The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 17:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Bergman[edit]

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

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

BLP appears to fail WP:N. The only "notability" appears to derive from unreliable sources and former experience(s) as an amateur boxer; a kickboxer who once lost to Jean-Claude Van Damme and Gary Daniels; a long career as an uncredited, movie extra and a school teacher. Article also appears to vio WP:PROMO. X4n6 (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. X4n6 (talk) 22:48, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The Bergman page has many legit sources from the Miami Herald archives from the 1980s-present day, Official Karate Magazine, Day by Day in Jewish Sports History, and the STAR Computer Ratings for kickboxing. As a fighter, Bergman scored 56 knockouts (sourced in the Miami Herald) and is the only fighter credited with knocking down Jean-Claude Van Damme in a sanctioned match. He was rated at one point in the top 20 in the world ratings. His amateur boxing career, movie career and educational career are sidebars to his kickboxing career. His kickboxing career is clearly documented over 4-decades. His retirement merited an entire page in the Miami Herald Sports page. This page can be shored up, if needed, but should not be deleted. Thank you.FranciscoFWPerez (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)FranciscoFWPerez — FranciscoFWPerez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment. I respect the work you've put into this BLP and appreciate your willingness to improve it. But as you noted, it still only achieves N through the subject's kickboxing career. But it fails there, per WP:NKICK. Also, having fight results published; knocking down Van Damme, only to still lose in the first round; or being the subject of a single human interest write up in the local newspaper, don't inherently confer notability.

There are other problems. There are dozens of unsourced fights listed. They could vio WP:COI, WP:PROMO or WP:OR, but they need to be sourced. You also seem to know the subject's amateur boxing doesn't meet WP:NBOX; his local teaching doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC; and being a movie extra doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. But again, the BLP fails NKICK, so on that basis alone it should be deleted. X4n6 (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject does not meet the notability criteria for boxers or kickboxers. Notability is not inherited from others. Linking this article to everything you can find about anyone he ever fought (amateur or pro, boxer or kickboxer) does not show he meets WP:GNG since there is a lack of significant independent coverage about him. Routine sports coverage also does not count towards showing notability. He doesn't meet any SNG or GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article's main claims to notability seems to be who he competed against or was a sparring partner of, but notability isn't inherited. There's no evidence that he meets the notability criteria for kickboxers, boxers, or actors. Lots of passing mentions are insufficient to show notability via WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. Vanity article created and maintained by Bergman SPAs (all likely socks of each other) – see my proof below. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC); edited 02:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity article, no notability seen in numerous online searches. When I limited my search to pre-2005 sources (written before this Wikipedia article), all I found was this 1998 letter to the editor of Black Belt magazine, the letter signed by Sherman Bergman. After 2005, the level of self-promotion rises greatly, with lots of the same stuff being added to IMDb and other places such as this local newspaper article written by Bergman, published in 2014. If the guy wasn't listed in the amateur boxing record books then we don't need to tell readers about him. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A few points. The Miami Herald has covered Bergman's kickboxing career from 1988-2010. If you look at the references you will find a link and see numerous reports for 3-decades. The Miami Herald is a local paper with between 140-190,000 issues sold each day. Very few kickboxers have had such extensive coverage of their fight careers in the Herald as Bergman. Next, there are two links to Offical Karate Magazine from 1985-1986, in which well-known kickboxing sports writer Barry Harrell reported Bergman as one of the most promising prospects in his weight division, Offical Karate was sold nationally. There are links to News For You which covered Bergman's knockout over Bernardo Jua. This was an educational newspaper sold nationally in the USA. Foundacion Brazil was a Brazilian Paper and covered a report on a few of Bergman's fights. The knockdown of Jean-Claude Van Damme is very notable in kickboxing, because this was Van Dammes only knock down in sanctioned competition. The loss to Gary Daniels also has merit, because of Daniels 34 victories, 33 by knockout, only Bergman lasted the distance. Kickboxing never had a fight data base like boxing, until Paul Maslak started the STAR Ratings for kickboxing. Maslak, through emails, has confirmed 21 of Bergman's pro fights (19-1-1, 19 knockouts) from 1980-2010. These verified fights are noted on Bergman's fight record. I believe that while Bergman is far from famous as is kickboxing champion Don Wilson, his fight career is notable for his knockout record and his accomplishments against top fighters, though losses, were standout performances. Thank you.FranciscoFWPerez (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)FranciscoFWPerez. — FranciscoFWPerez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What emails? Emails aren't a reliable source. If the knockdown of Van Damme was so important, why was it not carried more widely? The problem here is that Bergman was on his high school newspaper staff and then as an adult he was professionally connected to the Miami Herald, which is why he gets favorable and disproportionate coverage by their reporters. The Barry Harrell piece is not enough to establish notability: lots of fighters are praised as promising prospects but then don't achieve national fame. Nothing here satisfies WP:NKICK or even just WP:GNG because of the barely existing coverage outside of Bergman's friends at the Miami Herald. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note FranciscoFWPerez, the requirements for determining kickboxers' notability are very clear and very specific and you have never addressed them. See them at WP:NKICK. Voters have repeatedly said, the subject does not meet these requirements. X4n6 (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Article was entirely created by a massive Bergman SPA sock farm (both registered and IP):

This article was entirely created by a Bergman SPA sock farm, who edited exclusively on Sherman Bergman and his father Hank Bergman, and any other article they could stick either of those names into:

• FranciscoFWPerez (talk · contribs)
• Legwarmers1980 (talk · contribs)
• DavidToma (talk · contribs)
• PeterHeughan (talk · contribs)
• Alainchristian1960 (talk · contribs)
• Mississippitruman (talk · contribs)
• Angelsunchained (talk · contribs)
• CliffHarper (talk · contribs)
• Eugenejerome (talk · contribs)
• Eddiecoyle1973 (talk · contribs)
• Royalfleming (talk · contribs)
• TimBaker1941 (talk · contribs)
• PainlessPeterPotter (talk · contribs)
• LeifSchumeucker (talk · contribs)
• BusRiley1965 (talk · contribs)
• Lennybaker (talk · contribs)
• Desiree1954 (talk · contribs)
• RenoDavis1967 (talk · contribs)
• Royalfleming (talk · contribs)
• Kikiloveslegwarmers (talk · contribs)
• Billytulley (talk · contribs)

• DavidToma called this article "my article" [1] in March 2008, even though the article was created in 2005 by 4.231.192.65, and added to extensively by the other IPs and 18 of the other registered SPA socks by March 2008, and DavidToma's contributions did not start until September 2007.

