[edit]

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

The article fails to meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes/notability guidelines. Mikenorton (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Satisfies GNG. A WikiProject notability guideline cannot trump GNG per LOCALCONSENSUS. In any event, as this is a plausible redirect, with mergeable content, to the relevant article on the area where it took place or on earthquakes, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. This earthquake was "unusually strong" (according to Reuters) for the area in which it took place. It should be included somewhere in the encyclopedia. James500 (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Honestly this is a lot less notable than the Uiju earthquake we dealt with just before (see result of Merge at Uiju County#1980 earthquake). It was reported a bit in the local papers (on the very same day of December 23 2008) but not that massively, garnering only small articles which didn't note much. The one recent one I found talks about some construction work to prepare for future earthquakes, spiked by the likes of the earthquake in question. I looked at the Italian Wiki and this doesn't have its own article even there: 1. In fact the next April there was a much stronger earthquake, though not at the same location. At best this earthquake is mergeworthy like Uiju but possibly not even that. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seemed to be some damage to old buildings so maybe that would warrant a merged mention at some article for the area, at a section concerning sights/structures. You could add there that the old buildings were damaged in the 2008 Parma earthquake so-and-so. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not seeing any content here worth preserving - this was just local news, no evidence of permanance - see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. Mikenorton (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. (1) There is lasting coverage in eg the books "Earthquake Data in Engineering Seismology" (2011) and "Geoethics: The Role and Responsibility of Geoscientists" (2015). (2) "Local" means (small) town-wide. It does not extend to a large chunk of Northern Italy with a population of over 4 million, never mind international coverage from the BBC, which is British, and from Reuters, which is American. Anyway, none of the relevant policies or guidelines has anything to say about "local". (3) If we don't preserve content like this we will end up with a completely superficial oversimplified "tells you nothing" dumbed down children's encyclopedia for babies. James500 (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There are plenty of notable earthquakes in Italy – there is nothing to preserve on this one. If you keep details about non-notable events like this, over time your encyclopedia will be filled with junk that obscures the content that has real value. BTW, we're not merging the content from useless articles into city, county, or earthquake lists any more. That's the wrong way to go about it (The Uiju earthquake debate ended with a poor decision). Lists and other articles are not meant to be dumpsters for unwanted content. Also, there's nothing that makes Reuters a recognized authority when dealing with earthquakes. Dawnseeker2000 04:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 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 11:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article's topic has no importance today (honestly, I hadn't even heard of it until I stumbled upon this article), and thus fails to meet the notability guidelines, which warrants it for deletion. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Project OneLife[edit]

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

Unreferenced. May not exist. Link to website is dead Rathfelder (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of significance. May be a hoax or a proposed charity that never got off the ground. Article creator last edited in July 2005. Blythwood (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally unverifiable. Doesn't look like a hoax, but if it ever existed, it left no electronic trace of itself on Google. GAB^Hello! 00:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hackensack Volunteer Ambulance Corps[edit]

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

The organization is not notable. All of the sources here are primary and none establish a claim of notability. Any useful content should be merged into the article for Hackensack, New Jersey and this article turned into a redirect. Alansohn (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few passing mentions which involve the organization's ambulances, but that's to be expected for any emergency service organization due to the nature of their work. No in-depth coverage otherwise. Elaenia (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Scott Irving[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Had one big part in Million Dollar Baby and a small part in Princess O'Hara, and that appears to be it. Fails WP:NACTOR. That this article appears to be something written by a family member does not help things either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Fails WP:NACTOR (has some peacock issues too but that isn't relevant for deletions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWisePowder (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel Christian[edit]

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

I came across this as a speedy deletion per A7, however her roles (albeit minor) are enough for her to squeak by speedy criteria. As far as the more strict guidelines for WP:NACTOR, she's non-notable, so I'm bringing this to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:16, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've considered PROD, none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll concede the decision for afd over csd, but that doesn't look to save the article from deletion. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article in The Gazette is about her casting in CSI, and this interview in the Daily Herald talks about her directing work in Chicago theater. However, I don't think this is quite enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Ochieng (cricketer)[edit]

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

not follow WP:NCRIC and also not played in Cricket World Cup Qualifier. He has represented only in World T20 Qualifier GreenCricket^TALK 15:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played first-class, List A or T20 at the top level. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Lugnuts. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions argue that the subject is notable per WP:PROF, an inclusion guideline. However, they do not address the policy-level issues raised by the nominator, namely, a lack of independent reliable sources. These concerns speak to core policies (WP:V, WP:BLP) and, unchallenged, mandate deletion. Sandstein 18:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taieb Znati[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article survived a no-consensus AfD some years ago, but our policies on sourcing of biographies have firmed up since then. The article has no independent sources. Its references are primary with several of the form "X is on the editorial board of journal Y, source, link to journal Y's editorial board". Notability is asserted but that assertion is not backed by any reference other than his own CV. Since the article has clearly not improved over the last couple of years, I think it is unlikely to do so - and even the creator agreed it should go. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as in the previous two AfDs: with two publications having over 800 citations (in Google scholar, the best choice of citation index to use for this subject — Web of Science should be avoided), 7 with over 100 citations, and an h-index of 27, he has a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So how many times do we decide to keep a shit article in the hopes that one day someone will care enough to make it not shit, even though plainly nobody cares enough to do so? This article is fundamentally noncompliant with policy: it has no reliable independent sources. We don't have any exemption to the requirement for sourcing based on how many publications the person might have, and subject-specific notability guidelines are only guides to the types of subject that should have the kind of sources we require - as you know, they are not a guarantee that they do have sources available and hence they are no guarantee (because they cannot be) that an article may exist simply because they tick the boxes: the only valid test in the final analysis is: are there non-trivial reliable independent sources? Guy (Help!) 23:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eppstein. Policy on such matters is given in WP:Prof to which the nominator is directed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete The guidelines for WP:PROF are clearly too broad, especially for this case. The article definitely fails to prove encylopedic under the general guidelines and the coauthors of the previously described papers lack entries themselves. Many, in fact most, of the people listed on the Web of Knowledge index of highly cited researchers lack entries. Furthermore, I can point to hundreds of far more cited articles with a quick google scholar search (applicable certainly, the field is computer science) or from other sources (citeseer). Just viewing related articles to his highly cited works produces multiple 1500+ citations whose authors don't have Wikipedia articles. I think the WP:Prof criteria described is certainly inconsistent and should be discounted. The article itself provides little encyclopedic information, fails completely to conform to WP:MOSBIO and reads like a condensed resume. Wikipedia is NOT a directory, this article is unencyclopedic. As the single inconsistent criteria from WP:PROF is the sole (and decidedly weak see above) justification for keeping this article, and the article fails to meet WP:NOT, WP:MOSBIO, WP:BIO, the article should be deleted. Eternalmonkey (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that WP:Prof is an inappropriate policy guideline, change it. Until then it stands. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

