< 11 May 13 May >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMKM

[edit]
IMKM (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 notability. See WP:ORGSIG Jschnur (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biji Rai

[edit]
Biji Rai (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)

Except for a passing mention in a dubious source (a book published in 1879), I can't find any other reference to this prince (searched JSTOR). Not only is notability dubious, it is uncertain whether he actually existed. regentspark (comment) 23:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: is a good judge of the reliability of raj era books. Personally, I'd like to see recent references from academic historians. --regentspark (comment) 15:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But quite a few of those books are much more recent than the raj era, and their publishers include the Punjabi University, the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies etc. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link to the Punjab University book? The ISEAS book is written by a politician, not a reliable source. --regentspark (comment) 20:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that being written by someone who entered politics makes a book unreliable. It's the publisher that makes it reliable. The book published by the Punjabi University is this one. I didn't check the publishers beyond the first five of the 52 Google Books hits, because there was enough there to confirm that this is someone who is still known a millennium after he lived, and was a ruler, which is clearly enough to make him notable. Surely Google Books should have been one of the first places to look when conducting your WP:BEFORE research? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Historians carefully look for evidence before making historical affirmations. They look for contemporary sources or other reliable sources. A politician writing a book is likely to use material without verifying their accuracy. Academic sources are always more reliable. The punjab university source you link to above is a passing reference. "Mahumad ... attacked Biji Rai, a brave and strong....". Raj era sources are notorious for taking local stories and reshaping them to fit their own world view. You're right about looking at google books though. I have a strong bias for academic publications and tend to look only at JSTOR because google books tends to list books of dubious value (pov pushers, raj era publications) but I should have looked at it nevertheless. I still think that the historicity of Biji Rai is dubious so let's just see what other editors say. --regentspark (comment) 21:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And much of the writing of academic historians is in books, few of which are indexed by JSTOR, rather than in journals, so a more comprehensive search engine such as Google Books is needed. I agree that Raj era books should be treated with suspicion (I groan inwardly whenever I see a citation to Horace Arthur Rose), but many of the books found by Google Books are from modern academic publishers. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL,
with the first of the book sources found being this one published by Routledge. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are good in number which are more than any unnoticed European Kings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.72.130 (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Childre

[edit]
Lew Childre (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)

Known only as the founder of the already deleted non notable Heartmath Institute. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other Sources NewsBank shows 34 newspaper articles. Most of them are mentions of Childre's books and/or think tank though not dedicated reviews. A couple examples:
  • Gracie Bonds Staples. "Living with your choices Course of action", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 30, 2010. Quote: "Doc Childre, the internationally renowned stress expert, said.."
  • Portia Berrey, "The heart has its own brain.literally." Denver Examiner, September 21, 2009. Summarizes Childre's position on the "brain in the heart".
  • Media sources at the HearthMath website has 100s of "in the media" sources archived (I have not looked through them for reliable sources about ChildreP).
-- GreenC 13:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has articles about self-published authors, there's no guideline against self-published books or authors, only the sources about such books and authors. There is no guideline about library holdings. For an extensive list of sources see my post above. They are not all freely online, but they are all available online, in commercial databases, which are accessible through WP:REX. -- GreenC 00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Publishers Weekly, AORN Journal, Vegetarian Times, Leadership Excellence, the Journal of Holistic Healthcare at the University of Westminster are used throughout Wikipedia oddly being discounted as "unreliable".-- GreenC 18:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AORN Journal is a peer reviewed academic journal, to call it unreliable would require justification. Journal of Holistic Healthcare at the University of Westminster same situation. Publishers Weekly is one of the countries largest review magazines we use it all the time on Wikipedia. Vegetarian Times looks reliable but we can discuss if you have reason to think not. Leadership Excellence is held in some university libraries[2] and around for over a decade print publication I see no reason why it's unreliable. Atlantic Journal, Denver Examiner look reliable to me. Once we get past these we can five into the 100+ other sources here. -- GreenC 00:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is disagreement on how Paralympics and Asian Para Games participation relates to notability and no clear consensus has formed here. The article in its present state is fairly short, and the sporting achievements made are all cited. With verifiability requirements met, I see nothing mandating a deletion given the lack of a rough consensus on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junko Fujii

[edit]
Junko Fujii (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)

