Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 8 April	10 April >

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 keep. per SK1 - No valid reason for deletion - "Unreferenced" isn't a valid reason by a long shot and you need to explain why it's "not notable", Anyway Michig's proved it is notable and has provided sources for the article to be "sourced/referenced" so closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Nightmare Baby

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

Unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's only 'unreferenced' because nobody has turned the review link into a citation. This album got plenty of coverage when it came out and more since then, some of which might have been found if it had been searched for, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. --Michig (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Rawal

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

Does not meet notability norms. Written by himself. Previously deleted. Shyamsunder (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No evidence of passing WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. The four previous deletions and re-creations suggest that protection is necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as clearly above. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete no notability. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Pixie (Sub-group)

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

Not notable enough to warrant a separate article as they have only one release & info already covered in band's article. Rockysmile11^(talk) 22:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Rainbow subgroups do not need separate articles, and Rainbow Pixie is already a redirect to the main group. Random86 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this convinces any applicable improvements and notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Blaxx (Sub-group)

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

Not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Only has one release & info already covered (and duplicated) in band's article. Rockysmile11^(talk) 22:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Rainbow subgroups do not need separate articles, and Rainbow Blaxx is already a redirect to the main group. Random86 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all suggesting at least minimal notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the discussion. Megalibrarygirl and some others explained it in detail. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Aguilar

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

Per WP:Artist, does not seem to meet guidelines for notability.

There is only one source (an essay by Daniel Perez, who seems to have been a grad student at Claremont and who has only published this one paper, which is about several people and only been cited once) that is substantive criticism of her work.

There is no evidence she has l originated a new technique or theory.

No single work of hers seems to have been the subject of enough discussion to warrant her inclusion.

The article reflects that her work is in several public collections, though it doesn't say permanent collection, and I don't think that the galleries themselves are notable enough.

If this article isn't going to be deleted, it needs rewriting to reflect broader criticism, and it needs to read less like the biography I would read in a brochure for an exhibit. The article is currently the subject of some minor vandalism as she seems to have come up for discussion on the internet. Smith(talk) 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Smith(talk) 22:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure how the proposer can say there is only one source when there are (and were at the time of proposing) 14 references. One of these regards a retrospective as part of the upcoming Pacific Standard Time LA/LA shows; not only is this a very prestigious series, but a museum retrospective is considered the highest possible achievement in the contemporary art world. So that alone would be per WP:Artist 4(b). Aguilar is also a 2000 recipient of the Anonymous Was a Woman Award, another prestigous marker — admittedly this isn't yet in her page, but I noticed her name on the award page and am mentioning it here because it supports a keep argument. The references as a whole appear solid to me. Page should be tagged for improvement, not deletion.Alafarge (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant when I said not enough references was that a significant amount of the references seemed to be to things that she'd written or shows that she'd done, and that there was only one piece of critical work about her art. I think the 2000 award is probably enough to make a better argument for notability, but that information wasn't present.Smith (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. I've done some cleanup work on the refs, and added some more sources under Further Reading because I don't have time to run them down myself.Alafarge (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Meets WP:ARTIST #4b and #4d. Aguilar's work is in the permanent collection of several major museums, LACMA and the Museum_of_Contemporary_Art,_Los_Angeles. Her work was in Aperto at the Venice Benienal in 1993. She is in a number of encyclopedic works like Women Artists of the American West and the Encyclopedia of Lesbian and Gay Histories and Cultures. Statements by critic Amelia Jones in Artforum (October 2003) about the importance of her work satisfy WP:ARTIST #1. Aguilar also meets WP:ARTIST#3; her work has been the subject of an independent book and multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. See the Further reading section for a list of citations. Additionally, while this is not a criterion specifically mentioned in WP:ARTIST, it does give an indication of her importance; her papers are in the special Collection of the Stanford University Manuscripts Division. Mduvekot (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Aguilar may or may not satisfy WP:ARTIST, but she certainly appears to satisfy WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not Speedy Delete based on Criterion A7 To begin, this article sounds like an advertisement and there is nothing to indicate special notability beyond being an esoteric artist. It is written with a very biased outlook that seems to be trying to justify the article's notability by attempting to answer each criterion separately as the article is divided. It was either written by the author or a shill, because it says nothing of any negative criticism but gushes praise. It clearly falls short of the criteria for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons I suppose I'll begin this autopsy but looking at sources. To begin, 1, 2, 4, 10, and 13 have dead links that go only to error pages. 3, 5, 6, and 7 are mentions, no longer than one or two lines, and provide very little genuine information and are instead essentially trivial mentions. 14, 15 and 16 are simply lists of works in certain collections, but provide no biographical or artistic connections. Now we reach 11, which was written in first person by the artist and is thus only useful for quotations; it is obviously not a reliable third-party source. 12 is an article written by a student in a journal for CGU that no longer exists. It was not written by any authority on the topic, and even then only covers Aguilar's connection to a subject, not an entire paper on her; in fact, the journal itself states: "The goal of LUX is to provide a venue where scholars of different fields can highlight their unique findings for the very first time. Stemmed from eligible submissions to the yearly student research conference hosted by Claremont Graduate University, our journal provides an engaging forum where scholarly exchange is encouraged." That is not a well regarded scholarly journal entry by an authority on the subject or even vetted by authorities on the subject. The citation for AlmaLopez.com has a tiny unsourced entry, unavailable without a direct link, written by someone with a personal interest, but no authority (a college junior Spanish major whose "interest in LGBT was sparked by curiosity" and plans to attend med school). Furthermore, while Lopez is highly regarded, she only seems to mention Aguilar because their works both cover Latina and Lesbian ideas. It is not an article introducing the next prodigy or underrated lifetime achiever. Lopez, Cheryl Dunye, and Annie Liebovitz are people who are relevant enough for articles on very similar subjects, because they pass Wikipedia notability standards and the citation/verifiability standards for a biographical entry. If I were to erase unsourced material, this article would be a couple of sentences long. I am rather dismayed that only the OP seems to have read Wikipedia's definitions of their standards (just because you think it is significant, reliable, and encyclopedic doesn't make it so) or verified any of the citations. I encourage those who decide to respond to this deletion request to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability before doing so. If you are pro- or anti- Reddit article on Aguilar and here to conduct your cyber warfare between one another, please take your fight back to Reddit. TwoSpear 21:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC) — TwoSpear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Assuming that people who disagree with you don't know anything is hardly very civil; and what on earth does Reddit have to do with anything? With respect to dead links: I have checked them all and found precisely one that was actually dead (Noriega) but the article itself certainly exists as a quick check in Google Scholar or a library will confirm. Another link (socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu) is not connecting but the site itself is not dead since I've visited it very recently; this can be rechecked later. Some mentions are certainly minor, but two (Valladolid, Perez) existing refs are solidly focused on her work (even if only one aspect of it), as is the museum retrospective. You may not think these journals matter, but others clearly do. And without even looking very hard, I found 6 more sources, all of which were focused either solely or partly on Aguilar's work; I've listed these under Further Reading as I don't have time to hunt them down myself at the moment. Lots of potential there for others to improve the page.Alafarge (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all dead links in the references. Please refer to the references by name rather than by number, as the number of references has changed since TwoSpear commented. Mduvekot (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG if nothing else (though Alafarge and Mduvekot have shown she should pass WP:ARTIST). But let's look at the references which TwoSpear claims are invalid.