• Between March 2009 and July 2011 sockpuppet Legwarmers1980 uploaded 17 newspaper clippings referring to Sherman Bergman to Flickr: the Flickr account ID tag is "legwarmers1980", and the Flickr account is exclusively devoted to Sherman Bergman and his father Hank Bergman [2]. These 17 Flickr uploads by Legwarmers1980 constitute 17 of the citations in the article.

• All of the IP socks from 2005–2008 geolocate to Wichita, as does this clear talk-page posting by DavidToma logged out in September 2008: [3]. All of the IP socks from 2009–present geolocate to Miami (Bergman's hometown), except for two which geolocate again to Wichita.

-- Softlavender (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be a leaning towards that all the information in this page is made up. A bit perplexed. The Miami Herald covered Bergman's career for 5-decades because he is from Miami-Dade County and his victories merited the write ups. To imply, that Bergman has an inside connection to the paper is bizarre to say the least. Offical Karate Magazine was published Nationally. Barry Harrell was highly respected. Bergman's knockout over Morsak was covered by Offical Karate. Paul Maslak is a legend in record keeping for kickboxing. Many kickboxing results are not online. Not every reference in the world is online. Links to flickr are scans of various newspaper articles which do not appear online. To imply that I only created pages link to Bergman is a bold face lie. I created Carl Starling, Al Migliorato, Bobby Halpern, etc. I am a big fight fan and worked hard on everything I posted. FranciscoFWPerez (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)FranciscoFWPerez[reply]

Nobody here is saying that the information is false or fabricated. People are saying that it isn't important enough for Wikipedia. Karate Magazine mentioned Bergman in passing, so it's not enough coverage to establish notability. Nothing wrong with being a fight fan, but the rules for notability must be followed. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG, and fails the criteria for kickboxers. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet established notability guidelines. EricSerge (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nom's concerns appear to have been addressed, and the other "delete" opinion is not compliant with policy when it argues that notability or sources outside Serbia are required.  Sandstein  10:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Vuković[edit]

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

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

Delete article for now, can be returned to its creator's mainspace for the massive improvements it needs. Utterly unsourced with a few one sentence paragraphs containing unsubstantiated allegations. I did a google search -- a few links came up in Serbian or Croatian or whatever but it is not my responsibility to translate them. Valid non English-language links are acceptable, of course, but it is the article's creators' and/or editors' responsibility to reflink and translate as appropriate. Quis separabit? 22:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. By nature, most references are going to be in Serbian. I cleaned up the article and added a reference from Vreme corroborating several statements in the article. I concede that it isn't perfect, but frankly I'm not too interested to dig further. No such user (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perhaps it belongs in the Serbian Wikipedia, in all events, I can't source it and I don't see how we can have an article unless someone can source it show notability beyond Serbia, which could be done by using sources in other languages, or by demonstrating that he received extraordinary, sustained, in-depth national news coverage in Serbia, or that he had a significant impact of some sort on Serbia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Updated comment in response to No such user.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone obviously can (I just did). If they will is another matter. However, "I can't source it" is not a reason for deletion. No such user (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I just demonstrated that he received "extraordinary, sustained, in-depth national news coverage in Serbia" by four different news source throughout the 2000s. No such user (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability beyond Serbia, or by means of sources in other languages than Serbian, is not required. This is an encyclopedia written in English that covers the whole universe, not just English-speaking countries. And we don't demand an "extraordinary" level of coverage, or that a subject has had a significant impact on its native country, for subjects whose only sources are in English, so the same applies to Serbia, as you should know from this essay linked from your user page. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources are provided. they do not need to be in english to be notable. anyway this one passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have to use google translate on the sources, but I think there's enough material here that the subject meets GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Sension[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to be notable. I highly doubt that he was only person in the 1600's that was secretly gay. JDDJS (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is likely in need of some WP:TNT, but it does appear that Mr. Sension has been the subject of a fair bit of scholarship. See, e.g., this article, this article, and this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review of the available sources and the current state of the article, I am going to formally vote for deletion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is based on 3 modern, scholarly articles all of which draw their evidence from transcripts of the trial of Nicholas Sension for sodomy in 1677. Now if Arthur Miller were to write a play about Sensions, I could see the notability. But 3 scholarly articles do not notability create. Perhaps there is an appropriate merge target?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. It can be reworked and merged to History of gay men in the United States, which can be good, since that article lack in any information about colonial times. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Can't see how it has enough referencing to pass WP:GNG, but merging it per Arthistorian's suggestion would be okay as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Yash! 06:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ena Kadic[edit]

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

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

Delete: Ena Kadic and redirect (Ena Kadić) as non-notable. I understand that beauty pageant winners can be considered notable, but not each and everyone regardless of the how slim and minimal the credentials. Tragedy of her death also does not indicate notability. Quis separabit? 21:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most Miss Austrias do not have their own article, and there is nothing in her article to suggest that she is particularly notable. JDDJS (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources do not indicate notability.-- danntm ^T _C 00:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per a substantial amount of coverage in reliable sources: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ena+Kadic%22&tbm=nws Linguist 111^talk 10:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, subject of significant coverage from multiple different reliable sources over a period of time. — Cirt (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO, having received a notable award, argument about a lack of articles for other winners is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. also, scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants reads "This WikiProject will cover the creation, editing, and organization of articles related to state, national and international beauty pageants, their delegates and winners." which therefore includes Miss Austria winners. Maybe, some of the above deleters can assist? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  All contestants at Miss World meet our basic notability rule that topics have reliably sourced information showing that they attract the attention of the world at large.  I have recently verified at the WP:RS noticeboard that a Miss World biography is accepted as a WP:RS for personal biographical information, including age.  Massive international coverage is found on the first page of the Google "Find sources" link, including from England, Ireland, Australia, Phillipines, and yahoo.com.  Likewise, the link provided by Linguist111, of Google news, shows the same pattern including Italy and Hungary.  The nomination has not followed the minimal search documented at WP:BEFORE.  Nor has the nomination checked and reported on the effect on the "What Links Here" were this article to be deleted, nor considered that non-notability is not a deletion argument when the topic is covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia (see WP:Insignificance).  The delete !votes have not shown any attempt at determining notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although Nyttend hasn't returned to comment on the source noted by Joe Decker, there is a clear and uncontested consensus to delete nonetheless. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Maitland-Lewis[edit]