Does not pass WP:NOLYMPICS as she hasn't won a medal at the Paralympics. No indication of passing WP:GNG. Sports Devotee (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd certainly agree that the Asian Para Games are to the Asian Games as the Paralympics are to the Olympics; a less-noted competition, run by a different organization, held at a different time, and for which no presumptive notability is awarded. (Possibly that was a parallel you'd prefer not to have drawn.) Ravenswing 10:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. What is "a major amateur or professional competition?" This has basically been interpreted as the Olympics for Olympic-events and some wiggle room for championships of major sports not in the Olympics. Continental games do not generally reach that level. As an example, WP:NTRACK states in criterion #3 that only a top-3 Asian Games finish gives a presumption of notability. Therefore, someone finishing in 4th would not receive the presumption. Just competing in a continental games is not enough.
2. The status of Para-athletes. I only see three mentions for them - WP:NCURLING, WP:NEQUESTRIAN, and WP:NOLYMPICS. Clearly they were considered for inclusion, but only limited inclusion given. Anything else is overreaching.
3. Presumptions in general. A presumption is just that - a presumption. Not an ironclad rule. At best, the presumption for this article is suspect and I think most editors would say there is no presumption. Considering the questionable presumption, I think it is fair to have a show cause for this case. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Wilton the boxer met WP:NBOX yet was deleted because GNG could not be established. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991) is one of many soccer players that pass WP:NFOOTY yet is not considered to pass GNG.
For this article, almost all the references fail the independence requirement. The International Paralympic Committee and Japan Para-Volleyball Association are not independent. The only possible independent source, asahi.com, merely lists a the players name. Nothing here shows GNG being met. Therefore delete. RonSigPi (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A silver medal is a "top three" finish. It's a second place finish, not fourth. So that destroys your point in point 1. Regarding point 2, just because other notability guidelines included a specific mention of a type of athlete and other ones didn't include it doesn't mean those types of athletes cannot be notable in those categories. It just means no one brought it up before. Regarding 3, if an article passed a more specific notability guideline, they automatically pass GNG. Notability is notability is notability, regardless of how they attain that notability. If people are trying to say something should be deleted because they pass a specific notability guideline but not GNG, they have no solid understanding of how notability works here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For point 1, yes silver is top three. However, one sport specific guideline does not port to another, especially a team event in comparison to an individual. For point 2, nothing in the guidelines suggested a regional competition in a para-event would confer a presumption of notability. Absence does not mean you can presume what you want. For point 3, that is just wrong. GNG always trumps an SNG. This is why WP:NSPORT starts with "A person is presumed to be notable" - its only a presumption. RonSigPi (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RonSigPi: A second place finish is acceptable regardless of whether it is a team or individual event, regardless of your opinion on the issue. A silver medal is a silver medal in any international sporting competition. It means they are at the top of their game. Technically, the world is a region, too, so the Olympics are just a slightly larger regional event than the one that encompasses more than half of the world's population. As you said, absence does not mean tou can presume what you want. As for starting with "presumed", go read the first sentence on WP:GNG and you'll see that it also uses that wording. In order to be considered notable, a topic must pass either the GNG or a more specific guideline. The more specific guidelines are there to help people figure out specific notability. Regardless of how it is established (whether generally or more specifically), notability is the same across the board. Meeting the notability requirements in one area means the topic is notable. It doesn't need to meet two or three or ten different notability guidelines. One is sufficient. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And it does not meet a single SNG. Under your rationale finishing second in the tri-county pie eating contest would give a presumption of notability. Any tri-county area is just a sub-region of the earth after all. BTW, looking further at the 2010 Asian Para Games the standards are very low. For example, in 1500 m T37 at Athletics at the 2010 Asian Para Games only two competitors showed up, and they were both from the same country. Can we really say the 2nd place athlete is at the top of his field? There are nearly a dozen athletic events where only two athletes appear to have showed up in the events. How prestigious can this be? RonSigPi (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just being silly. Exactly how does a three-county competition equate to a "more than half the world" competition? Asia has almost 60% of the world's population, and that is why I consider an all-Asia competition to be significant and giving a presumption of notability if you place second in that area. That a few events only had a small turnout is irrelevant. And we aren't talking about one of those events here, anyway, so stop waving the strawman. The event in question is Sitting volleyball at the 2010 Asian Para Games. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Asia is large and contains a large portion of the world's population does not mean that every Asian championship held is notable. Under that logic, every player of the Asian Australian Football Championships would be considered notable. However, since Australian Football has a relatively small following outside the Oceanic region, we don't give such a presumption just because Asia is big. Regarding your strawman argument, it cannot be said that the Asian Games are so big that every competitor is notable, yet when that gets questioned focus on sitting volleyball. As a multi-sport event, the Asian Para Games appear minor and have little coverage. Athletics, badminton, judo, table tennis, and powerlifting all have events where only two competitors competed. This is even more concerning considering the popularity of badminton, judo, and table tennis in Asia. Additionally, in archery for both men and women there were events where only one competitor was there. These games seem relatively insignificant and do not help persuade that any of its sports, including sitting volleyball, would gain coverage to presume the athletes are notable. RonSigPi (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you can't seem to stay focused on this topic, I'm not going to bother responding to you anymore. You keep changing your focus, point to other irrelevant things as evidence for this discussion, and so on. Perhaps others will chime in on the discussion (beyond those who already have) so we can get something other than you attempting to steamroll over everyone else. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RonSigPi: If you genuinely think that the International Paralympic Committee and Japan Para-Volleyball Association aren't idependent to the athlete herself then I don't believe you understand the concept of WP:INDEPENDENT. Two quotes from that, ""Independent" does not imply "even-handedness"; an independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea" and " An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic". So please explain how the sources aren't independent? - Basement12 (T.C) 21:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You cite an essay that is not authoritative and does not help your point - it clearly states that something with a conflict of interest is not indpendents, something true of these associations. WP:GNG, which is a guideline, states "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." The national and international bodies are not independent - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirngulbai Misech for the treatment of the Oceania Sports Association and Palauan Swimming Association (Dirtlawyer1 articulated this point well for me). For an article about a Minnesota Vikings player, the Star Tribune is independent while nfl.com and vikings.com are not. Those sources are not independent. RonSigPi (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source is just a video of what appears to be the event. Anyone can put a video online, that is not coverage. Also, looking at that video, I see no crowd and no media presence. Yes, one side is not shown, but does not seem like many are following. The second is a blog, not an accepted source. The third and fourth list the athlete's name once - not significant coverage there - and the fourth one appears just to be a roster. I don't think any of these sources are useful. RonSigPi (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Errr ... should we be concerned that someone as actively creating new biographical articles as yourself genuinely think that those sources are qualifying sources that meet the GNG? Ravenswing 01:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just added quickly a few sources, but I can't read Japanese what is written about her. On Google Many sources can be fiund. What about This or This and This. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 19:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge. There are no calls for deletion beyond the nomination. Any editor that wants to merge the article is invited to be bold and do so. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah

[edit]
Sekolah (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 character currently fails to establish notability, and there don't appear to be any reliable sources that could be added. TTN (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 To Pimp a Butterfly. Selective mergers can be done by accessing the histories of the newly redirected articles. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 01:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley's Theory

[edit]
Wesley's Theory (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)
Institutionalized (Kendrick Lamar song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
U (Kendrick Lamar song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
For Sale? (Interlude) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Momma (Kendrick Lamar song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hood Politics (Kendrick Lamar song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Complexion (A Zulu Love) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
How Much a Dollar Cost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominating all seven articles on the basis that they fail WP:NSONGS. While their charting history is a positive factor in determining if they're notable enough for separate articles, WP:NSONGS specifically states that first and foremost, songs should "have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" excluding album reviews, of which these songs have not been. Will also obviously support redirects to the album. Azealia911 talk 20:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was unsure as whether to include "How Much a Dollar Cost" given the fact that it has received coverage from Obama naming it his favourite song of the year. Nevertheless, if that's the only coverage it's received, I agree and have included it. Azealia911 talk 22:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just Obama's words is not enough coverage to be very frank. —IB [ Poke ] 14:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Refer to WP:SIGCOV. It's a passing mention and can be included in the album article, probably under "critical reception" since it comes from an influential public figure. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Pirrotti Hummel

[edit]
Denise Pirrotti Hummel (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 have found a lot of professional bios of her on the ol' interwebs, but nothing that could be described as in-depth coverage (or even truly independent sources). Half the references on the article don't go anywhere, and the one I did manage to dig up turned out to be a press release. I'm not convinced she meets WP:GNG. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Goodman

[edit]
Grant Goodman (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)

Autobiography of child/teen actor with a few parts. Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Mazanderani language. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 19:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgani dialect

[edit]
Gorgani dialect (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 moribund dialect with no ISO code. I think the content of this article should be transcluded into the Mazanderani page - I would be exceedingly happy to copy-edit this page and integrate it onto that one. Thank you. Navistheman (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just merged the pertinent content. Kind of new to Wikipedia so not really sure what happens now, or how to expedite the deletion process for Gorgani stub. And yeah, a lot of the previous content on the article was superfluous and irrelevant, pertaining to the etymology of the regional toponym 'Gorgan' which was already covered in the corresponding article. Bless you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navistheman (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have to discount the "efficacy" argument, and so we have a majority, but not a consensus, for the view that the sources are insufficient for notability.  Sandstein  08:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NUCCA

[edit]
NUCCA (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)