If you get down to it, the evidence would suggest that this doesn't even meet WP:Prof. According to the guideline, "The meaning of 'substantial number of publications' and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations," and "Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." As stated earlier, there are thousands of examples of authors from the field with comparable citation ^[1]^[2]. Furthermore, WP:Prof requires reliable, published sources, a key feature this article is lacking. Most importantly, the article is a violation of WP:Not a directory, and to a lesser degree WP:MOSBIO and, according to those policies, is unencyclopedic and unlikely to be made so, especially if you consider the multiple years of article existence with minimal revision. Eternalmonkey (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

You are the creator of the BLP. Interesting. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- clear pass of WP:PROF; see David Eppstein or the arguments in the last keep. Nom can discuss whether WP:PROF should be changed on that page, but it's the controlling guideline. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources? [WP:PROF] requires reliable sources. Again, he is no more cited than thousands of others from the field. His citation record is insufficient to warrant wikipedia notability. (see references above) It is not a clear pass. If any of the keep party have something new to add to the discussion other than the "clear pass" headline it would most certainly be welcome. Eternalmonkey (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would also like to add that this article has had a chance to be made useful, and clearly, no one [WP:CARES]. I care because I made the article, but it seems like few else do. Obviously anybody who cares about the living person this entry describes would be better served elsewhere. Also, it is probably plagiarizing his CV to some extent. It's just a lousy article that should never have been created. Why not just let this go? Eternalmonkey (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tapps[edit]

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

I didn't find any reliable sources about this group. I'm not even sure that they ever recorded anything. Appears to fail WP:BAND. - Mr X 12:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable local band. I can't find any reliable sources myself; I can barely find non-reliable sources. Ajraddatz (Talk) 06:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better a 1986 Billboard article, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding a lot of unreliable source claims that "My Forbidden Lover" was a million-selling smash dance club hit — but unfortunately, reliable source coverage which properly verifies that to be true seems to be lacking (the bad sources may be conflating it with the identically-titled but different, and much more verifiably successful, song by Chic.) Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if better RS coverage can be located to support it (unlikely, but I won't say never.) Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Rijal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article's subject fails WP:NCRIC and therefore the WP:GNG. Longstanding consensus at WP:CRIC that under-19 international cricketers are not inherently notable.GreenCricket^TALK 10:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. No change since the last AfD. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No one is suggesting "inherent" notability however I believe Rijal meets WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources about him are about 1 event (whether he's under 19 or not), fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there seems to be some coverage of the age issue, that's all there is on this individual at the moment. Hasn't played a match that passes WP:NCRIC (yet). No issue on recreation if/when that happens. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhai - Drama Serial[edit]

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

GreenCricket^TALK 10:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Khurshid Ali Khan - Ghazal[edit]

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

Not notable enough GreenCricket^TALK 10:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

don't think that it should be deleted, it have sufficient number of references from reputed sources. 202.173.124.199 (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is well known singer of India and it have good number of references from well reputed sources like Times of India. so, i think this article should be kept as it is. Businefieds (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sources are not detailed enough, there's nothing to suggest better for the applicable music notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what you mean by sources are not detailed enough? 202.173.125.176 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. The Times article is a regurgitated press release, and barely mentions this artist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and what about amar ujala article? 202.173.124.218 (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next Irish general election[edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:CRYSTAL (specifically "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented") and WP:TOOSOON; we don't even know what year the election is going to be in yet, let alone anything else. Most of the article is a duplicate of Elections in the Republic of Ireland. I am certain a 2020 / 2021 election article will exist eventually, but right now is not the time for it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Standard practice to have articles for the next elections, even when the date is unknown (see Category:Future elections in Europe, Category:Future elections in Asia etc). Clearly passes WP:CRYSTAL, the first point of which is "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I am happy to change my mind if someone can provide proof that the next Irish election is unlikely to take place, or will not be notable. Number 5 7 11:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also happy to change my mind (and hence withdraw the AfD) if you can show me a reliable source (such as the Irish Independent or Irish Examiner, for instance) that discusses the next election after this year's one in any sort of depth, but I think we should hold off on writing an article until we've got sufficient sources to write a decent one without any original research or wild speculation (which is all we have right now). In fact, if you look at the news it's perfectly possible the next Irish general election will be in 2016! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right now this one could be soon. Murry1975 (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Standard practice to have articles for next elections and we don't need any source. This next election might take place in 2016... so what? An article is needed anyway and, if the election were to take place this year, "The next general elections will be held in Ireland by 10 March 2021 at the latest" would be still correct (unless Ireland suddenly becomes a dictatorship), isn't it? We should also start collecting opinion polls soon. --Checco (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand, and Move as appropriate when the date is known. (My money's on "Irish General Election, November 2016", FWIW). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard practice as mentioned above by Checco, and given the possibility of no parties being able to form a governing coalition, an election in the near future could be a possibility. Bkissin (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Expand Under Irish Electorate Law, empowered by the Irish Constitution, A general election ""must"" take place no later than 5 years from the first sitting of the new Dail (Today, March 10, 2016). Of Course, the Taoiseach can resign before that, seek the Dail dissolution & trigger an earlier election, however until such time as a dissolution is announce, there is a legal presume that the 32nd Dail will last its full term. On the second point raised, this article can be marked as an article in process but the collect of data, including opinion polls, can begin from now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useriemf (talk • contribs) 22:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Expand Agree with Bkissin - given the current political stalemate and uncertainty, a new general election would appear inevitable within 12-18 months, if not sooner, possibility has been extensively covered in Irish broadsheet newspapers this week. Culloty82 (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gennaro Auletta[edit]