Stephen Maitland-Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The references are insufficient to demonstrate that WP:AUTHOR is met as most of the awards are by obscure organisations. There is a claim to have won a Benjamin Franklin Award for Historical Fiction but I'm unable to verify that e.g. from the official site. Searches for other sources to meet WP:BIO haven't produced anything. SmartSE (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom... appears that WP:OR may have been used. Nordic Dragon 12:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When you add a hoax, e.g. the Franklin non-award, we can't trust what else you're adding to the article, and we can't trust your conclusion that the subject is notable. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've reverted the closure of this discussion, as there was a source added to the article which I believe was not considered in the discussion. The last edit to the article (diff: [4]) does provide a link to a PDF, which is easily overlooked, as it does not mention the article subject. The source [5] lists as one of the three winners in the Historical Fiction department the title "Emeralds Never Fade", which is indicated to be a work by the subject in the bibliography. As it appears that that evidence may have not been seen by the discussion participants, I'm reopening the debate. Sorry for the extra lap. Notifying all previous participants: @SmartSE:, @Nordic Dragon:, @Nyttend:. --joe decker^talk 21:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had noticed this and should have probably commented as such. Regardless, the source lists one of his books as a finalist but not the winner. The source doesn't even list the author's name, let alone provide in-depth coverage. SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the pdf above lists just over 150 books. A book with the same name as one the author self published is one of them. I have no reason to personally doubt that it is his book, but with no name attached verifiability for Wikipedia purposes is stretched. If this is the best claim to notability then I am afraid I have to end up as a delete. AIRcorn (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My 'Delete' vote stands, as above. Nordic Dragon 15:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to show it meets notability criteria. I agree with the assessment of the pdf source - doesn't show that this is the book, and even if it is, not that the book was the winner. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Schroen[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Scoring a couple of goals in the FFA Cup Hume City doesnt make him notable. Simione001 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Google search of his name brings up surely more than enough significant, reliable and independent sources to allow him to pass GNG guidelines. I created this article as I genuinely wanted to know more on the topic and subsequently figured that others would've felt the same way. - J man708 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Has not played senior international football or in a fully professional league, thus fails WP:NFOOTY. I find little coverage other than WP:ROUTINE match and signing reports, thus failing WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, and what coverage he has received is routine sports journalism insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. I'm seeing nothing beyond routine transfer talk and match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 16:50, 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 per WP:CSD#A7. This shouldn't have gone to AFD. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puran Gurung[edit]

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

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

Copy editing doesn't generally lead to anyone knowing about you outside of your job environment, and, indeed, I find no evidence that this person meets WP:GNG. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: nothing to indicate that this person is notable. PamD 22:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article too short--27century (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. because there is no indication of significance. Copyeditor at a newspaper is very rarely a notable post wand would extraordinarily strong evidenceto be convincing. The A7 on this should not have been removed. (though of course shortness of an article is irrelevant if what is there does show notability ) DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per criterion A7. "Copy editor" is a job, not a credible claim of significance. VQuakr (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as simply a local news editor, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:07, 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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan James[edit]

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

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

COI, Possible blp prod and notability issues. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James is certainly notable, particularly in Hawaii, and when I copy edited the article for the GOCE backlog I found and added several citations. He seems to have an on-going and growing career. Article should NOT be deleted. IMO. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added multiple, independent reliable sources to the article. IMO he meets WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Recent additions by MelanieN and Google News results like [6], [7], [8] and [9] show that this subject meets WP:GNG.--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as coverage in reliable sources have been found and added to the article, I think WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above sources - Meets GNG easy. –Davey2010^Talk 02:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ulugia[edit]

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

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

Contested prod. Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:RLN, having never played at Super League or NRL level. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm torn here, he seems to fail WP:RLN (I assume he didn't play in the Super8's?) but there is quite a bit of coverage on him, so he probably passes GNG [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. The article as it stands is sparse but I think overall he is notable. Mattlore (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from maybe the Daily Mercury article, can any of those be considered significant coverage though? J Mo 101 (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources found by Mattlore. Some of them fail as WP:GNG sources due to not being independent (the club websites) or being WP:ROUTINE. But even removing those sources, I think what is included shows GNG is met. Therefore keep. RonSigPi (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources found by Mattlore, in particular this, this and this, which let the subject meet GNG, in my view. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yash! 20:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Thane stabbing[edit]