Alma López reference is another notable artist and a lecturer at UCLA. That gives her authority. The entry here is hardly "tiny." The point of the site is to highlight Latina and Queer artists, so Agular's inclusion here is hardly surprising. The entry was written by a student, but obviously vetted by López for inclusion.
The UCLA center of gender studies is an RS [6]
The guide to the Laura Aguilar collection is an RS [7]. I am dismayed that it was overlooked that Chon Noriega was the critic mentioned here. He is important in Chicano art history.
The San Jose piece on Chicano Photography [8] discusses her work in depth and is an RS.
The book Women of Color and Feminism discusses her work in several paragraphs, though I can't see the entire preview [9]
There is no reason to discount the Lux article as an RS. Lux is hosted by a reputable university, had an editorial board and encouraged scholarly articles. The fact that there is an editorial board shows that the submissions were indeed vetted. Also, the fact that Lux is no longer publishing has no bearing on it being an RS.
Her artist statement [10] is in the first person and is being used to reference her quote. That's perfectly acceptable.

Also, I would like to add that it's important as an editor participating in AfD that you not only point out what sources in the article are RS or not, but that you hunt down dead links, as the others did and look to see if there are other sources about her. Notability does not depend on what is in the article, only that sources exist. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references back up the claims to notability and her presence in a number of museums helps this article easily pass WP:GNG. freshacconci talk to me 19:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Goodness, gracious. Guide to the Laura Aguilar Papers and Photographs, 1981-1995, California Digital Library, Vincent Price Museum announcement of upcoming retrospective of her work, UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center, World Cat extensive listings under her name. Several pages of links come up for her under a Google search. I think she qualifies under WP:ARTIST, or at the very least WP:GNG. — Maile (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Per this [11] and this [12] she clearly passes WP:ARTIST and per other links WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Smale

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

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

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

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

No substantial coverage in reliable sources as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete We're here to record, not promote. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Individual seems note-worthy, as I found a large number of sources from a Google search. Page should be edited. Justinkowalsky (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nearly every cited reference is a primary source and the secondary source(s) do not establish notability. -- RM 02:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that people have been canvassed to !vote here. SmartSE (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Single year result of a pageant already deleted as non-notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 2000

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 20:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems notable enough ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources to pass WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. Article lacks reliable sources. An independent search yielded the usual pageant blogs and incidental RS mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the provided references or content suggests that this is more notable than the parent article that was deemed "not notable". -- RM 02:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Single year result of a pageant already deleted as non-notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 2003

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 20:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the provided references or content suggests that this is more notable than the parent article that was deemed "not notable". -- RM 02:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 2005

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 20:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Article is "sourced" to the pageant's website. An independent search for RS coverage yielded only photos and incidental mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is OR with most of the info unverifiable. I removed much of it as unreferenced and OR. Main page for event deleted already so should this be. Legacypac (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the provided references or content suggests that this is more notable than the parent article that was deemed "not notable". -- RM 02:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there seems to be some discussion of coverage, the consensus appears to be that the coverage is insufficient in terms of accomplishments or notability. —SpacemanSpiff 05:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Mahajan

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

Has no noteworthy accomplishments and minimum coverage. I regard AfD1 as a remarkable example of our erratic decision making DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found several expected links but still none of this is solidly satisfying the applicable notability and there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is covered in reliable sources but has no outstanding accomplishments qualifying for notability. Meatsgains (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Beside these references: 1, 2, 3 and 4, he is also the head of a major finance company Infrastructure Development Finance Company. Mr RD 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked for references on this person, and because his name is so common, it was a challenge to figure out which references were actually about him. But it appeared there are numerous ones that do not yet appear in the article, so I would say that it needs more work but should not be deleted. VanEman (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, doesn't meet requirements. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable enough to me. Qpalzmmzlapq | talk | contribs 23:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - borderline notable from the sources I could find. Kansiime (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 20:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Black Stare