Blatant chiropractic quackery, most sources are fringe that link to the Chiropractic Association. I see little to no independent coverage HealthyGirl (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also no policy based reason for deletion. Valoem talk contrib 03:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Does deletion help?--Moxy (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is that we should cite reliable sources and not give undue weight to fringe views, most of the sources listed above are articles written by chiropractors or fringe proponents. If we cite only those sources, then how is it possible to have a neutral article? This place would turn into a crackpot haven. We need independent secondary sources preferably written by medical experts, not written by chiropractors themselves. As for the claim "fringe sources can be used to document such notability", I have never heard of this before. If notability is to be established then reliable academic, critical or skeptical works should be cited, not sources written by pseudoscience proponents. There are not enough reliable sources to warrant an entire article in this case. Having an article that uses sources written by only chiropractors is in violation of WP:FRINGE, WP:IS, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. HealthyGirl (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rather silly to consider all chiropractic sources as primary. The sources I listed are not proponents of NUCCA only chiropractics. This argument is not even wrong as it could be applied to anything. We could say with this logic that all biology sources are primary sources for biological topics. Valoem talk contrib 21:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem using primary sources for mainstream biology topics because they are not fringe. We are dealing here with a fringe topic. On fringe topics we should not be giving undue weight to primary sources. Look around at most fringe topics on Wikipedia, primary sources are not in majority on those articles (see for example Homeopathy, Radionics or Water memory. We have to cite reliable independent sources, most primary sources when it comes to fringe topics are written by charlatans or pseudoscience proponents pushing nonsense. You basically want this NUCCA on Wikipedia to be sourced to writings by only chiropractics. Like I said this runs into problems with NPOV on Wikipedia. HealthyGirl (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[9], [10] there are sources which are clearly not chiropractics. Valoem talk contrib 21:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link is a personal interview with a chiropractor Jason Langslet, your second link is a video of the chiropractor Devin Luzod... These are not independent sources. How about you find six to ten reliable sources written by medical experts or skeptics who are obviously not chiropractors, maybe then you have a valid case of keeping this article. Until then, I have nothing else to say on this and will not be further responding. Take care. HealthyGirl (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you try doing a search for example this source [11] is perfectly fine and yes we can use chiropractics sources such as this it is not a primary source, although there are some medical claims in the article which needs to be removed. Chiropractics is a huge field it seems you are forgetting that. Valoem talk contrib 21:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert A. Leach is a chiropractic practitioner, as is Kirk Eriksen, these are not independent sources of the subject. The book Suckers is reliable but only briefly discussed NUCCA on one page of the book (p. 152). HealthyGirl (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine for the authors to have chiropractic affiliations if they are writing for reliable publishers independent from the chiropractic industry like Demos Medical Publishing (a Springer Publishing imprint) and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (a Wolters Kluwer imprint). Reliable publishers independent from the chiropractic industry are independent sources. Cunard (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who is correct. See Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#What_is_an_independent_source.3F. QuackGuru (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i'm afraid I won't be of much help, for I think this borderline. What I' d like to see is details on the various techniques in this field, not divided up by the names of the people who promote them or the trade name they use. I would be interested in a a way of comparing the different practices, not treating them one by one. But merging them excessively leads in practice inevitably to loss of information, because we have no good way of determining the content of an article, as compared to f\determining its existence. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: I fixed the article removed medical claims and added information from the sources Cunard (talk · contribs) found. Is it better? Valoem talk contrib 07:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Valoem, I did a little further cleanup. But I think you may have removed a little too much--it is impossible to tell from the current version of the article what the chiropractor using the method actually does--the previous version was considerably clearer about that. I don't think it's promotional to describe the subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Description is not the same as promotion, and a good description is essential for any article, including those about quackery.
I also did some reworking/restoring to the lead. NUCCA does not refer to the technique, only the organization. The date is 1966. We were using both 1966 and 1996. We don't use titles like "Dr." I added a couple details and wikilinks, and added a primary source, as allowed for such content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: and @BullRangifer: I 100% agree, unfortunately I am trying to compromise right now a string of chiropractic article are being forcably merged right now I was hoping the outcome of this AfD may be prevent rampant WP:IDONTLIKEITs from coming to fruition. Valoem talk contrib 14:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ozzie10aaaa, that's an irrelevant argument. The mission of Wikipedia is to document the sum total of human knowledge as mentioned in RS. We know that includes lots of facts, opinions, lies, conspiracies, and BS. Our job is to document all of it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if I'm not mistaken another editor (Mikael Häggström [12]) made a similar comment,..(though I do see your point, it also lacks WP:RS...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mass OR was added during the AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the history see here, I removed that OR but it was requested to be added so I undid my remove. There was a discussion that said the article was better with that information. Valoem talk contrib 22:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section is unsourced. How is the article better with WP:OR? QuackGuru (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably better to have it removed. Regardless there are clearly reliable sources here. Valoem talk contrib 01:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:G11) performed by User:Deb. (non-admin closure) TigraanClick here to contact me 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endpoint Mixing

[edit]
Endpoint Mixing (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)

Blatantly promotional and unreferenced. may fail general notability guidelines. Daniel kenneth (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by Bbb23, CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandu Yarram

[edit]
Chandu Yarram (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 meet WP:GNG. Coverage lacks depth, consisting only of articles in India-West that look like press releases. Other sources are self-published. WP:TOOSOON. ubiquity (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by Ponyo, CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Burns

[edit]
Lisa Burns (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 am bundling the deletion for both sisters together because of their joint roles and because I could not find anything distinguishing either from the other in the future.