2016 Thane stabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for events; no indication that this criminal act will "have enduring historical significance" or have "lasting effect". Wikipedia is not a news outlet. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep by analogy with similar events in smaller countries like the USA. Biwom (talk) 15:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Biwom: Other things exist; each article is judged on its own merits. I would support deleting articles about domestic violence incidents that have little lasting notability. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteThis clearly not a subject worth the coverage in an encyclopedia, as for similar articles they should also be deleted.--Catlemur (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep massive loss of life, that type of event is very rare, I think without any precedent in India. - Gsvadds (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gsvadds: I would respectfully disagree that 14 is "massive". That's relatively small compared to plane crashes, bus accidents, natural disasters, etc. Last December there was a stabbing in India with 20 victims [18] so this is not unprecedented. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - important event with big international coverage, so shoudn't be deleted. The Guardian BBC AlJazeera Telegraph Russia Today CNN El Mundo UOL Brazil I mean this type of event is not a routine in India or other Asian country like shootings in US, with many articles per year.... Again 331dot please stop giving wrong example with that stabbing incident with 0 deaths. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 21:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news outlet that just repeats what is in the news. You state that this is "important"- how is this tragic domestic event important? What is the "enduring historical significance" of this tragic event? Has it resulted in legal or policy changes in India, or any other tangible effect? 331dot (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT. Despite the larger number of deaths traditionally seen in domestic incidents, this remains a domestic incident. The people involved are non-notable so there's no target to redirect this to. Just because it received international coverage, this does not mean that it merits an article on WP, because a burst of news is not the same as enduring coverage. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep WP:GEOBIAS - can anyone imagine a similar incident in the US being successfully nominated for deletion? The National Western Complex shooting article, about a fight between outlaw motorcycle gangs with a single death was closed recently as no consensus. See, for example Category:2015 crimes in the United States and associated subcats. WP:NOTNEWS says "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" - in no way is that a prohibition of covering major, significant incidents with international coverage like this. AusLondonder (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A fight between organized gangs is different than a domestic incident. Other stuff exists. I would support deletion regardless of the nation involved. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete These ITN articles are devaluing the encyclopaedic merit of WP. Further, 1. a non-notable lunatic killing his family has ZERO repercussions whatsoever (unless some psychiatric revelation is made in the future (Stockholm syndrome) we can always recreate it) and 2. the article constitutes nothing but a few lines of the media (media is not an encylopaedia, which is why the top WP articles frown on media reports). Moreover, this was not a societal threat but an inside issue so its repercussions have not been demonstrated. Heck iread the Asian Age in MUMBAI the next day and it wasn't even highlighted but relegated.Lihaas (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The top WP articles frown on media reports" … yesterday's featured article was almost entirely sourced through newspaper articles. The whole point of Wikipedia is that not everything has to be published in a book before it becomes significant. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per AusLondonder and EugenSimion. We have articles on stabbings in the U.S. where no one was killed, let alone fourteen people. The event has received large amounts of coverage in international media, and it's purely WP:CRYSTAL to claim that this event will have no lasting significance. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IgnorantArmies: It isn't CRYSTAL to claim it won't, it's CRYSTAL to claim that it will. Once it does, then it can get a page, but the article shouldn't exist in anticipation of it having significance; it needs to be significant already. Other stuff exists; the article you cite is a very different situation, which led to a federal terrorism investigation. This is not terrorism, but someone killing their family, a domestic incident with little significance outside the family(unless there has already been policy or legal changes in India because of this incident). Wikipedia is not a newspaper that parrots the press. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources presented by Eugen Simion 14 (talk · contribs) from numerous international reliable publications clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Geographical scope, Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Depth of coverage, and Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Diversity of sources. Cunard (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: No one denies this got a lot of attention, but what is this tragedy's "enduring historical significance" and/or "lasting effect" as called for by WP:NEVENT? 331dot (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria:

Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.

Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).

It is too early to tell whether this event has "enduring historical significance" or "lasting effect". Therefore, I default to supporting retention, particularly because this event was "very widely covered in diverse sources" from international sources so is "very likely to be notable". I echo the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident:

What is needed now is an end to discussion and a bit of perspective. Wait a couple of weeks, or a month, then re-run this if that seems like a good idea. I'm quite certain, and I think most of you would agree, that it will be much easier to ascertain consensus one way or another at that point when we have a bit of distance from the current cable news cycle, and since we are not on a deadline, and since I don't see WP:HARM as an intrinsic issue here if the article is kept at least for awhile, we should take the time to get it right when it comes to the question of whether this topic is Wiki-worthy or not, rather than basing that decision on a flawed AfD that unfolded in a fluid news environment and an overheated Wiki-environment.

Cunard (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Very unusual for a mass stabbing to have this many casualties. Rossbawse (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A mass murder of 14 people is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per massive coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per massive coverage indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep enough coverages for the article. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 06:54, 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.  Sandstein  20:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Shams Eldden Mohamed[edit]

Yasser Shams Eldden Mohamed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

basically fails GNG —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:G4, as a recreation of Yasser Shams Aldden. The nominator should probably have check the article history before trying to get this article speedied for another reason, as the history showed that the article had already been tagged as a copyvio from Deletionpedia (though with the tag promptly removed by the article "creator"). Of course, anything copied from Deletionpedia is unlikely to be a copyvio - but, seeing that Deletionpedia gets its content from here (and for what reason), WP:G4 is highly likely to apply. My own feeling is that the relevant AfD discussion was possibly thin enough to allow for an appeal to WP:DRV, particularly if an editor had meanwhile identified further potentially reliable sources - but this constitutes a blatant end run around our procedures. PWilkinson (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. PWilkinson's rationale is also solid. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mujahid Hussain[edit]

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

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

fails GNG —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This article has precisely one reliable source useful for establishing notability. Guidelines call for 3-5 independent, reliable sources. Chrisw80 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while there are numerous sources found in the search engines, none seem to be about this particular person with this name. Most are about either a general, a terrorist, or a musician. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Maek[edit]

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

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

Unremarkable wannabe. Sources are flaky. TheLongTone (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

& possible a speedy candidate as the recreation of an article deleted after discussion.TheLongTone (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as, although this may not be convincing enough for G4 because he has a new release this year, and of course that's not to say at all there's notability and better improvements here, but simply still none of this current ≤article satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Jason Maek is incredibly relevant. I have no idea how this is a discussion. He is a well accomplished musician and "operates the largest electronic music record label in the Midwest"^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akia chenise (talk • contribs) — Akia chenise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Fails to pass muster as far as I can see, doesn't have sufficient to satisfy notability. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being accomplished doesn't equal notability. References are indeed flakey: write-ups in student run media; profiles on music blogs/websites that solicit contributions from the subject; a career advice profile on a job search site. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ShelbyMarion's comment hits the nail on the head: accomplished and notable are not synonymous. Searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tried to find sources to give this artist notability, but there just aren't any reliable ones. Accomplished, but non-notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 102[edit]