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

Pretty much an unknown band that released an album that didn't chart in 2008. Sources are insufficient in every way to demonstrate notability. I've already redirected the album article, In This Life (Jet Black Stare album), because it didn't chart and only had one source, About.com. Even their "official website" is a Myspace.com page. The one article that simply mentioned them was credited as "Staff", not even a name. Fails WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major label band that received enough coverage to have a short article , [13], [14], [15], [16]). Also made one of Billboard's crappier charts ([17]). It's always good to search for coverage before bringing articles to AfD. --Michig (talk)
Comment References cited by Michig are weak on merit (the first two, in fact, are websites where anyone can create their own press), but I'll concede being on Island Records suggest its possible there may be something more out there. I suspect the disadvantage is that what legitimate references there are may no longer exists online. I'll await voting to give time for someone to provide a better reason for keeping this. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, people can't create their own bios and reviews on Allmusic. --Michig (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I used to believe that too, Michig, but as was pointed out in another discussion anyone can submit their own words and materials to Allmusic. The site's own submission guidelines ([18]) explain how they draw their data from a second party, Rovi, who vet the submissions and then create original content. Note the third from the bottom paragraph: the editors give themselves license to reference and paraphrase artist supplied materials as a primary source. Which, when you think about it, makes sense when trying to compile data for lesser known artists for whom there might not be much independent press. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key part is "Rovi's editorial policy is that all reviews, synopses, and biographies must written by their staff and freelance contributors, so they cannot simply copy and paste content supplied by artists and labels or studios." i.e. bios and reviews on Allmusic are *not* written by the subjects or their record companies. This is much per any newspaper or magazine, i.e just as reliable and independent as any other reliable independent source.--Michig (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that being on a major label guarantees "notability" by our standards. Most are, but that is not the same as a free pass. The other sources are weak and/or self-published, as has been pointed out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources I identified are self-published. Nor are they weak. --Michig (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3 and 4 were written by fans, unvetted, on sites that allow anyone to submit. I'm guessing that is the case here, as a professional writer would have bothered to at least use paragraph breaks. Number 1 has the band opening up at the 3rd act, so I doubt the article passes "significant coverage" per WP:SIGCOV. The 2nd (and why can't you just link to the actual article instead of the highbeam, since it exists? Useless to the reader.) is a decent coverage article. [19]. I'm still of the mind it doesn't pass GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still referring to the sources I identified above? 3 and 4 are Highbeam articles from the Deseret News and the Boston Globe (because I found them from a Highbeam search - if you found the original articles just link them here instead of bleating about it). 1 is a review from Allmusic, a site that does not publish user-submitted reviews (where do you get this stuff?). --Michig (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Un-notable and unnoticed, definitely not article material.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be very little out there in terms of substantial coverage -- mostly just mention of the band, or at best a paragraph in a minor newspaper. The Boston Globe reference barely mentions them (the original article is at http://archive.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2008/07/24/3_doors_down_and_staind_power_up/ ) --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that the Globe is a solid reference... if you're 3 Doors Down. But a brief mention in the closing paragraph is hardly in-depth coverage. The Deseret source is definitely in-depth, but it's an interview, and therefore a primary source. Other than that only brief mentions, and scarcely few of those. Honestly, I surprised there isn't more coverage. Their song was used as a theme during a WWE event (which I suspect is why it made that one single "crappy" chart). There's not even enough coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very little info available online - close to zero reviews of the album. 52,970 views on a YouTube video, 12,221 FB fans, 1 Amazon review. Nothing indicates passing WP:MUSIC - one single that charted poorly on a specialist chart and independent articles on respected publications are seemingly very scarce. Rayman60 (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford International College Shanghai

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

PROD declined by AusLondonder. Firstly, I can't find any evidence that the school was ever actually operational, so this would fail even by the low standards of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Maybe a search for Chinese sources can turn up some. Even if it was, however, this school is extremely marginal at best: it operated for (at most) 3 years, the article is entirely unsourced, and I can find no independent sources covering the school otherwise (indeed hardly any sources at all). Google (see link above) turns up all of 26 results, 0 of which are meaningful sources. Note that there is coverage of the Oxford International College at Changzhou, but none for this one as far as I can tell. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept" if they can be verified to be operational. I think this probably falls into the minority that shouldn't be, per the WP:GNG. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can only find 2 reliable sources on the subject from Google. The school does exist based on an interview of the president [20] however there was a couple name changes according to a report from last year [21] and the Oxford name was dropped 4 years ago. The first source has a passive mention on the school (it focuses on the president) but has a fair amount of detail on the school. The second source reads like a press release written by the school (more good news are expected to come from the school? By whom?). Given that it seems only one source barely meets WP:SIGCOV requirements I'd say delete, unless someone find more sources elsewhere. Also I cannot find any source to support the Oxford campus claim.--Skyfiler (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyfiler: Thanks for putting in the legwork on this. Just to check, the article currently states that the school was shuttered in 2010–11; does the report from last year say it's still open under a different name? —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the report describes another school that was open as of 2015 and named Oxford international school as its predecessor. --Skyfiler (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay, it needs to be moved to the new name in that case anyway. —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend soft delete due to concerns with verifiability discussed above. Der yck C. 17:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 18:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I'm not convinced we can make this a better Wikipedia article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Sea Islands Museum

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

No significant coverage as required per guidelines. Appears to be non-notable small museum run by a religious college. The article author admits that the topic is only "locally notable". Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 05:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete 1 gnews hits. Fails WP:ORG Wikipedia should include major museums not a museum that is open a mere 6 hours a week. LibStar (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if acceptable to the author.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep the author was misquoted by James Allison and did not say 'only notable' - any more than the Denver Broncos are 'only notable' in Denver. The museum in question is valued by the local community and the whole Adventist population of Oceania whose artefacts and history it attempts to preserve. The 'mere 6 hours a week' opening hours has always been supplemented by group bookings for tourists and schools. Gnews hits do not reflect cultural value and notability - unless there had been a bomb scare there. Nyctemana55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC) — Nyctemana55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