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

This article is a monograph and is the only edit by the creator. It has links (all to the subject's own work or websites) but no references. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Seems to pass the guidelines for philosophers. Bruno Mammoth (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Quantum information theory is a high-citation field. As such, I don't think one moderately-well-cited book (222 cites in Google scholar for Foundations and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: In the Light of a Critical-historical Analysis of the Problems and of a Synthesis of the Results) and nothing else over 60 is good enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. But fellowship in the Linnean Society of London is enough of an honor (WP:PROF#C3) to push me over the fence from delete to keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof as a philosopher rather than as a scientist. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Induced homomorphism. And merge to Wikiversity or Wikibooks, if anybody is interested. Sandstein 18:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Induced homomorphism (quotient group)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. The article was previously deprodded by DanielConstantinMayer with this edit. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If DanielConstantinMayer was willing to work on this to make it more of an encyclopedia article and less of a textbook, then I think userfying could be an option here. Unfortunately, it looks like Daniel hasn't edited on Wikipedia since November 2015. Also, anything salvageable from this article may ultimately need to be merged into induced homomorphism. I am not familiar with this topic, so I will defer to more knowledgeable editors to determine whether merger is ultimately the best course of action. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is basically the appendix (section 7) of this paper by Daniel C Mayer. It would be a copyvio if it came from a different editor. As it is, this article is not close to the summary style of an encyclopedia article. The article would need a good bit of cutting and summarizing to make it a decent article. Induced homomorphism is a common enough concept in algebra that I think the topic is notable. Still thinking about what recommendation to make. --Mark viking (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: Do you know if there is any meaningful difference between Induced homomorphism (quotient group) and in general? I ask because I wonder if this topic deserves a standalone page (even if the current content needs to be WP:TNTed), or if the article for induced homomorphism is the more appropriate place to put this kind of information. Thanks in advance for your advice, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An induced homomorphism is a type of functor, and as such, is a type of mapping that can apply to many different kinds of mathematical objects. This article is a particular application of the general idea to groups and quotient groups. There is in principle nothing wrong with having standalone articles on particular applications, because there may be implications in the particular case that go beyond the general idea. Hence the parent homomorphism is a broad concept article that begat articles on particular applications like group homomorphism, ring homomorphism, etc. That said, a well-summarized form of this article, along with the stubby Induced homomorphism (algebraic topology) and start class Induced homomorphism (fundamental group) could probably all me merged into a decent article on induced homomorphism. This article as it stands would be a fine contribution to Wikiversity or Wikibooks. In my opinion, transwiki would be preferable to WP:TNT. --Mark viking (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was an excellent explanation. I think your proposed course of action is a good idea for this article, and I am going to officially vote to transwiki the material in this article to Wikiversity or Wikibooks. After that is done, it may simply be best to redirect the title of the article to induced homomorphism. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiversity and redirect to induced homomorphism. See my reasoning above. The article could have a chance of being kept if it could be rewritten in encyclopedic summary style, but as it is, it is best to transwiki. No prejudice to the creation of a more encyclopedic article on the topic. --Mark viking (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelwood Jewelry[edit]

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

The article does not meet the WP:GNG. Both of the cited sources are dead links. One incoming link, which was added by the account that created this article. Raymie (t • c) 05:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search for reliable sources came up dry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not finding much on this, other than purported use. I am more weary about the one ref which is too closely linked to an advert/selling site.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No depth of coverage found via Google search besides advertisements, both refs are also just commercial sites. GAB^Hello! 00:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of potential National Monuments of the United States[edit]

Moved to List of proposed National Monuments of the United States. (see details below)

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

While this article seems to have good intentions, It is poorly sourced (though that alone is not a large part of this nomination) and already out of date (Boulder-White Clouds was being considered for a national monument if wilderness wasn't Congressionally designated, which happened in summer 2015). This article mainly deals with speculative or wish list type of sources from special interest groups advocating for the protection of specific areas. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to comment on the points of criticism raised by Fredlyfish4:
- "poorly sourced": Although, there is little research or official documents (see second point too), I added - if applicable - campaign websites or similar for each potential National Monument (NM) and further information, e.g. a New York Times opinion dealing with the potential "Greater Grand Canyon Heritage". Knowing that campaign websites are no scientific source, I argue - however - that they show that there is support for creating a specific NM. Even if there were (only) highly critical voices / references, it would show that a potential proclamation of a NM is discussed and thus real.
- "speculative or wish list": Of course a list about potential NMs will always be speculative to some degree until a presidential proclamation of a new NM confirms the validity and at the same time makes it obsolete. Therefore, giving references (see first point) to each single potential NM is essential and was my motivation for the column "External information". Entries like e.g. the "Greater Grand Canyon Heritage" NM are - in my opinion - not speculative, rather heavily debated, which gives it even more backing to be listed here (see first point about critical references too). However, there is of course also the "secret" Interior Department memorandum of 2010 - see http://robbishop.house.gov/uploadedfiles/states_for_designation.pdf - which could be added as on "official" (somehow fact-based, thus non-speculative) reference, which directly leads to the next point of criticism:
- out of date: Here the example of White Clouds Wilderness vs. Boulder-White Clouds NM was mentioned as a proof for the list being outdated: first of all, I linked the White Clouds Wilderness directly when mentioning the potential Boulder-White Clouds NM and I already added some footnotes to make clear that the links lead "to the protected area which will be extended". This leads directly to the second part of my comment to this point: The wilderness includes 90,769 acres compared to around "570,000 acres" mentioned by Georg Wuerthner in his list which is included as second reference in my list. Thus there might still be some support for a "Greater NM'" which extends the existing wilderness. However, this seems to be hard to decide (for me alone and especially as European).