Louise Burns (child actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These sisters only played a role in The Shining and before that a one-episode appearance in Kids. This is not enough to meet the notability guidelines for actors which requires significant roles in multiple media. After this, they both retired to become a lawyer and a scientist. The subjects also do not meet the general notability guidelines because there is not in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. There is an interview with the Daily Mail and some articles saying "what do they look like now?", but those are only applicable to notability for one event, and are not enough to write a verifiable biographical article about their lives and careers.

Lastly the articles should be salted due to continuous recreation despite having been speedy deleted multiple times before without any changes to indicate notability. Opencooper (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Lavett

[edit]
John Lavett (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:BIO.ambassadors are not inherently notable. Nothing in gnews. Nothing in major Australian news site abc.net.au Whilst this article cites an obituary in a major Australian paper, it is written by his wife so not third party LibStar (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 15:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hideaki Yamazaki

[edit]
Hideaki Yamazaki (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 kickboxer who fails to meet WP:NKICK. Also fails WP:GNG since the only references are to fight results.Mdtemp (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination/Keep I forgot to check Combat Press for his ranking. He does meet NKICK.Mdtemp (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simply competing at the event, where he lost in the first round, would not meet NKICK. I think that's even more true since K-1 has lost some of the cachet it used to have. However, he is ranked in the world top 10. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:Crystalball. We really would have to wait until the rankings come out before that condition of WP:NKICK is met.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Since Liverkick is being lazy I looked for the site with the most recently updated rankings. Lo and behold May 2016 Yamazaki is ranked #2 in the world. I will update the article to include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.112.47 (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hart (boxing)

[edit]
Jack Hart (boxing) (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)

Boxer and referee with no indication of notability. There's no significant reliable coverage to meet WP:GNG and nothing shows he meets WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Lahore Fort#Gates. North America1000 23:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masti Gate

[edit]
Masti Gate (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 notable enough, very little information on the page, could be contained within the page on the Lahore Fort Mpdehnel (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per SNOW--obviously. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Detlef Seif

[edit]
Detlef Seif (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 enough sources to pass BLP notablity Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is currently a German Bundestag MP. Everything is sourced. What is your problem?--Gerry1214 (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but with this "argument" you could delete every article about German or every other country's topics or persons. Why is English Wikipedia only for English or American persons? Nonsense.--Gerry1214 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to understand what I meant. However after checking WP:POLITICIAN, I changed my comment to Keep because it meets the requirements. I should note that you are very defensive about the article that you created, without presenting counter arguments or reasons for the nom to fail. You should've said that it meets WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN and you were set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeviantAttitude (talk • contribs) 15:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Prieto Tugores

[edit]
Emilia Prieto Tugores (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)

Terrible article, and see all the banners it has. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC) UPDATE: It's pretty clear the consensus is to keep this article. Can someone who knows how please mark this as resolved (or whatever it's called)? Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's no need to antagonize each other pls Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bash at the Beach (2016) and WWE: Live In Hawaii. WWE Live in Hawaii (2016) was deleted by User:Fences and windows on 12 May 2016 per WP:A10.North America1000 23:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bash at the Beach (2016)

[edit]
Bash at the Beach (2016) (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)

It doesn't seem that there is significant coverage of this event in independent reliable sources. The sources ([13], [14])for the claim that the event will be broadcast on the WWE network don't seem reliable (the 1st is a boxing site, and the 2nd link does not work), and the WWE list it as being just a live event (which are usually not notable), not one being broadcast: [15]). It seems it's broadcast status, and title, may be a hoax. This website: [16], for example, refers to a tweet apparently from WWE_Hawaii twitter account which is non existent, and the link to the tweet does not work.

I think this should only be re-created if we have confirmation that it will be a WWE Network event or PPV (which are generally notable), or significant coverage in reliable sources (as per usual notability standard).

I also propose WWE: Live In Hawaii and WWE_Live_in_Hawaii_(2016) for deletion under the same rationale, as they refer to the same event. Silverfish (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Silverfish (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Article has been speedy deleted G7 (not by me). Peridon (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Father Saturnino Urios University - Arbp. Carmelo D.F. Morelos Campus

[edit]
Father Saturnino Urios University - Arbp. Carmelo D.F. Morelos Campus (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)

It's a small campus of a larger university, Not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not; a sentence to say it exists in the context of other (if any) campuses (campii?!), perhaps? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perdidon, I G7'd in on that account after you removed the other speedy- I was slightly confused, as I thought you'd deleted it by mistake; but it looks like the creator removed everything bit by bit rather than just blanking? Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what he's doing - he seems to have dismantled bits of it before. To me, removing all of it bit by bit equals blanking. Just takes longer. Peridon (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One piece at a time, eh ;) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Amer Dabbas

[edit]
Rami Amer Dabbas (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)

No evidence of notability. Only one of the sources is substantially about him, and that is just a report of one incident, in a doubtfully significant source. I think the article arguably qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion A7, but it has previously been deleted twice, once under A7 and once via PROD, so I thought it better to enable it to be discussed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to the albums the songs appears on.. North America1000 22:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legend (Drake song)