United Airlines Flight 102 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable aviation incident. TheLongTone (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only tragedy that occurred here was the unloading and reloading of a whole other plane and the amount of hotel vouchers United had to give out for the night. Nobody hurt outside of that bird, though you better hope those fish in Lake Conroe can't sue ;). Nate • (chatter) 15:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As The long Tone says, unremarkable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable aviation incident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not really a notable incident. David J Johnson (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• snow delete Does not meet our standards for WP:SIGCOV or WP:EVENTS. Mkdw^talk 18:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as there are no signs of an improvable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Delete Aircraft incidents which cause no injuries just don't get articles.-- danntm ^T _C 00:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:all of the above!!--Petebutt (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails the GNG. An article about a literally-everyday event. There are almost 2,000 aircraft bird strikes per year just in Australia. YSSYguy (talk) 02:22, 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.  Sandstein  09:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese Buffet[edit]

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

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

Declined speedy onn the grounds that there is 'some press coverage'; however almost any business of this kind will get some press. It's called PR, or local newspapers desperate to print something. IMO this is non-notable, and a look at what google comes up with does not persuade me otherwise; run-of-the -mill listings coverage. TheLongTone (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There are a couple of passing mentions in a Highbeam search, some more similar on Google, but the most substantial information that I can see is on a company press release [19] (which obviously doesn't meet WP:RS). Nothing there indicates that this is more than a firm with expansion plans, but not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I found two newspaper reviews of two of the restaurants for secondary sources and added them to the article. I also expanded it just a bit to mention the cuisine, added a category and a wikilink. My !vote is weak because I'm leaning a bit toward thinking the article has been created a bit too soon for the chain to meet notability standards. I did find the two newspaper articles, [20] and [21], both of which were published just last month, about two of the chain's restaurants. At the same time, I'm leaning toward it being too soon to sweep this one into deletion just yet. The article is very new, but there are a few signs already to suggest notability. This is not, to my mind, a really clear cut example of yet another completely non-notable and completely unsourceable (is that a word?) restaurant chain. Thus my ambivalence. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Aside from passing mentions and reviews, there's nothing out there about The Chinese Buffet. Elaenia (talk) 05:58, 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) 22:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Buhagiar[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence the subject has played senior international football or in a fully-professional league, and no significant independent coverage. WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG are not met. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NFOOTY since he is not fully professional. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.D.Y.Patil Institute of Management & Research,Pimpri, Pune[edit]

Dr.D.Y.Patil Institute of Management & Research,Pimpri, Pune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Private institution with no significant coverage and notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete with fire and brimstone. Was previously speedied as an A7, no credible claim of importance, but almost immediately recreated with the exact same text. Could equally have been speedied as G11, unambiguous promotion. What's more, it is a copyvio of this page so also qualifies as G12. SpinningSpark 14:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My latest Speedy delete for this was declined by another editor, based that it does not apply to educational institution. Sometimes I am too tired to fight it, so proposed here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:44, 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.  Sandstein  10:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YogaSlackers[edit]

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

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

Non-notable business. This a purely promotional article. Every reference in here—and everything I could find elsewhere—was not substantial coverage, not reliable, or not independent. The information about their participation in the Patagonian Expedition Race is interesting, but appears to be about an entirely different subject (a race team sponsored by this company rather than the company itself). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This a purely promotional article". okay. Can you tell me where is promotional text?
"Every reference in here—and everything I could find elsewhere—was not substantial coverage, not reliable, or not independent." — Yoga Journal is not independent. The New York Times is not independent. The Wall Street Journal (Jason Magness - co-founder of Yogaslackers), Vail Daily, Elevation Outdoors Magazine, TreeHugger. yes? Great!
“To Cross the Moon” (2XtM) was featured in: KX News (YouTube), MSNBC (YouTube), NorthDakota News (YouTube)--27century (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: 27century (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

• Not independent or not substantial. Reprints of press releases are not independent. One-line or one-paragraph mentions are not substantial. For instance, the NYT mention is not substantial. Articles about the individual founders do not count towards this subject's notability. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the top 10 adventure race teams in the world is not substantial? [22]. and tell me where is promotional text. Because i don't understand. Thank you.--27century (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are some passing mentions of the topic, but it's in the context of listing a large number (if not all) of the given participants in an event. There's nothing which sets the subject apart to establish notability. Elaenia (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The team was covered in a lot of news(mainly as adventure race and slackline team with their programs across the country), journals, books (2). USPTO is not important.? [23] why delete?--27century (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: 27century (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

That's a trademark application. I'm not sure how that helps establish notability? Elaenia (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't. Anybody can apply for mark registration if they fill out an application and pay a fee, and all that mark registration establishes is that the user has nationwide rights to use a particular designation of origin in commerce. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's unfortunate that the hyperpromotional tone and non-neutral WP:POV of this article aren't more fully recognized by folks who may well have been brought up thinking marketingese is the norm. At a minimum serious copy-editing is needed to improve the odd syntax and strip out the self-laudatory and jargony language (and inconsequential detail that probably does mean a lot to the YogaSlackers folks but isn't encyclopedic). I question whether "one of the top 10 adventure race teams in the world" is in itself notable but I am not well-versed in such athletic minutae and base my decision solely on the sadly unrecognized promotional nature of the article that, if improved, may lead to obvious WP:GNG failure. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your informative response--27century (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fractional Fourier entropy[edit]

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

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

Just a handful of Google scholar hits, none of which is well-cited, all of which are in the past year or so. Many of these are in the journal Entropy, which, as far as I can tell, is from a questionable open-access publisher (MDPI). Sławomir
Biały 13:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I could not find any in-depth sources that were independent of the group that developed this technique. With few publications and no in-depth secondary reliable sources, the topic fails WP:GNG criteria and it seems WP:TOOSOON for this topic to be notable. Normally I'd try to find a good merge or redirect candidate, but I found nothing appropriate. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge any well-cited content into a section of Fractional Fourier transform. This concept is not notable on its own, but may be worth a mention there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Pukekohe 500[edit]