→ In consequence, I would suggest to add an additional column "Remarks" / "Description" or similar to explain exactly such debates in a few words, preferably with some "more up-to-date" references about the discussions (@Fredlyfish4: Do you know more about the Boulder-White Clouds debate? Some references to add?)

In a nutshell, I believe that the list can safely be extended and updated together, so the mentioned, alleged points of criticism can be resolved. Chstdu (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: Now I added a section about the Interior Department memorandum which I mentioned above already. In consequence, there is now much more fact-based information in the article/list than only "speculative or wish" entries. Furthermore, I would like to quote the section "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" from the "What Wikipedia is not" page:

All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.
— Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

As I am sure that if a NM had already been proclaimed, it would merit an article (itself), I guess the list of potential new NMs is "of sufficiently wide interest". On the other hand, adding the internal memorandum mentioned above should make the the list (more) verifiable. Thus the point of criticism of being only/too speculative / a crystal ball, should be disproved. --Chstdu (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/ Editor Chstdu's responses above are good. I would further suggest that the article should be retitled to "Proposed" rather than "Potential" ones, as every item has been proposed specifically and that can be documented, but anything is "potential". Also that the article's current two tables should be merged into one list of proposals, in which many are documented by the same 2010 memorandum. And that each item be clarified to be a proposal as of a certain date, and that each outcome be clarified also to be as of a certain date. Note there are comparable lists of proposals: List of proposed states of Australia, List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada, List of U.S. state partition proposals, List of U.S. county secession proposals, List of proposed power stations in Australia, List of proposed etymologies of OK, List of proposed space observatories, and List of proposed stadiums. --do ncr am 09:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just created Category:Lists of proposals to connect these all together, and populated it with 28 members so far. --do ncr am 11:32, 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 10:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you @doncram for your support, the newly created category and the other proposals. Consequently, I merged the two lists, sorted the resulting list alphabetically and marked the proposed monuments from the memorandum with a blue-green background color, in order to make clear that they are "proposal[s] as of a certain date". --Chstdu (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to List of proposed National Monuments of the United States according to suggestion by doncram, because every item on the list has been "proposed specifically" rather than only being "potential" which could be anything. Furthermore, I added more photos and several more links to maps in the "location" section. --Chstdu (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry I haven't been around for a while, but this article has been greatly improved since I nominated it, and I will support keeping it. However, I want to mention a couple of issues. First, I do think it still needs better sources or at least a better reference list rather than only links to organizations that have proposed these monuments. Second, the "established?" column doesn't seem appropriate because everything on this list should not be currently a national monument or would become part of one through expansion. The three areas on the list that are now monuments shouldn't be here as they are on the list of actual national monuments. Similarly, I don't quite understand the need for the red X (or any of the other icons in that column) as again, these all shouldn't presently be national monuments. I think a "status" column would be much more appropriate and informative where you could mention any pending legislation, incorporation into other proposals, designations as other areas (e.g. wilderness), speculation that the president could issues a proclamation, etc. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for your response, Fredlyfish4, and especially for supporting the community in keeping it. Adding more / better sources will probably remain an ongoing and important process. Hopefully, my addition of the "dynamic list" template, which says You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries., helps a bit. Concerning your other major point of criticism, namely the "established?" column, you are totally right: Keeping areas which are already an NM or protected in a similar way is not appropriate for a list of proposed NMs. The reason how this occurred is easy: I merged the lists of areas included in the memorandum mentioned above and the list of other proposals and kept the "established?" column, although it was only used for the memorandum list initially. However, deleting these areas altogether seems a bad idea to me, as the memorandum list would be incomplete then. For now, I changed the column name to "status", but I am unsure how to deal with the already established areas: shall we add a new section for those (officially) proposed and meanwhile (to some extent) established protected areas? The big advantage would be to keep items like "Boulder-White Clouds" too which definitely need some explanation: They are not NMs like originally proposed, but e.g. wilderness preserves with a smaller area or, maybe in the (near) future, areas incorporated into larger protected areas like in the "Cedar Mesa"-"Bears Ears" example. --Chstdu (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star Health and Allied Insurance[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards in my opinion. It is also written like an advert and there is little to no chance of improvement. Duivelwaan (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found a few links so far but nothing solidly convincing for a better improvable article. Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this insurance company has received great deal of coverage. See

Press Trust of India (6 December 2015). "Star Health and Allied Insurance eyeing Rs 3,500 crore total premium by 2017-18". The Economic Times. Retrieved 29 February 2016.
"Star Health Insurance to offer packages for pain therapy". The Hindu Business Line. 14 October 2015. Retrieved 29 February 2016.
"Star Health hopes to post maiden profits this fiscal". The Hindu Business Line. 6 November 2015. Retrieved 29 February 2016.
"Star Health to infuse ₹400 cr to meet solvency margins". The Hindu Business Line. 20 September 2015. Retrieved 29 February 2016.
Press Trust of India (23 April 2015). "Star Health and Allied Insurance tops in premium collection". The Economic Times. Retrieved 29 February 2016.
Varadharajan, S. (15 October 2015). "Star Health Insurance to augment capital". The Hindu. Retrieved 29 February 2016.
"Star Health Insurance launches revised Senior Citizens' Red Carpet". Business Standard. 20 August 2015. Retrieved 29 February 2016.