[edit]
Legend (Drake song) (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)
10 Bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Know Yourself (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No Tellin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
6 God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Used To (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
6 Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now & Forever (Drake song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Digital Dash (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Big Rings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Live from the Gutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Diamonds Dancing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scholarships (Drake and Future song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Plastic Bag (Drake and Future song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm the Plug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Change Locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keep the Family Close (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
9 (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
U with Me? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Feel No Ways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hype (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Weston Road Flows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Redemption (Drake song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
With You (Drake song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Faithful (Drake song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Still Here (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Controlla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grammys (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Childs Play (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Too Good (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Summers Over Interlude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fire & Desire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Views (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominating all 33 articles for deletion. All of them are non-notable Drake songs from his last three musical releases. While every song managed to chart, this no longer seems to be anything of merit, with peoples whole albums managing to chat on the Hot 100 and corresponding charts nowadays. No mentions in third-party sources. Azealia911 talk 12:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I notified Drizzy010, who created many of these articles or converted them from redirects to articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, Jonesey95, I was planning to leave a courteous message before nominating but it completely slipped my mind. Azealia911 talk 12:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to their respective albums until "significant coverage in reliable sources" is available. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - not enough coverage to warrant individual articles. Robman94 (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't mind having articles for songs that have charted. That being said, if consensus dictates these songs should not have standalone articles, we should redirect, not delete. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the articles of whatever albums the songs are a part of. JumpiMaus (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if all these Drake songs get deleted, then I want all the songs off Beyoncé's Lemonade and Kendrick Lamar's To Pimp a Butterfly to be deleted as well. All those songs that have articles have less value than all of those Drake songs because they have charted. Drizzy010 (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate them yourself. Nobody's stopping you. Azealia911 talk 15:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh my fault. Bad examples. You're clearly a hipster then. What I meant to say was that we should delete all of Azealia Banks songs that have articles since they have absolutely NOOOOOOOO value whatsoever. Drizzy010 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drizzy010, please comment on content, not contributors. Like I said, if you feel so irritated that you want to nominate articles for deletion to 'get back' at an editor, feel free. These nominations are not to say that your hard work isn't appreciated and I can understand that 32 articles you just created from redirects all being redirected back again at once must be frustrating, but they are simply not notable. Per WP:NSONGS, while charting history is a positive factor in determining whether a song is notable enough for it's own article, it must first and foremost be mentioned in multiple, reliable third sources (outside of album reviews). This is the reason I have nominated these titles for deletion, because unless they are all fluffed up with album reviews, they will all remain stub-short articles. Azealia911 talk 16:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Given that Drizzy010 demanded the deletion of other articles should these 32 be redirected, which looks like it will be the case, I have looked over their suggestions and taken to nominate several non-notable songs from Kendrick Lamar's To Pimp a Butterfly album here. Azealia911 talk 20:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drizzy, please don't fall into the "other stuff exists" mindset, it won't get you anywhere on Wikpedia. Don't focus on other stuff out there that may or not be appropriate for articles, focus on showing that there's sourcing and content to be said about these individual songs other than the fact that they briefly charted. These tiny stub song articles, as is, when faced under scrutiny, are almost always redirected, unless you've got some huge ideas for expansion or something... Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Drizzy010: Several album tracks on Lemonade and To Pimp a Butterfly are notable independently from their parent albums. As someone else has mentioned, "other stuff exists" is a poor AfD rationale. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Drizzy010: please stop emulating @Azealia911:'s signature. Its a violation of Wikipedia policy and is borderline stalking. —IB [ Poke ] 14:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to sound like a diva but yes I agree, thankyou. Azealia911 talk 15:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I think he simply doesn't know about the 4-tilda signing thing, so he copied and modified the closest sig here. I just changed the sigs back to standard sigs. Robman94 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Queiroz Jr

[edit]
Cristiano Queiroz Jr (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 wrote to Wikimedia and asked for deletion. Per our standard procedures, we will offer to nominate if they so choose. I offer no opinion on the merits. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the support. If this comes down to a close call, and confirmation would sway any votes, I can request permission to make the information more public, but we do not release emails without permission.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood ruined

[edit]
Childhood ruined (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)

No sign of widespread mainstream use on the article apart from two articles on Cracked.com. I was told to see the notability of this phrase by looking on Reddit, which isn't really an argument for notability at all. '''tAD''' (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cricketers who scored a century in their last Test match

[edit]
List of cricketers who scored a century in their last Test match (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)

What makes it notable to score in their last match? It happens in a lot of sports without being notable (although fun for the player themselves). Scoring itself is not notable and not in last match either, and it is enough to mention in the players own article, but not need for a list for it. Qed237 (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article itself was created from that link so that doesn't need original research. GreenCricket (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 22:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best Friends (TV series)