do you have any connection to this museum ? LibStar (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Userfy if acceptable to you. In any case, please reply on my talk page.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar (talk I wonder if it has occurred to you that every wiki editor in existence once had 'few or no other edits' when they were first starting out. Every editor was once a "single-purpose account" for at least a little while. Pointing this out to pad out the weight of non-notable evidence makes the comment appear rather superior and conceited. Nyctemana55 has no direct connection to the museum. They live 700km away and have never visited it. A history student doing an internship at the museum asked for their extremely inexpert help to write a wiki article about it. It was their opinion that it was significant, unique, and otherwise unmentioned on Wikipedia. We were aware that it would be a learning curve and that format and protocol rules would have to be learned (hopefully before they were broken) and that ultimately the finished article would meet all wiki standards. But it appears that unhelpfully shooting it down has become a game for some editors. We're trying to learn, and trying to cooperate, and believe we have a unique and important set of information that will be useful and informative to many people in the future. Nyctemana55 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above in no way establishes how the subject is notable but rather an ad hom attack and tries to divert attention away from the questionable notability of the subject . Adding a single purpose editor tag is standard practice in AfD discussions. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But is does make one wonder whether wiki was originally designed as a playground for pedanticism. There seems to be a huge range of editorial interpretation of wiki standards. My "single-purpose account" comment wasn't intended as an ad hom attack on yourself, but your 'standard' use of it on a novice perhaps amounts to exactly that. You're giving a Quarterback a passer rating of 0 or 100 based on a single pass in a single game, and labeling a new contributor as guilty of improper content motivation for their first article. Welcome to wiki, I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Nyctemana55 LibStar talk) 10:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to my previous response . LibStar (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cooranbong, New South Wales and keep title as a redirect. There isn't really enough notability for a stand-alone article, but it is a prominent aspect of the town and there is enough independent coverage to support that, e.g. Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Government heritage strategy. Voceditenore (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added a paragraph on the museum at Cooranbong, New South Wales#South Sea Islands Museum. This does not preclude eventually having a stand-alone article about it, but it will ensure that the information remains available to readers. I suspect that there may be more coverage of this museum in the Australian press from the late 1960s when the museum was founded, but the archives of the Sydney Morning Herald are behind a pay wall. Voceditenore (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is presumably some kind of tourist attraction. At worst Merge and Redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't presented any valid argument as to how notability is met to justify a keep vote. LibStar (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Subject of article in Newcastle Herald, SMH article is not readily available online but appears legit. Paul foord (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

being subject of 1 or 2 articles is not really significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Well documented museum well known in Coorabong.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

being "well known" in a rural suburb of 5000 residents is hardly a case for notability. LibStar (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft actually instead as this article could be acceptable but I also wonder if this could be better improved and I'm not currently convinced. Not exactly important for delete so Draft if needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 18:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:LibStar, please put down you WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in SMH, Newcastle Herald, and a Department of the Environment publication. The coverage in the Newcastle Herald article is in depth and along with the other two sources should be enough to satisfy GNG. Altamel (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with kudos to editors who upgraded sourcing, plenty of coverage now. But I do wish Nom had undertaken to guide editors toward improving article, instead of bringing a small museum with its own building and a remarkable collection (apparent already in article when nominated) instead of going to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A validating source, [22], and image [23]. Added a couple of RS to article, which now passes muster. Small museums with significant artifacts are WP:NOTABLE. And that Solomon Islands canoe is awesome. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 39 Clues. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Branches of the Cahill Family

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

Article which starts out reading like a bunch of WP:HOAXy nonsense, but finally offhandedly reveals that it's about a family of characters in a series of speculative fiction novels. The problem, however, is that it's written primarily like an in-unverse genealogy, and provides no real-world context or reliable sourcing to demonstrate why they would need a standalone article as a separate topic from The 39 Clues itself. Every individual character (or even family) in a novel is not automatically a suitable topic for a separate article in its own right, and nothing written or sourced here suggests that this one is more notable than the norm. Delete, or redirect to The 39 Clues. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect This article is part of The 39 Clues. The information from this article would do well in either the article for The 39 Clues or the article entitled List of The 39 Clues characters, since it is specifically about character groups in the series. User:Sheepythemouse —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge + Redirect to The 39 Clues. Some of the information might be worth salvaging and re-inserting there. GAB^Hello! 17:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually as I would've also considered closing this as such since this seems obvious but there's also simply nothing to actually suggest keeping this at the history logs and there's certainly nothing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 18:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced article, not even referenced to the fictional works it refers to. As a second choice, redirect to List of The 39 Clues characters. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of potentially habitable exoplanets