Seems like WP:BEFORE wasn't followed here.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:56, 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 10:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dániel Nagy (racing driver)[edit]

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

A 17 year-old that has made a grand total of one start in a middling touring car series. Hardly meets WP:NMOTORSPORT or the WP:GNG, and quite possibly it's WP:TOOSOON for their own article. QueenCake (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly he's competing in a well known competition. He is also an international competitor. May be young, but should be accessible if someone wants to learn about him and his stats. --CaligirlTay89 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm leaning more toward GNG as the reason for the delete rather than NMOTORSPORT, since the article cites all of one newspaper article about him. Remember that the subject has to already be notable to have an article; we can't create one in anticipation of future notability. If there is more coverage of Nagy in newspapers in the future, or if he races on a major circuit, then let's create an article for him. However, I think QueenCake hit the nail on the head: it's too soon to start an article for him. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well clearly i wouldnt have created the article if i didnt think it lived up to the rules. So keeping it makes sense. CGM 20 (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CGM 20, would you care to share why you think he meets the notability guidelines? As C.Fred says, he doesn't really meet GNG as there is nothing more than a WP:ROUTINE news report about his one-off appearance. If he gets more coverage in the future, which he will if he starts racing full time in a notable series, then the article can be recreated. QueenCake (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QueenCake, well it cleary meets WP:NMOTORSPORT.

Taken from WP:NMOTORSPORT:
Have driven in a race in a fully professional series. A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series. For example, the SCCA Trans-Am Series is considered professional while the SCCA Spec Miata National Championship isn't.

This says in a race not more than one race. I agree that it might not meet WP:GNG, but it did get a fairly good coverage. Considering that TCR International was in its first season. CGM 20 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how TCR International counts as a fully professional series. It's full of amateurs and teenagers (like Nagy), with some professional drivers making up the top of the field. There also isn't any significant prize money on offer, though that's an odd way of defining a professional series as that would exclude Formula One. (Frankly that whole guideline needs to be rewritten, as the wording does not match the intent of the guideline, but that's another argument) QueenCake (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the caliber of drivers doesnt define if the series is fully professional or not. TCR International goes to most of the same circuits and continents as WTCC has been going to or still does and that series surely IS fully professional. So please tell me why TCR International doesnt count as a "fully professional series"? CGM 20 (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does. What else will? I could name you dozens of events that use top class circuits, but that hardly makes them professional. It's a fully professional series when the drivers are all professionals, i.e. they are earning a wage. TCR has a mixture of professionals, rookies and gentleman drivers, so it is not fully professional. QueenCake (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So from what your saying not even WTCC is a fully professional series? or BTCC? Because there are pay drivers in both and AFAIK pay drivers doesnt earn a wage. CGM 20 (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing pay drivers and gentlemen drivers. Pay drivers are professionals who have made a lifelong career of motorsport that gain a seat thanks to their sponsorship package, and are then paid a salary by the team like any other driver (effectively, it comes out of the sponsorship pot). Gentlemen drivers are amateurs, often wealthy businessmen or women or even the occasional famous face, who have a day job and a salary elsewhere and are paying out of their own pocket to take part. There are classes right up to GTE-Am at Le Mans that cater to them. So by the wording of WP:NMOTORSPORT, which clearly specifies professionalism, only drivers who compete in series or classes that are fully professional are presumed notable. TCR, and the drivers who race in it, are not. QueenCake (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said im getting confused? I do know the difference between pay drivers and gentlemen drivers and I was arguing that not ALL pay drivers actually gets a salary. Geez... TCR is just as professional i.e. notable as WTCC. But we are cleary not gonna agree on this i.e. get a consensus or similar on this subject in place, so lets leave it at that. We agree to disagree..... CGM 20 (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Uribe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR – only one "significant" role, on the series California Dreams. Her only other credits are all non-notable guest roles. Also, article has been unsourced since creation in 2007 (and good luck finding any sourcing for her!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her work seems notable to me. Even if it's a small role, people want to hear about it. I think the page should stya, but be edited to find more sources.--CaligirlTay89 (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ( Note: This user was blocked for socking, so instituting WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

Please review WP:NACTOR – multiple notable roles are required – Uribe has just one. And if you think you can find reliable sourcing for this article, please go to it!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To other contributors to this one: there is a second Diane Uribe – a Colombian journalist born 1959 – that is unrelated to the American actress Diana Uribe. So that makes looking for sourcing for this one even more difficult! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable at all; fails Nactor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindlevet (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not much discussion, so calling this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revista da Biologia[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion tag appeared on the article while I was replying on User_talk:Rpavao3. Moreover, an error occurred when I trying to save it, and it was lost. The main points which were described there were: (1) the reasons for the notability of the article (which were included on the abstract of the article); and (2) the Scielo indexing which is on process. Finally, I believe that the on-line editing on Wikipedia is great, but when it refers to deletion procedures it should be done more slowly, for avoiding unnecessary frustration. Rpavao3

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but being included in Scielo is not selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've cleaned up some of the cruft and promotional language, but I have to say that I can't find any evidence of meeting either WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. Of course, if the journal becomes notable in the future, the article can be recreated then. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhi Sagar[edit]