[edit]
Best Friends (TV series) (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 tv show - Can't find any evidence of notability (and judging by the fact it's been unsourced for 6+ years I'd say no one else can either), Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sam Sailor Talk! 17:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AllNovaScotia

[edit]
AllNovaScotia (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.205.170 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After two consecutive relists, there has been no further discussion and having a third relist wouldn't have any effect in my opinion: closing this as no consensus. (non-admin closure) st170etalk 01:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ROMES (band)

[edit]
ROMES (band) (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:TOOSOON article about a band who only just released their debut EP two weeks ago, and who have not yet passed WP:NMUSIC for anything nor garnered enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Our notability criteria for bands do not include "a famous musician tweeted about them", performing on a podcast does not satisfy the live performance criteria (especially if the only source for that performance is the podcasters' own self-published website about their own podcast, rather than media coverage of the performance), and the referencing here is 60 per cent primary sources and 40 per cent blurbs that aren't substantive enough to carry GNG if they're the best you can do for RS. Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which a band is entitled to have an article as soon as they can be verified as existing; it's an encyclopedia, on which certain standards of notability and sourceability have to be met for a band to earn an article. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a stronger notability claim and better sourcing can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band should meet the WP:NMUSIC guidelines as (1) Their music was licensed by TNT for a national broadcast in the U.S; (2) One of their EP songs has been added to rotation on CBC radio. Also, there are multiple references in this article from notable published sources including The Guardian and Vice Magazine. unsigned comment added by Jord.sheehy (talk • contribs) 22:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Track licensing for a television program counts toward notability if it can be reliably sourced to media coverage — it does not count toward notability if you have to depend on a Facebook post to "source" it, as social media posts are never valid or reliable sourcing for Wikipedia content. Similarly, the claim that they were playlisted by Sonica is not referenced to any media coverage which verifies that they were playlisted by Sonica; it's "referenced" to the "songs played within the last week" scroll on a standalone non-networked radio station that is not Sonica, and thus fails to even verify the claim being sourced to it. (2) As I already noted in the original nomination statement, both the Guardian and Vice references are blurbs, which are not substantive enough to carry a band over NMUSIC or GNG if they're the best you can do for sourcing.
NMUSIC cannot be passed by just asserting passage of an NMUSIC criterion — the quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to verify and support the accuracy of the claim is what determines whether the band gets over NMUSIC or not. And exactly none of the sourcing here is good enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian and Vice links you provided there are the same two references I already addressed above: they're blurbs, which are not substantive enough to carry GNG if they're the best you can do for sourcing. Not because of where they are, but because of how long they aren't. Bearcat (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Greyhawk deities. North America1000 22:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obad-Hai

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Obad-Hai (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 article contains only primary sources, and there are no apparent non-trivial, non-primary sources that could be added to establish real world notability when using the find sources links above. Keep arguments in the last AfD basically boiled down to WP:INHERITED. TTN (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned, that argument is simply nothing more than "it's part of an old series and shares in its notability." If that age actually mattered, there would be non-primary sources showing real world notability. From the links above, the best available is a mention of "this is an example of a nature-related god in D&D", which is trivial at absolute best. TTN (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both your own and the comment you cited amount to little more than WP:ITSIMPORTANT. It's not a valid reason to keep, and if you believe that independent, reliable coverage exists for Obad-Hai, you need to prove it. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The author requested deletion, but I don't think that trumps the developing consensus here. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urios Arena

[edit]
Urios Arena (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)

There are almost no MENTIONS of this subject in sources. I can barely confirm it exists. Does not even come close to WP:GNG. Please delete or redirect to its college Father Saturnino Urios University, which is notable. But this subject is so WP:MILL that there are no reliable sources even proclaiming its existence. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 10:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Preston

[edit]
Bobby Preston (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)

Borderline for meeting WP:ENT. Has had roles in 3 films that currently have pages but their notability is questionable and they were undoubtedly minor. Tagged as possibly non-notable since 2010 so a discussion is warranted to decide the matter either way. Dubbinu | t | c 10:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ape Productions

[edit]
Big Ape Productions (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)

Previously at PROD, where it expired but was later removed by Adam9007 for "I think there is some claim of significance, and there is a reference". A few months later, this article still shows no signs of notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Ponich

[edit]
Brett Ponich (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He was drafted 48th overall, and that doesn't make him notable. Joeykai (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 previously, opinions remain split about whether this flower of the English language is a notable enough neologism to warrant article-level coverage.  Sandstein  17:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckservative

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Cuckservative (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)