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

This is a WP:POVFORK of List of exoplanets. It is based on an index which is was invented to scale to Earth-like characteristics. It says absolutely nothing about habitability and, to the extent that it does, it is based on unpublished claims. jps (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Please see the related deletion discussions on WP:CRUFT related to ESI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable moons and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable subject even if (and I say if) currently not-so-well-sourced. The bulk of the list (i.e. at least which exoplanets are considered potentially habitable) is taken from the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog (check it on archive.org if presently down), maintained by an educational institution, which even a cursory Google search will show is considered something non-dismissable by various sources. The list itself had been yanked from the article shortly before its nomination for deletion; I have restored it and I hope it is allowed to stay there for the duration of this discussion, which will otherwise be pretty moot if the list is not there to delete. LjL (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is problematically referring to an unpublished original invention by the person who is maintaining that site, which is 100% WP:SELFPUB and therefore not a reliable source. We can easily incorporate the features which may indicate rockiness or existence of the planet in the habitable zone at List of exoplanets. This list is a combination of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. jps (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The site" is actually a university's official website, so we really cannot say that whoever is maintaining those specific pages within the site is "self-publishing". LjL (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes we can. It is owned by Méndez. That's who updates the website and he has full editorial control. jps (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - You sound quite familiar with this Méndez by the way you describe this. Hopefully you don't have a personal vendetta or other problem them because that would likely not make you very neutral about this whole set of articles you're trimming or trying to get deleted. LjL (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The guy is pretty visible in popularizing his ESI. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that. Only we can't take it as being more relevant than a popularization. Right now, it's being used incorrectly at Wikipedia to imply something like a consistent measurement, which it is not. It is merely the opinion on how "Earth-like" something is, and there are lots of ways to characterize that other than ESI. jps (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        How do we know this that Méndez is popularizing the ESI through the media? I mean do you have anything to cite this with? I'm actually quite intrigued about this now. But as I said below you are making it sound like we are doing a Conflict of intrest with this guy which (at least for me) is not the case. QuentinQuade (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll be honest It looks like the internet has never met Abel Méndez from PHL actually! A basic search shows the PHL/HEC website and some other booring profiles, However the 3rd result shows his twitter which quite frankly if it's real or not I cannot decide. But all in all I fall to see his names appear in a basic google search where I would expect click-bate exoplanetology related articles would appear, or even some scientific papers. Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Also I want to point out about the whole ESI Score controversy thing is that if we go to [24] and search for "Earth Similarity Index" a whole slew of peer reviewed papers will appear. Take this paper for example, A) Has no mention of Mendéz in it, B) It Mentions the Earth Simularity Index in the abstract, C) The use of the ESI is cited to Schulze-Makuch et al. 2011 which is a USD$55 Paper that you have to buy unfortunately, D) Even "Habitable Exoplanet Catalog" is mentioned as well. And the paper has been Accepted & Received Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Two is not a "whole slew", and it's three if we count one that doesn't appear to be peer reviewed.[25] Alsee (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Looking deeper in that google search if you click news the only mention of Mendez is in the article "Signs of Change in Cuba, by Rob Stuart" which leads my to wonder how was the concution made that Mendez was popularizing the ESI in the Media? QuentinQuade (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Ironically you brought up the idea that Méndez was popularizing the ESI Score through the media, previously it was just stated that he was popularizing it, not necessarily through 3rd party sources. You came up with it and I just went around looking for answers. The answer, the only way he can be popularizing the ESI Score is through his Website or Twitter. Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understand that the paper Schulze-Makuch et al. 2011 has Méndez as a second author (I have access to the paper). It seems to be basically the only paper that describes ESI beyond passing mention. As for media related interactions: [26], [27], [28], [29]. Here is a debunking done by another astronomer: [30] and one done by Seth Shostak: [31] Good find on the MNRAS paper. I'm going to go digest it and come back later with comments on that. jps (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now fully digested. The paper indicates that ESI cannot be a stand-in for potential habitability. It is actually an argument in favor of WP:TNTing this page. jps (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I never said that the ESI was a measurement of habitability. The ESI is a measurement of how similar an object is physically to the Earth, ie. Mass, Radius, Density, Location, Temperature etc. The closest index that I have seen for assessing habitability would be the Life Likability Index (LLI) which seems to be used exclusively only in Universe Sandbox². Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may never have said that, but the list we are discussing uses it as a stand-in. The fact that this approach is criticized means at the very least we shouldn't be using it as it is in this article, and if the list is kept I expect that we will remove the list of ESIs. Is that fair? jps (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable and adequately sourced. Note the deletion nomination of the companion article as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (2nd nomination) James J. Lambden (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has unsourced material but that's why I'm working on a new Table found here to address this. Not worthy of a deletion. Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Davidbuddy9 ~~is the creator of this dubious article~~(oops, not the creator), and is the blocked sockmaster of QuentinQuade. All of the multiple-votes by this user should likely be discounted as made in bad faith. Alsee (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbuddy9 has significantly contributed to the article and is currently temp-banned for sockpuppetry. His sock's vote has been identified and discounted. Discounting Davidbuddy9's vote would be double jeopardy. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbuddy9: I think your improvements will be welcome, but for my information, what is actually unsourced (regardless of supposed unreliability) about the current table? LjL (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LjL:I've complained on WP:AST about lack of citations, I cannot verify the SPH, HZD or HZA values and I cannot find answers anywhere! This is extremely frustrating especially when new exoplanets pop up and I add them in I don't know where to get those values so I was told to make a new table and to separate the exoplanets in the Conservative HZ and the Optimistic HZ which is the new table format approach that PHL/HEC is taking and I think should be adopted here too. Davidbuddy9 Talk 18:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that we lack citations is because these aren't things that any serious scientist takes as more than games. Wikipedia is being used right now to legitimize this, and that's not right. Your complaint is justified and the ESI and all the other arbitrary schemes need to be removed if this list is to be retained. jps (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you make it sound like there is an inside job going around on Wikiproject Astronomy and that everyone is secretly working with this "Méndez" to secretly implanet the ESI into as many articles as possible. We use it here for a reason, not nessearly to jusify habitabilty but simply as a comparison of simularity between the Earth and these respective objects. QuentinQuade (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. But it is undeniable that this particular score is being used uncritically in part because of Wikipedia's ill-advised decision to use it. jps (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sockpuppet of Davidbuddy9. Mike V • Talk 18:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable topic regardless if the main source is WP:SELFPUB or not. QuentinQuade (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and/or Rename Per Earth Similarity Index's refs #2 & #3, ESI is not WP:OR, since it is used by 3rd party publications (assuming no COI). However, any ESI's on the List of potentially habitable exoplanets that are calculated by editors, not published in a reliable source, should either be removed or identified as such to the reader. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given comments above, this seems like a WP:COI issue and not a WP:OR issue and should be addressed to the editor(s) in question. A 3th party using ESI is entirely in the realm of what's allowed on WP, assuming the source of the information is accurately characterized and referenced. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any claim being made that the article's contents have been written by someone who is also the creator of the sources, which would be a COI (but would also in fact constitute WP:OR). I think the claim is just that the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog is a self-published work (even though it's on the site of an academic institution and seems to be highly cited to me, so I don't agree) and not peer-reviewed enough. Even if this were true, of course, it wouldn't automatically make the article's subject unencyclopedic. LjL (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ESI is a wholly different matter. If this page is based on the ESI it is problematic because ESI says basically nothing about habitability. The location in the habitable zone and the rockiness of the planet are the relevant things to consider according to experts. ESI is just one person's index about something similar to Earth. jps (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable topic, per above Codrin.B (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I MIGHT reconsider. I am opening a new section below. ~~DELETE~~ burn it with fire. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST to mirror & promote the evolving fringe methodology of a single primary source. For starters if we kept it we'd have to move it to a valid title, which would be something more like University of Puerto Rico's Planetary Habitability Laboratory's ranking of exoplanets potentially habitable for earth-like life. And that pretty well indicates why this article is a disaster. The contents of the page are almost entirely arbitrary and speculative, and the page tries to justify it by defining the contents to be a mirror for the arbitrary, speculative, and evolving methodology of the single arbitrary primary source. We sure as hell shouldn't be rewriting the entire page as the single primary source evolves their latest methodology, and we sure as hell shouldn't have twenty pages just like this one if twenty different universities come up with twenty different arbitrary methodologies. If and when there is some stable and commonly accepted standard then we could consider that.