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

I query whether this passes WP:NAUTHOR. The subject's published works are limited to a debut novel and a poetry collection. Awards are mentioned, but I do not get the impression that these are major awards. Results of an online search for "Buddhi Sagar" + "Karnali Blues" are mostly blogs. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 19:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. I am very unsure why this has been twice relisted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ring (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable ~~open-course~~ open-source software. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any reliable secondary sources for this for it to meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly notable open-"course" software (you say that like the fact it's open-source is an argument for deletion). It very recently changed names from "SFLphone" to "Ring", so make sure you search for sources covering it under the old name too. Here's a couple: from Techrepublic by James Sanders and from the German Linux-Magazin by Mathias Huber. LjL (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- First source is good. Second does not mention the product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you read what I wrote? It mentions "SFLphone", which was the previous name of "Ring" (the article was moved from the former to the latter name). A piece of software that's covered by sources doesn't stop being notable just because its developers change its name. LjL (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LjL makes some great points, and they have found some solid sources for the software. The rationale for listing this at AfD is a little bit vague, which isn't a problem in and of itself, but in this case, I am just unclear on the specifics about why this user listed it for deletion. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 16:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ring is competing FOSS project for VOIP with decentralisation. It is notable for it's long history (it had changed name from SLPhone), also it is the second known project after Linphone, that at last entered Android platform. And it is also notable as GPLv3 licensed software. Sources here https://github.com/savoirfairelinux Toneymoon (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Given the software's former name, I was able to locate plenty of references, and it looks like this article meets the requirements needed to satisfy WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Of note is that the last !vote does not provide a clear guideline- or policy-based rationale for retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Information Management[edit]

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

Unsourced article that does not read like an encyclopedia but more of a business presentation. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Barely an article, but I think the topic flies. This is a big money bit of industry these days. Maybe merge if there's already a suitable target article? Viam Ferream (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Important subject, tho the article could be improved with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canton1998 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 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 10:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Chapman Campbell[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER JMHamo (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as searches found nothing better and none of this is better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SMILES Production[edit]

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

Advertisement, WP:SOAP. Stang 07:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete because although there's listed sourcing, none of it still seems solid enough for solid notability and searches found nothing immediately better. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 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 10:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Carr (judge)[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. Uhooep (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom Nordic Dragon 10:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree a Circuit Court judge is not inherently notable, and there is no indication Judge Carr stands out as particularly notable.-- danntm ^T _C 01:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Wilson (Mississippi Politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A non-winning candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough for a Wikipedia article. But this makes and sources no such claim. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearcat. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this satisfies the politicians notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable, failed (to date) political candidate. If he ever gets elected we can revisit the issue. Quis separabit? 17:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat.-- danntm ^T _C 01:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POLITICIAN is very clear about this. AusLondonder (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kolmogorov–Zurbenko filter[edit]

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

This is an unusual one. The subject appears to be real, but this article has substantive edits only form single-purpose accounts, including at least one whose name matches one of the authors, and the article's use of references by bracketed hard-coded numbers makes it clear that it is copy-pasted from somewhere, almost certainly a document of the originator's own authorship. It's been tagged for single-source since creation, which is not strictly correct, but all the sources seem to be written by one or other of the porponents of the theory and it is almost certainly WP:OR. it contains hard-coded cites to predatory journals, including three Scientific Research Publishing and one OMICS Group, which are going to be a lot of work to remove. I think the subject may be valid but the COI and copy-paste issues mean we need WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The first citation in the article is to a book on the subject, by Zurbenko, published by a mainstream scientific publisher. See [9]. Also, Google scholar turns up several articles on this subject by people with no obvious relation to Zurbenko. So the subject seems notable. Furthermore, based on what's in the article right now, I believe the math is sound. So while the article has very grave issues, I don't think it needs to be blown up. It needs care from someone impartial, that's all. Ozob (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Plenty of Google Scholar hits show notability. I don't think the article needs to be blown up. Here the COI is something of a double-edged sword: we have the namesake of a notable concept writing the article, which also means that he is uniquely qualified to write it. I say we let the article improve in the normal Wiki fashion, rather than (apparently) punishing and discouraging experts from contributing to the encyclopedia. Sławomir
Biały 13:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. I am disturbed by the article being created by WP:COI/someing involving with the subject, but that does not automatically bean the subject is not-notable. I also share the nom's sentiment about the reliance on predatory journals, but I am not willing to declare that such journals are not WP:RS/reliable sources. So I am willing to give this article a chance, and hopefully it will shape up.-- danntm ^T _C 01:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhán Clancy[edit]

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

I unfortunately do not see evidence of notability , but I do not want to list it for speedy or prod without giving others an opportunity to find some. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found a few links but simply nothing noticeably better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see anything better than linkedin or twitter for this person. ww2censor (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the cited sources doesn't mention Clancy, and I can't find any other or better sources.Mduvekot (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cybersites[edit]