1985 Pukekohe 500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as a motor racing event. Article is really just a results listing LibStar (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a poor article that needs work, but the event meets WP:GNG in terms of motor racing events. The guideline cited in the deletion appear to only relate to biographies NealeFamily (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSEVENT is not for biographies. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSEVENT doesn't appear incredibly useful in this situation, instead it mainly points back to GNG. Mattlore (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A search for this under article name and alternative name "nissan sports 500" yields nothing including in GBooks which may include older events like this. LibStar (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could be improved, but the event appears notable. Mattlore (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Once this article is improved, then it would be under the WP:GNG guidelines. Matt294069 is coming 00:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so are you admitting in its current state it fails WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I am saying so yes. Matt294069 is coming 05:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see the page creator hasn't been notified so I will leave him a message. Mattlore (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the second largest motorsport event held in New Zealand that year, notability should not be in question. That the article fails to illustrate this point is the problem. --Falcadore (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Margaretha (ship, 2000)[edit]

Anne-Margaretha (ship, 2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a newer single commercial ship that can be rented for travel. The article follows the business history of the boat. There is no indication or reference why this particular yacht would be notable. gidonb (talk) 16:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article was created by one of the operators of the boat, his sole contributions ever to Wikipedia under this new user. User created the same promotion also in Dutch and French. I had prodded the English-language article, but this was removed, without significant improvements. gidonb (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's nothing on this ship on the Internet. Not a single news article or webpage covering the ship. The current article reads like a product manual and I don't see room for improvement. Elaenia (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Grease (musical).  Sandstein  20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Me, I'm Sandra Dee[edit]

Look at Me, I'm Sandra Dee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Delete: as non-notable stub of an article about an old song. Quis separabit? 15:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to the musical where it from. Also do the same for a couple more one-liners found in ((Grease)). - üser:Altenmann >t 15:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All that the article contains is a plot synopsis of when the song is sung in the film. There is nothing about the song whatsoever; not the names of the actors, not the name of the songwriters, nothing on the lyrical content and nothing on the musical content. Every song in every musical does not need to exist, nor be a redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Grease (movie). I hate redirects but this is a lovely example of a case for them. I can think of over ten humans in my personal acquaintance who would find such a redirect meaningful and problem-solving from a memory level. If the movie in question was less notable than Grease (which, for the record, is one of the most hateful things I've ever seen and if I could eradicate it from the popular-culture universal consciousness I would do so in a femtosecond) I would feel differently, but this was a hugely popular movie, remains so among those of a certain age (and their offspring), and as much as we Wikipedians might shudder, this is precisely the kind of redirect the world wants. I'm just saying. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above, but I think the target should be Grease (musical), since that (not the film) is the original appearnce of the song. Deor (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Grease (musical) for now. "Lousy with virginity" is a highly memorable and often-quoted phrase, and I think a viable article might be written some day about this song and its sometimes controversial reception. (Examples are sprinkled through the "find sources" links I added above.) But there isn't much of anything in the article now, and a redirect is consistent with current AfD practices regarding such songs. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Double Deckers[edit]

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

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

Unremarkable company, appears to be more of a service agent than manufacturer of buses. Fails WP:GNG. Nordic Dragon 14:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is a local somewhat newly founded company with only the expected company information, nothing else to even minimally suggest better for the companies and organizations notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the article provides no independent reliable sources.-- danntm ^T _C 00:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could not find independent and reliable sources. If they will be added later I am willing to review. Creating the article again is also an option, if the company gets better noticed in the future. gidonb (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a single news article or otherwise reliable source. Elaenia (talk) 06:15, 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 keep.  Sandstein  10:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Biswas-Diener[edit]

Robert Biswas-Diener (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tagged for notability since 2009 and primary sourcing since 2013, neither of which appears to have been fixed. Lack of reliable independent sources suggests this may not meet WP:GNG Guy (Help!) 13:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sufficient sourcing to pass GNG such as CNN. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not (yet) familiar with Wikipedia notability guidelines and I'm planning to read them soon. For the moment, I would like to assure everyone here that Robert Biswas-Diener is one of the most prominent researchers in the field of positive psychology, itself one of the main current of contemporary psychology. I will provide substantial evidence about this soon. Let me know if there are specific needs here.Viybel (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. An h-index of 32 would frequently be enough to establish notability by WP:PROF#1, but I suspect that this is a highly-cited field, and I note that his most-highly cited works seem to be coauthored with his very clearly notable father. Therefore, not taking a stance here. PWilkinson (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on WP:SECONDARY sources rather then scholarly notability. That said, it's marginal. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep I'm torn on this one. He has been cited nearly 6K times, but a lot of it is because of his father, and notability is not inherited. However, he has multiple works on which his father is not a coauthor, that have several hundred cites; so I'm going with keep here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 16:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinated management of meaning[edit]

Coordinated management of meaning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I think this article is WP:OR, it reads as a personal essay on the subject. I say I think because a lot of it is remisicent of Sokal, and is borderline incomprehensible. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD is not a cleanup . - üser:Altenmann >t 16:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a real theory of communication in sociolinguistics, created in the 1980s, and the article and a WP:BEFORE style search turn up lots of reliable sources; about 1600 hits in GScholar and over 5,000 hits in GBooks. As a theory of communication, it is in the social constructionism school of thought. While not as well known as say symbolic interactionism, it turns up in courses and textbooks. The article itself has some promotional sections, particularly Coordinated management of meaning#Theory developers, as well as some essay-like prose, but cleaning these up is a matter of editing, not whole article deletion. A notable topic and an article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The writing needs editing, but the concepts seem accurate if basic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.147.77 (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As to whether to merge - consensus not to delete.  Sandstein  20:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unique set size[edit]