Term that only has been used for a short period of time by a some conservatives and White supremacists. Can be covered under Republican In Name Only. Laber□T 06:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I wanted to point out is its limited use making it, in my opinion, not notable enough, not that it is used by groups that are unlikeable. --Laber□T
From WP:GNG... "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Even the most casual perusal of the cited sources clearly demonstrates the topic of this article has been the subject of extensive coverage in multiple RS sources. A quick Google showed an almost endless number of hits. I'm sorry but this is not a close call. It clearly passes GNG. The argument for deletion appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For the record, I find the term extremely distasteful. But taste is not in the guidelines. And the Washington Post, Salon and the Southern Poverty Law Center (to name just a few of the sources) are not the National Enquirer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The word is not some new term in street slang. It is one that is being used by certain political constituencies and which has gained widespread coverage in the mainstream press and media. As such NOTDICTIONARY clearly does not apply. See When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself says that it gained popular use last year. That's pretty new. I still agree with the previous contention that it is a neologism synonymous with RINO, and the fact that it traces it's origins to the use of the term cuckold on 4chan as an insult only further limits it's use to communities and sources where referencing a type of fetish so casually like that is acceptable. The page you referenced mentions notability of the word, which I don't believe this has, especially compared to RINO itself. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it would be limited to some conservatives and white supremacists in certain online communities, which would make the group of (potential) users even smaller. --Laber□T 09:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of which is relevant. The article subject has received very extensive coverage in mainsteam RS sources. It clearly satisfies GNG. Again we seem to be back to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator is obviously an expert on terminology and Urban Dictionary. Ahem, or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why none of the sources come from said unverifiable source. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has received extensive coverage in multiple RS sources and notability is not temporary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notability should, however, be WP:SUSTAINED. clpo13(talk) 16:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source coverage in the article runs from roughly July of 2015 through February of this year. A Google News search yielded further RS coverage as recently as this month. SUSTAINED is not an issue here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki: Not encyclpedic in here, it should been transwikied into wikictionary. KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 02:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EC English Language Schools

[edit]
EC English Language Schools (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)

Reads like a WP:PROMO article of this company. There are a list of articles as references but they seem like routine local coverage. I don't see anything notable about the company. Don't think this meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 05:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America1000 03:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Síle Horgan

[edit]
Síle Horgan (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 person does not pass WP:NSPORT and no reliable sources are found to support anything notable other than the one statement of presidency of this organisation. ww2censor (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 04:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America1000 03:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Shia Day

[edit]
International Shia Day (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)

No source included. Can not find any third party source for this event. I have tried google news, scholar and book search. - Mar11 (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 04:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Moved - Unfortunately I can't move it so have listed it at WP:RM, Daniel kenneth- If you come across pages like these move them yourself or if you can't then go to WP:RM#Technical, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 16:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jsinghmpls/sandbox

[edit]
Jsinghmpls/sandbox (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)

Sandbox in article space. The title is not related to Creative Commons, the book that is being discussed. Daniel kenneth (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, due to Chuck Haberl's comments. I have no opinion on notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Häberl

[edit]
Charles Häberl (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. Fails WP:ACADEMIC BMK (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/13/cuckservative-republicans-conservatives-jeb-bush
  2. ^ http://www.americanacademy.de/home/program/past/announcing-2016-2017-class-berlin-prize-fellows
  • Since you edited the article in the past with your User:Leo Caesius account, I would assume at some point you were interested in keeping it maintained. You do know that there are procedures available for accounts with a conflict of interest to help update articles without directly editing them: basically the idea is to make suggestions for changes on the article's talk page and allow other non-conflicted editors to put them into effect. In any case, your turnaround from editing the article (beginning in 2006, and as recently as 2011), to your current stance that it is an embarrassment to you because it is "hilariously out of date" is interesting, and I assume is in some way related to this and this. BMK (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is an assistant professor at an R1 university who appears to have a good publication record and to be known within his field. However, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles about assistant professors are usually deleted, which I have recommend in this case. OtterAM (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he's an associate professor, and being the chair of his department (is that unusual for an associate prof?) might count for something. Nevertheless, he does not seem to fulfill any of the requirements of WP:Academic. BMK (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would ordinarily be a borderline case given that he's not publicly known, but a well respected academic in the field. But, his own request for the article to be deleted makes this a much easier decision. OtterAM (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rama Rao Tatineni. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 01:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amara Prema

[edit]
Amara Prema (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)

Completely unsourced; plus, it is a dubbed film. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
year/type:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Amara Prema Rama Rao Tatineni
We need sources to prove that a separate Telugu version was filmed. —Vensatry (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: I believe the Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema (2014) offers the requested verification. checkY !Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That stated, a redirect to director Rama Rao Tatineni would make sense and being a Telugu remake of the Malayalam film Madanolsavam could be mentioned within that director's article, if sourced that it is so. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt: The link proves my early assertion about some scenes being shot with different actors. Thanks for the link. —Vensatry (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The desired action from the requester was not deletion of the entire article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore Hebrew Academy

[edit]
North Shore Hebrew Academy (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)

vandalism and leaking of personal information IRajnover (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Henson's Tree

[edit]
Captain Henson's Tree (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)

No notability whatsoever. This is about one single tree, not a species. One singular tree. Amccann421 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 16:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 16:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More