Secondly, this is a very short sighted page. A few years ago new planet discoveries were individually covered as newsworthy by many secondary sources, warranting full articles as permanently notable. Advancing technology is increasing the rate of exoplanet discovery exponentially. Currently we're at a brief point where a "list of" non-notable exoplanets has the appearance of being reasonable. However we cannot have indiscriminate lists of thousands or millions of non-notable exoplanets, which is where this is quickly headed. Wikipedia is not a catalog for basic statistics on an infinite number of non-notable astronomical bodies. Alsee (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly still questionable overall, certainly not convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if and only if multiple independent sources addressing habitability are provided. bd2412 T 18:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think that WP should identify an object as 'potentially habitable' in the absence of in-depth observational evidence published in refereed, mainstream journals. For example, I would have no problem with an article which describes Europa and Enceladus as potentially habitable because there are refereed, in-depth papers which argue that these worlds are capable of sustaining life. But we should be more cautious with sources which conclude that a planet could potentially be habitable given some assumptions, especially if those sources are not refereed. Whereas the scrutiny of the peer-review process forces scientists to be conservative when making new claims, a non-refereed source has much more intellectual freedom to ask "What if?" as a means of starting a discussion. This is how I view the (unrefereed) UPR website, and based on the available sources, I believe that this article is premature. Moreover, Alsee is right that this list will quickly become obsolete and unreasonably long. What seals the deal for me is the fact that this article (by its own admission) is simply reproducing information from the UPR's website. I don't see any need to duplicate this content. Astro4686 (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as seemingly based on arbitary speculation, not endorsed by any scientific agreement nor any peer-reviewed research. I agree that this is effectively self-published since no university exercises editorial control over what any academic may 'publish' in their own field, even more so for a website, which does not have peer review. Title itself is misleading and this AfD is more informative than the article about the real likelihood of 'habitability. Article is WP:OR if jps is correct above 'If this page is based on the ESI it is problematic because ESI says basically nothing about habitability'. I leave it to others with more expertise to see if there is anything rescu-able here. Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 18:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of the debate here seems to be focused on the belief that self-published are not acceptable. This is not completely true. Quoting WP:RS, "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy, I was aware of that when I left my post and meant to cover it. Self-published work, which has not been peer-reviewed and which represents a claim very distant from scientific consensus, can, at best, be phrased as person X claims, not using wiki-voice. Given present levels of understanding, an extremely high level of expertise would be required to substantiate predictions about habitability levels of these bodies. I don't think this person has that level of expertise, nor the 'publishing history' on this topic, even if they did, their claims would be better presented within the context of other claims and present knowledge level than 'floating in space'. At present the title and content are misleading I seriously wondered whether the AfD date, 1st April 2016 might have some connection to the article and little context is given. I made a point of saying that there MAY be savable material here, but I lack the expertise to know what it is. Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, my comment was not directed specifically at you, but also at others who have made blanket statements which I am not convinced are supported by WP:RS. You make very good points in your reply, and it is points like these we need to take into consideration when considering whether the source is RS within the context it is being used. Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but rename to List of exoplanets based on ESI. After looking deeply into this, I was unable to find any source which considers ESI an accepted rank of habitability, however it is a rank of something, I'm not sure what. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename, verify, and improve. Something like List of exoplanets by ESI would work, and it needs better sourcing. The problems with this seem to be a) ESI is being used as a measure of alleged habitability, which is potentially fringe (it doesn't seem to be an approach with a lot of support in RS); and b) some of the figures in the table were arrived at by Wikipedians, which may be OR. The ways to resolve this would seem to be a) Don't promote it as a list of potentially habitable exoplanets, but a list of planets sorted by what we're sorting them by, and then include a paragraph on who sources A, B, and C think this relates to habitability, and sources X, Y, and Z do not; b) check the figures and the sources; doing basic math is not actually original research. Manipulating data to get an answer you like is; c) add more sources. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think List of potentially Earth-like exoplanets might be cleaner. There seems to be a consensus that these sources are for Earth similarities not necessarily habitability. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anything like List of exoplanets based on ESI badly fails WP:LISTN. ESI has negligible use or acceptance beyond the originator. It is extremely dubious to be presenting a list with this sort value at all, much less defining it as a notable listing in itself. Alsee (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came here fully expecting to vote a strong keep, then the powerful arguments by Alsee and Pincrete made me do a 180. The topic is interesting but this article really boils down to a mirror of one website. Renaming doesn't help that. Ifnord (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to List of potentially Earth-like exoplanets. MartinZ02 (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand The topic is important as it is currently a major motivator in formal science objectives statements (within the USA and Australia at least) so it would be ridiculous to not include a page for the attempts at formalisation of habitability. Two things need to be added: a critical discussion of the various indexes listed, and a discussion (or further links to discussions) on the definition of habitability. I'd recommend looking at publications under or including US NASA researchers at the VPL such as V. Meadows. I'd also suggest to this community in general that when looking for publications in astronomy that NASA ADS website be used along with Google Scholar. Most of the previous statements about Dr. Mendez read like a personal attack rather than an attack on the validity of the index (other indexes are included here...) so I am suspicious of the motivation. Mendez' index and all other habitability indexes ARE topics of discussion within the exoplanet community and all are subject to very critical review. They are just as worthy of discussion on a wikipedia page as the similarly useless Drake Equation and there is no reason to omit a wiki page that attempts to apply them. 67.183.72.156 (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to List of potentially Earth-like exoplanets. Some scientists would argue every exoplanet is "potentially habitable", just not necessarily by Earth-like life. To get into a wild discussion about where life can or can't exist is pure speculation and does not belong in this article. That being said, it is a notable topic, and if reliably sourced, belongs on Wikipedia. Smartyllama (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MartinZ02, Smartyllama what would the inclusion criteria be for List of potentially Earth-like exoplanets? The current list is based on fictional temperature values of one person making up random albedo values and imaginary atmospheres, and for most planets uses fictional mass or radius values made up by that same person, and he then combines those made-up values into an complicated "earth-like formula" which has little usage beyond himself. That's the problem here - we have absolutely no viable list definition other than the current effort to make a list reflecting the wildly speculative work of one person. Alsee (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. it's not reliably sourced. It isn't peer reviewed, and while it is on a university domain name it appears that it's all self-published with no oversight. The list is basically a mirror webhost for basically one scientist's blog. Alsee (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revised article