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

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

Not meet any CSD criterias, and with very little contents, unremarkable. 333-blue 08:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible Merge? I noticed the other set sizes in the See also section. These all seem pretty unnotable and the articles are stubs, so perhaps we could combine all three into a single article about set sizes which details the three. Then we have the individual names redirect to this article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• merge them into process memory, a ridiculously missing article. Howver all of them are unreferenced. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This appears to be an established concept with multiple independent and reliably published secondary sources. I added references to the article, which was previously unreferenced. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, David Eppstein. Since you are familiar with the subject matter, could you perhaps look into creating a master article / explanatory list for the three set sizes Unique set size, Proportional set size, Resident set size and possibly Working set size? Also, what do you think about the idea of merging all of these articles into one singular article? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David's found and added references and WP:HEY. There is also an LWN article on the introduction of USS and PSS in the Linux kernel. --Mark viking (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Call of Duty characters[edit]

List of Call of Duty characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:VGSCOPE No. 6: a long list of characters, described from an in-universe point-of-view, with nothing on the development or reception of the characters. There are a total of 15 Call of Duty games, set in World War II, the Cold War, in the recent past and in the near future. There are very few recurring characters. Looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine shows no reliable, in-depth articles. That Captain Price and Soap MacTavish have articles doesn't mean all characters are notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think we should keep this article because readers would need to read some information of some characters in that franchise. It's true we need more reliable sources for these information and we need some extra clean up about the development & reception of those characters, but it doesn't mean the article should be deleted. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles exist because of WP:GNG, not because the reader might need to know about them. I've looked through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, it does not bring up any in-depth results. Right now it just retells the stories from the games from the characters' point-of-view, which is unnecessary and redundant. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list, redirect each character: Now that you've given a reason for getting rid of this, I agree that this list is unnecessary. However, I feel that each character listed should be redirected to their respective game article (i.e. Roach and Ghost each get redirected to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2). If this can't be done, then that's just fine. But in terms of this list, it's not needed, it seems. Aria1561 (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as video game cruft, contains only plot summary, no independent reliable sources (let alone sufficient to confer notability on the topic).  Sandstein  10:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect to Call of Duty). (1) The characters lack sourcing as a group and are not noted as independent concept from the individual games or series. (2) The article, as it stands, is video game trivia. (3) Anything that needs to be said about these characters can be said in either the individual game or series articles. Proportionality. czar 14:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Unreal (series)#Setting. czar 04:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unreal characters[edit]

List of Unreal characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:VGSCOPE No. 6: a long list of characters, described from an in-universe point-of-view, with nothing on the development or reception of the characters. Looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine shows no reliable, in-depth articles. Redirect to Unreal (series)#Setting. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - A ton of text with only a tiny amount of sources. Best to just redirect and write any encyclopedic info at the parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Justice Foundation[edit]

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

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

I believe there needs to be further attention since the 2010 AfD as none of this suggests a better improvable and also independently notable article apart from being connected to the State Bar of Montana. My searches found nothing noticeably better and my PROD, until I noticed the 1st AfD, was: "Non-notable group part of the State Bar of Montana with my searches finding nothing better at all and none of the current article suggests an independently notable article.". SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge: This is an independent 501(c)(3) organization separate from the State Bar, though with some affiliation. (Full disclosure: I am a member of the State Bar of Montana and am involved with activities that received funds from MJF so I have a COI as to this article). I'd ask that if the Afd succeeds that the article be merged with a redirect kept to preserve links. Montanabw^(talk) 09:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:ORGDEPTH this should have been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. From scanning news articles, I only see it mentioned briefly in passing, in connection with other topics. There is no in depth coverage of the organization itself. Similarly in books. Merging it into a small amount of text in the state bar article and keeping a redirect might be an option , I don't have much of an opinion on that at the moment. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To consider: [24], which of note includes [25], and [26]. As stated, I have a COI on this issue because I am involved with a group that gets MJF funding. But if you are looking for source material, it will be in the Montana press on groups that are funded by the organization. I would not object to a merge to State Bar of Montana, but could someone please userfy the content as a subpage of my talk or something if the consensus does go "delete" -- If no one else merges, I don't want to have to recreate it all. Montanabw^(talk) 10:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Charitable nonprofit organization in existence since 1979. State wide organization. I agree with rationale by Montanabw above, as well as from those at prior failed deletion attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Justice Foundation including especially comments by Eastmain, Mike Cline, and TJRC, all of whom provided useful sources at the failed attempt at deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Justice Foundation. — Cirt (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm going to reiterate my Keep !vote from the prior AFD. I do wish something more was done with the references that that AFD unearthed, instead of just nonspecifically slapping some of them into the "References" section rather than using them as footnotes to specifically point out what materials is supported by what source. But that's an issue for cleanup, not deletion. TJRC (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Another recent source: "LINDEEN TO ANNOUNCE SETTLEMENT IN $455 MILLION CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT OVER $1.2 MILLION WILL BE DONATED TO THE MONTANA JUSTICE FOUNDATION." States News Service 18 Sept. 2012. Academic OneFile. Web. 10 Mar. 2016 --Mike Cline (talk) 22:45, 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) 02:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The JBL and Cole Show ‎[edit]

The JBL and Cole Show ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, article relies almost entirely on primary sources with few passing mentions in other sources. I nominated this previously and withdrew because RealDealBillMcNeal was determined to find sufficient sources. He never did and he never will because he is now blocked. A GNG tag which I placed after the first AfD was removed sometime after but the problems I brought to the talk page were never addressed. LM2000 (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. LM2000 (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.LM2000 (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page has plenty of sufficient sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk • contribs)

• No it doesn't. Most of them are primary sources which can't be considered when discussing notability. There are some passing mentions in reliable sources discussing WP:ROUTINE coverage, mostly of other shows, others are totally unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources. We even use one of the host's Facebook page as a source!LM2000 (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There's 41 sources, just because ONE of the host's facebook page is a source doesn't mean anything and all the other 40 sources are reliable. Plus, I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the 41 sources are either WP:PRIMARY or not reliable per WP:RS and the others aren't enough to push this over the WP:GNG bar.LM2000 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I still don't know what you are trying to say.