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

NOT GAMEGUIDE DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 05:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 05:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "NOT GAMEGUIDE" means, but this is pretty important and notable information, since every episode involves a cybersite at one point or another. WikIan -(talk) 06:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I will note this is actually for a television show, not a game, so "GAME" is not entirely for this. Nevertheless, there is unnecessary as it's not independently notable of Cyberchase and there's simply nothing else convincing. However, important and notable it may seem, there's nothing imaginably better than being connected to the TV show. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another attempt to back unnoticeable plot devices here. This is fancruft for a show that belongs on Cyberchasepedia, not here; though I disagree with the rationale (I assume DGG thought this was a video game, not a kid's show, and upon first glance many would make that assumption), we definitely don't allow a list of fictional locations for a show unless it's very well sourced by outside sources so deletion remains supported nonetheless. Nate • (chatter) 08:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much of the information here is also contained in (or could be added to) List of Cyberchase episodes. As for independent notability, this isn't much different than a theoretical List of crime scenes in CSI. Sure, it's an important plot device but nothing that can't be included in other articles instead of a standalone list. clpo13_(talk) 08:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. consensus is that it meets SPECIES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passalus inops[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, has no significant sources listed. Rusted AutoParts 03:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Species are automatically notable. And even for GNG, the sources don't need to be listed, they merely need to exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If they exist, where are they? I find it absurd that an unsourced article is allowed to stay because of one guideline, which still should adhear to WP:GNG. Rusted AutoParts 19:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources can be found by searching for the title (as an exact phrase) in Google scholar and Google books. Also see WP:BEFORE, which you appear not to have followed. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Secondary question, if you are so easily able to find these sources, why weren't they added to the article a long time ago? Why is it a mere sentence with no sources? Rusted AutoParts 01:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are tens of thousands of such articles, if not hundreds of thousands. Tertiary question, Are you going to consume the community by nominating each and every one for deletion? Quaternary question, Why not add a source instead of nominating it for deletion; it would have taken less time for you to find and add a source than to nominate for deletion (unless you're using a script for the latter and not the former)? 2601:283:4301:D3A6:D0E0:3E67:D5AD:91EF (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Species are inherently notable for their own articles even with a stub as short as this. For species, one shouldn't have any problem finding a source to confirm before considering nomination for deletion if it truly isn't a species. I added a the best ref I could find, but it looks like it's a species that gets little mention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES clearly controls here. The article should be improved with better sources, not deleted.-- danntm ^T _C 01:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES.-- Elmidae (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:D0E0:3E67:D5AD:91EF (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ali (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non-notable teenage entrepreneur - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I imagine this should be a "speedy delete", no? Is there really any debate about this? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, you could have WP:A7. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought about that, but there is an, albeit minimal, claim of "importance or significance" IMHO.--ukexpat (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 01:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Technology Corporation[edit]

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

I'm not really seeing notability here, and most of the citations that exist in the article are currently from the company. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real coverage outside of press releases. Elaenia (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Beer Pong[edit]

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

Does not really appear to be a notable party game. Also, the article's tone appears to be slightly promotional. While I did find some coverage in a number of websites, most of these appeared to be promotional in tone or unreliable websites, with only this being the only coverage I could find that seems to be somewhat reliable. Still, those don't seem to be enough to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically no mentions of this on the web, save for product listings for mini beer pong sets--Prisencolin (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- So the article is saying that this has appeared on some television shows. If someone can verify this is true, I'll change my vote.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging Adam9007 who had declined a speedy deletion tag which I earlier placed on the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Narutolovehinata5: The reason I don't think this meets G11 is because the promotional tone can be fixed. G11 is really for things that must be blown up to make them non-promotional. Adam9007 (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete no reliable sources to verify notability, article is written in a very promotional tone. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to beer pong. Most of what is here is promotional, and if it's stripped back to non-promotional stuff then it's basically just a paragraph about the history of this specific game's release plus a repeat of the rules of standard beer pong. I say include a paragraph on it somewhere in the beer pong page and delete this article. Aspirex (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads bit too promotional, and no verification that Mini Beer Pong has been covered by third party sources.-- danntm ^T _C 01:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Afternoon Show at BASIS Independent Silicon Valley[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a show of some sort. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. - Mr X 03:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding more sources, this is a show that has just started. The source is from the official show website. Rlin1 (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparent school project utterly lacking in third-party interest. Neither the article nor its home page even states what medium this show is in. This would be an A7 it could be identified as web content. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL6 (and for failing WP:GNG). I could not find coverage in reliable secondary sources that substantiate notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable program equivalent to a school's morning announcements. Nate • (chatter) 04:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 01:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Coast Connection[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable local group with only local references, except for mentions. At the previous afd there were insufficient comments for consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable group. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep local references aren't necessarily unreliable. The Variety articles should be enough to establish notability.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple reliable sources discussing the NCC. Thus, it has received significant coverage in secondary sources, which is all WP:ORG requires.-- danntm ^T _C

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

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

The result was redirect to The Academy Is... per WP:MUSICBIO. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Carden[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not individually notable per WP:MUSICBIO. The majority of the sources are for the band The Academy Is..., not for Carden individually. The Santa Monica College source mentions him in the context of the band. Huffpost article can't even be bothered to spell his name correctly. BBC article is a one line passing mention and the interview article by Mike Farley was related to Carden's capacity as a band member. The article should return to a redirect to The Academy Is... per WP:MUSICBIO and prior AfD. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Dual Freq (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Musician was (1) the co-founder of the band, (2) a core member of the band throughout its history and (3) wrote the band's best songs together with the other co-founder. Reputable sources including Cincinatti City Beat and Chicago Daily Herald identify him as a core member of the band. News articles and other sources identify him as author / co-author of many of the band's best songs, including numerous songs with their own wikipedia entries. The BBC identifies him as entering new work in the music business along with another musician. Santa Monica College source is about the subject as an athlete. That source features a profile of the artist, explains that he was a swimmer from age seven to present, and that he has a perfect GPA at SMC. Source also mentions subject's impressive history as a co-founder and core member of The Academy Is..., an indie band that toured for eight years, which would not have existed had subject, Mike Carden, not co-founded it, been a guitarist and vocalist and co-authored all of nearly all of its songs. Please as well note that prior AfD, nearly nine years ago, was prior to much of the musician's work and the majority of the sources now presented in article in its current form. Since that time, subject musician has accomplished more and been recognized by many more news and music industry sources. Article is well supported with reputable sources including Rolling Stone, the BBC, Chicago Daily Herald, etcetera. JCRadical (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)JCRadical[reply]