Pinging the delete votes to discuss: User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc User:SwisterTwister User:Astro4686 User:BD2412 User:Pincrete User:Ifnord, as well as article creator Davidbuddy9.

The article has been impressively improved. Almost all of the novel and speculative values are gone. It is still defined as single-sourced effectively to a single scientist, but we could change that definition to the Official NASA Exoplanet website. That is a far more authoritative source, and it would have a side-effect of cleaning up the remaining novel/speculative values. We could define it as confirmed planets only. The list is using "Habitable zone", which is indeed a scientifically accepted term for a planet with an orbital distance where water may be liquid. It is also effectively using a concrete min/max mass threshold. I'm not sure if we have good sourcing to justify that mass range. Hopefully Davidbuddy9 can comment on that. It looks like most of the problems have been fixed, or could be fixed through editing. I have one major reservation left. To quote the article, there are about 40 billion planets in the galaxy that could eventually end up on this list. The rate of new discoveries is growing exponentially. Is it really a good idea to keep a list that we know will soon expand out of control? And are there any other major concerns? Alsee (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a generalist, without the competence to judge the science. This area of science is inherently speculative, however the lack of context in the orig. (of HOW speculative, of to what degree endorsed, of preciseness with regard to 'habitability/specific defined similarities and whether these meant anything) + the reliance on single sources + poss. OR were what concerned me. A quick look at the article suggests context has been added. Reluctant to commit myself beyond endorsing that this is now much better, though renaming is still necessary. Pincrete (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: There is currently not 40 billions planets on this list and there are larger lists on WP (like here) however you target the lists that are somewhat notable? WP:SIZE is not a problem there why would it be a problem here? Davidbuddy9 Talk 20:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and for the last time please stop framing me as the article creater you make it seem like such a negative term.Davidbuddy9 Talk 20:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alsee, we have agreed in the past, but I think you are wrong here. Your argument is "delete" because the future is coming? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem if you look up the page I changed "delete" to "I might reconsider" because of the improvements. And the issue I am citing is that this list violates the list guidelines: To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS example, List of exoplanets is already 2-3 times the split size and it's only going to keep growing at an accelerating pace. We can't have a list with 5k entries, 25k entries, 100k entries, or millions of entries. One badly planned list is not reason for a second. Can anyone propose any reasonable list definition that is compliant with list guidelines? Something limits the size of the list to manageable proportions?

And the other issue I asked about: We have a commonly accepted definition for habitable zone orbits, do we have any commonly accepted inclusion criteria for mass and/or radius? Alsee (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"We have a commonly accepted definition for habitable zone orbits," Well actually the HZ varies depending on the author of the paper. I know this because it something complained about a lot between authors (in blogs and in papers), some are very conservative (like for example http://www.drewexmachina.com/) and others (like the Kepler team) seem to be more "optimistic". Although PHL (our favourite :) tried to turn these into two unified definitions, the measurements that are used between different people are inconsistant (EX, compare the S_seff of Wolf 1061 c here to here. EX 2 compare this back to that last PHL link.) Although these are needle in the haysack cases, commonly accepted definition for habitable zone orbits is only something we can dream about. Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was perhaps optimistic assuming the well-accepted "habitable zone" concept had a reasonably accepted definition. I was impressed by your recent revisions and I was trying to find a way to solve this. We're left with a misleadingly titled "habitability" list with absolutely no commonly-accepted accepted criteria for inclusion. "List of planets that one person thinks might be habitable" is not a viable list. Alsee (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another note WP:TOOBIG recommends that article splitting should be considered at around ~50 kb, this article is only ~19 kb really no where near the WP:TOOBIG issue call me back when its ~45 kb please. Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete not notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levin & Perconti

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

Not notable. All references are trivial quotes in news articles about cases in which they were involved; the news articles are about the victims and their cases. No independent coverage of this firm. Nothing better found in searching, except this one [[32]] which isn't enough on its own. MB (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. I was cleaning up the article prior to nominate here at AfD (to help people identify the notability and promo issues more easily) but it looks like you beat me to the punch. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I noticeably found nothing better and I should note I also planned either PROD or AfD, or both if necessary. Simply none of is imaginably better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently non-notable firm, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Article probably promotional in intent. I could find nothing better on a search. Delete as per the various views above. DES ^(talk) 23:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noting that without the promotional material, there is little left. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 22 lawyers and no significant cases. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Edwardx (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Activated phenolics