• Delete - doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (web), particularly that nobility is not inherited just because Cole, JBL, and the WWE are notable. Does not have sufficient coverage in reliable third party sources. Nikki♥311 03:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 04:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per User:Nikki311 CrashUnderride 00:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with nomination.  MPJ-US  00:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 16:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum[edit]

Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I came upon this article after seeing linkspam promoting the text inserted in a couple of articles. The article's only two "references" for the book are commercial links to buy the book. The subject doesn't appear to meet the necessary notability criteria; the author himself also doesn't even appear to satisfy WP:AUTHOR or the general notability criteria. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BEFORE, I performed a few cursory searches for reliable sources discussing the text, but found only forums, organisation-related links, and the like: Google Search for the English title transliteration, Google search for the English title translation, +"book", News links- no dice there, and nothing significant on Google Scholar.

I'm sure it's read, and influential to some, but it doesn't appear to be cited or discussed by any source at length outside of WP:SELFPUB sources, including those related to his mosque and madrasa. The articles for the mosque and the author have been previously PROP'ed and are probably ripe for AfD themselves. I personally don't see the notability here, nor do I see any significant reliable sources materialising. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, considering that there is an article about the author (for now). Mainly fails the "significant coverage" part of WP:GNG. I see lots of passing mentions on GBooks (mostly reference lists), but nothing substantial enough to warrant a separate article. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep what do you mean by notability i think you need to read this WP:NBOOK Well 1st thing is this book is an authoritative and popular biography of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Its 1st Arabic version was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference in 1979, following an open competition for a book on the life of Prophet Muhammad. The book competed with 170 other manuscripts, in Arabic, Urdu, English, French and Hausa ( According to WP:NBOOK No.2 its an award winning book ).. The book takes into account various phases of the life of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH. The book provides authentic references which makes it more reliable and less controversial ( According to WP:NBOOK No.3 it is a significant contribution about Prophet Mohammad's Life ).. This book is translated in many languages like in English, Urdu, Hindi, French, and many others… if its not a notable book why they are wasting money on it lol... its not a NOTABLE because it took 1st prize in a open competition and it is very Authentic Biography of Prophet Mohammad..? anyway all i can say right now The article is poorly written only... no issue with the notability... Peace Out!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16A2:8A64:6000:BD7E:8668:1F5A:77E8 (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Anonymous IP, I'm familiar with NBOOK. First of all, that's a guideline, not a policy. More importantly, The example you gave doesn't satisfy its criteria. The guideline refers solely to literary awards. Not to an award given in an internal and non-notable contest. The organisation you're citing is itself mostly notable due to controversy and their alleged links to terrorist organisations. Lastly, it would have to meet several of the criterion in order to be considered; not just one. Just because a book goes through more than one printing, or is widely disseminated, doesn't make it notable. Notability is conferred by sources, and is not inherent or self-evident. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, because there is also a book with similar name which is written by Abdollah Javadi-Amoli about philosophy of Mulla Sadra [27][28]--Seyyed(t-c) 01:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev K Jha[edit]

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

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

All the sources don't mention the word "Sanjeev" . Two sources are fake URLs. Captain Spark (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the article lists information but none of this comes close to WP:CREATIVE at all, even with the apparently listed sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unable to find any evidence of notability. Only this article covers him in a non-trivial way, and it mentions his struggles as an unsuccessful scriptwriter. utcursch | talk 15:27, 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 redirect to Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai.  Sandstein  20:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parda Parda[edit]

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

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

This song is not notable. Captain Spark (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If found non-notable, would be worth redirecting to film. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• very funny indeed! - it is a charbaster song. Just search in the google, very funny that u've told it non notable Magipur (talk)
• Redirect to Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai. The song is non-notable and doesn't satisfy the criteria under WP:NMUSIC. Dan arndt (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Magipur, you need to write articles properly, or use AfC, if you want to stop these articles being taken to AfD. Can you establish how it meets WP:NSONG or WP:GNG? Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai. Finds mentions in newspapers etc., but hardly any non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:NSONG. utcursch | talk 20:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai with comparable reasoning to Utcursch's. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  14:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject of the article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N), because no reliable source has been provided to verify the existence of this administrative entity. Borsoka (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does anyone know of any article this could possibly be merged to? I tried looking around Romanian history articles briefly but couldn't find something suitable. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Googling for the second name, Seneslau de Dolha, proved succesful. I were able to find Casa de Dolha y de Petrova and Familia nobilă de Dolha și Petrova. Most interestingly, I were able to find a remnant of the very same article having existed on the English Wikipedia: House of Dolha and Petrova. It was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Dolha and Petrova. Probably the same fate awaits this one. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that the articles were created by a member of that family (or by somebody who thinks that he/she is a member of that family). I think we need scholarly works independent of the subject of the article to substantiate its notability. Borsoka (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite Zenhobo2's comment, the article has not been edited since the AfD nomination.  Sandstein  14:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Les Branson[edit]

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

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

Unpublished poet/novelist; non-notable indy filmmaker. Cited refs are a local-interest, local-man-stages-free-screening-of-film story and a mention that the film won a minor award; I can’t find anything else. There may be just enough claim of significance to pass A7. —teb728 t c 23:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this seems better convincing for the creative entertainers notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will add more citations and sources at a later date and edit in changes ≈≈≈≈zenhobo2≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenhobo2 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; deleted as G3 by Graeme Bartlett.  Gongshow   talk 10:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Bedford[edit]

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

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

Possible hoax, certainly not notable as a sportsperson, no sources. Grahame (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Obvious hoax. I have tagged for speedy deletion. There is also the WP:COI as the author's username is StewyBed. I'm !voting here in case CSD is declined. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax, not notable anyway. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pretty clear prank (hoax) from single-issue editor who is also likely the article's subject. X4n6 (talk) 23:04, 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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  20:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Femi[edit]

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

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

Another Nigerian local singer, trying to make ends meet. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found a few sources: [29] is one and several listed at [30]. The coverage appears to be WP:ROUTINE though and most of the other links in the first 50 seem to fail RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best for now because none of this is yet convincingly enough for notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The coverage found by clicking "news" above seems pretty extensive, certainly greater than is generally accepted as evidence of notability for Western anglophone popular musicians, and is national in the world's 7th most populous country, rather than local as claimed by the nominator. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scout Stuart[edit]