That BBC source mentions Carden in passing in a single sentence, the article is not about Carden. The Rolling Stone article is about the band break up, not Carden. The Chicago Daily Herald article is about the band, not Carden, he is only named in the article as a founding band member. The Huff-Post article that talks about his work doesn't even make clear that they are talking about Carden or someone else named "Mike Caren", either way it mentions him one time, in passing. The SMC school newspaper mentions he was a band member and swimmer, but he clearly doesn't meet WP:Athlete. These are not significant coverage required for WP:GNG. None of what you have said, beyond his role with The Academy Is..., is cited with significant reliable sources. What you have is a bunch of reputable sources about the band, not Carden. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources, which are reputable, independent of the subject and all consistent with each other, establish incontrovertibly that the subject co-founded the band, remained a core member of throughout its history and co-wrote the band's best songs. He is notable on that basis. The sources need not all be exclusively about the subject to provide significant coverage of the subject. Collectively they demonstrate significant coverage of the subject, over many years. JCRadical (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a redirect to the band since 2007. Anything that needs to be said about Carden can be said in the band's article since the sources are all pertaining to the band's notablilty, not Carden's. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a redirect at this time, as Carden is notable in his own right. There are adequate, reputable and independent sources on Carden alone. JCRadical (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:Bombard for notes about piling in sources (in this case ones about the band) in an attempt to claim notability and WP:MUSICBIO clearly states: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." None of that exists here, hence delete and redirect. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:55, 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 00:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notable activity outside the band. Arguments presented above in favour of keeping the article actually serve to reinforce the reasons for deletion: if he's notable primarily for being a member / founder / songwriter of the band, then he shouldn't have his own page. The fact that he's apparently now "entering new work as a solo artist" doesn't meet notability if he hasn't actually released anything or had any media coverage as a solo artist. Referencing his childhood swim team and GPA also seem like odd ways to assert his notability as a musician. Page should definitely be deleted & redirect to the band. Smells like content (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radhan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Available sources merely mention the subject in passing. Fails WP:COMPOSER. - Mr X 01:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Appears notable. He has also worked in some of the big projects. I found one citation here. Mr RD 19:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, although this is not exactly symmetrical to the original article (for which I voted delete at the first AfD from November), none of this suggests a better convincing article from the first, especially considering it was only a few months thus unlikely better notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Grossman (consultant)[edit]

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

Non notable founder of probably non notable PR company. His books are self-published by AuthorHouse and is essentially no libraries, a/c WorldCat/

The refs are either about the agency or are trivial. agency DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I like Grossman's work on the interaction between employees and the workplace in the digital age and find it notable enough to have been cited in a lot of different sources, though I wrote this long ago and see the point regarding the book (didn't know AuthorHouse was a self-publisher). Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 15:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, many mention-type references but some are in-depth like this one. Article is bloated, feels promotional, probably needs much trimming.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy if needed for improvements as my searches found nothing convincingly better and the current article is questionable for actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in this article in The Globe and Mail and this article in Credit Union Times. Cunard (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Thundersports Series[edit]

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

If this motorsport championship is notable, it needs more than a list of results - as it stands there is no prose providing any context to the season. Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics. QueenCake (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Articles that are purely results listing are not notable. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Daniel Allar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated after being AFDed; still non-notable. SALT as needed. Quis separabit? 17:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Unfortunately not notable. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he has coverage in reliable sources for his theatre performances, see [10], and [11] and for his whole career [12]. I think WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have died since the last AfD. Still does not show notability. Two refs are obituaries, the NYT one is not an article, just a database entry for an actor with limited non-notable roles. Without any evidence of significant stage appearances, does not seem to pass WP:GNG.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I gave some evidence of his theatre performances aboveAtlantic306 (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. No major roles, and the only sources are brief obituaries and database entries. The HIghbeam links given above do review some of his stage performances; they are mostly positive, but he mostly seems to have had secondary roles. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this article can be expanded and/or renamed. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 01:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Hwaseong shooting[edit]

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

I don't see what makes this article globally notable. Redsky89 (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, classic WP:NOTNEWS case. ansh 666 03:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to reconsider that given the additional stuff found below, but I still think that given how this is either mentioned in routine news coverage or briefly in association with the SK law changes, it's not standalone notable. ansh666 11:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Combination article involving both shootings sounds reasonable. ansh 666 06:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While shooting incidents are extremely rare in Korea (yet, no reason for notability) and while this incident was very well covered by all major news reports (again, shooting incidents covered by routine news reports are also not enough reason for notability per Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage), this particular shooting episode combined with another incident resulted in an unprecedented toughening of gun licensing by the police, including a never before heard move of gun tracking by GPS which is being mandated. If an article were to be perhaps made on "GPS monitoring of firearms", that might have notability. Not this article. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support doncram's Ansh666. This article with its current name cannot be considered significantly notable, as this alone was not responsible for the GPS tracking regulation in Korea. However, doncram's workaround is quite impressively put. I'll summarise the same for the closing administrator – rename (move) the article to 2015 Sejong and Hwaseong shootings; allow the scope for a bigger article on GPS monitoring of firearms to be made, which could include global facets related to this area, like the United Nations call for GPS tracking of guns and firearms, or government reports analysing the feasibility of installing GPS in firearms, or calls for the same made by politicians globally like Rob Consalvo or Willie Cochran and many others. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Xender Lourdes' "Delete" rationale, which explains why this event is significant. Sources exist. The proposed alternative name GPS monitoring of firearms is also okay...the article could be moved to that topic name and edit history maintained, but that is a "Keep" outcome. --do ncr am 10:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the article using sources identified by Xender Lourdes. Actually I think it is best to expand the scope of this article to cover the the other shooting incident in Sejong City two days before, and probably rename it to =2015 Sejong and Hwaseong shootings, which would still be a "Keep". The GPS monitoring of firearms topic is a valid one that would link to this article, like it may link to other salient incidents in other countries that finally move politicians to act. This one is comparable perhaps to the Brady shooting and the Connecticut school shootings in the US that could have led immediately to gun control law changes also. do ncr am 16:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expand and rename -- as per doncram. Seems like a reasonable compromise, since adding the other shooting, combined with the licensing reform, does help lend notability to propel this beyond NOTNEWS. GAB^Hello! 23:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event is significant by itself. Expanding the scope is a good idea. Pldx1 (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand and rename as per User:doncram.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per doncram. Parsley Man (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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