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

article is not supported by current science; appears to be WP:OR

Delete: It's WP:PROFRINGE , not valid science, google search comes up with nothing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no evidence in WP:SCIRS literature that ingested polyphenols ("phenolics") a) have definable roles in vivo or b) are "activated". On the contrary, polyphenols are extensively cleaved into smaller compounds whose fate is for rapid excretion. A similar article already exists, adequately explaining the state of science. There is no WP:MEDRS literature indicating any anti-disease benefit of a polyphenol-rich diet or benefit of polyphenols being "activated". The article as first written by Revitalizer appears to be an opinion essay not supported by reliable sources or clear definition. The article should be deleted. --Zefr (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the objections already raised, "phenolics" is normally used to refer to phenolic resins, a type of polymer, and it is not at all clear why "phenolics" is being used instead of "polyphenols" here. Roches (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A content fork of Phenols. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phenols. The article has been reduced to a stub after removing WP:PROFRINGE material and pretty much has no real claim to stand alone notability. Any reliably sourced material can be added to the already established article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing here folks; a made-up thing. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MarkBernstein. Geogene (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zefr. shoy (reactions) 14:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strength Matters

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

Doesn't qualify for WP:NMAG. Sources are either self-published, dead links or from non-notable websites. Consensus needed for inclusion. Allahomora^(talk) 16:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page references unreliable sources and dead links. The RS that are included detail James Breese but not the page's subject, Strength Matters. Reese may be notable enough for a BLP but not his magazine. Meatsgains (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is still questionable despite its current seemingly acceptable appearance and my searches also found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absence of reliable sources means that notability has not been established for either this company or its output. Fails to pass WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NMAG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals). James Breese might be notable, but not his magazine. Edwardx (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is already a merge discussion on Talk:Persecution of Bahá'ís. Since this discussion doesn't advance an argument for deletion or redirection, I'm closing it per WP:SK#1. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 21:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Political accusations against the Baha'i Faith

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

Page should be merged with Persecution of Bahá'ís. ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 15:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Political accusations is not Persecution, there's a difference. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

opposed reliable sources have made the case of political accusations uniquely in this case. --Smkolins (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smkolins: Hey there, that's not the point being made. I see you're Bahá'í, and I don't mean to bring offense – I understand that reliable sources have contributed to what makes up the article – the point is that the fundamental premise of the article already exists within the page Persecution of Bahá'ís. I see that some of the material could warrant the creation of a different page – specifically, Bahá'í conspiracy theories, just as there is Masonic conspiracy theories, Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory, New World Order (conspiracy), and others. However, this article fails many aspects of Wikipedia's guidelines, and would be better to merge with the Persecution of Bahá'ís page that already exists. ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 20:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a telling point about such articles on conspiracy theories is who has them - in the case of the article discussed it is pretty exclusively those fostered by the Iranian government. BTW I'm not checking what religion you are or not. Relatively immaterial. The point is how sources characterize the situation. Persecution of Baha'is has happened in many other countries and contexts but few have ever developed a public presentation of such ideas and none except in the case of Iran are current or as long lasting. I've added a list of sources since 2011 that speak to the political character of the demagoguery. --Smkolins (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smkolins: Well, I wear my lack of religion on my signature. ;-) ("Godless infidel") I definitely consider it an important and valuable thing to document real persecution of any religious group, by any country, because it helps shed light on religious persecution, which – when the country has political pressure applied to become more liberal – will bring greater religious freedom for all people, regardless of what religion they are. So, I certainly agree with documenting religious persecution. However, even if a Baha'i conspiracy theories page is created, it would still allow for that explanation – which is being pushed by the Iranian government – to be explained within the article (add an "Origins" subsection, to explain the persecution coming from the Iranian government). Trust me – as an atheist, I have NO intention of ever visiting Iran. However, Wikipedia guidelines should still be applied to any article. ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 21:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So do you want the article deleted, merged, or renamed? Why push all three ideas at the same time? --Smkolins (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard,CSD G3: Blatant hoax. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1899 NCAA Bocce Ball Championship

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

Seems to be a prank. KConWiki (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move Move to WP:BJAODN ? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an apparent hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax/joke. Smartyllama (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete no notability, no sources. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Castle

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

Not notable. Created by SPA with probable COI, given that the first revision was just a pasted promotional blurb. Citobun (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable game with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Per nom. Non-notable game. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for at least basic notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All villiages, towns etc are all kept per GEOLAND (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bohipora

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

Does not deserve to be at wikipedia because in my research I did not find a single perfect source. Aamir 121 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While research I found many websites have copy pasted from wikipedia because this article has been there for more than 5 years but it was survived by wrong references. It must be deletedQalchoun (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)— Qalchoun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Struck vote by blocked sock puppet. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and word trust or verified go along with each other. The article was created by mentioning wrong sources. The articles was sustaining because of those wrong references and being situated in far aeea it hardly caught wikipedias eye. So, I vote for deletion of the page Aamir 121 (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of articles better than these get delted because of poor sources and amazingly this page is exception. Should be deleted Ambivertt (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)— Ambivertt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong Delete As per WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamir 121 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC) — Aamir 121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Each individual can only add one "delete" post - it's fine to add additional comments, but not with a "delete" or "keep" or other "vote" (and also note that it is not actually a vote. --bonadea contributions talk 13:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~It does not exist at all. Tripnot (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)~~— Tripnot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Struck vote by blocked sock puppet. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does - see below. --bonadea contributions talk 13:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as fails pretty much every notability guideline, possibly doesn't exist. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Keep - notability assumed per WP:GEOLAND. Please have a look at the article's history - it has had sources showing that it does, in fact, exist; see e.g. this information. There are also different spellings of the name, as seen in the original version of the article. The article needs a lot of rewriting because it is in quite a poor state right now, and it might be the case that the village turns out not to be individually notable. The number of brand new accounts showing up at this AfD to !vote for its deletion, and the fact that some of the other SPA accounts have been removing information and references from it over the past few years doesn't help their case, though. --bonadea contributions talk 13:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my !vote per the discussion linked by clpo13 below. --bonadea contributions talk 17:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bondea I think you have not contemplated about the thing that the referenence shown were wrong and did not support the villageAamir 121 (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were certainly not all high quality references and at least one of them is apparently about a different place, but in my view and based on this I believe that the references that have now been restored do seem to support notability. --bonadea contributions talk 14:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mam, matter is not of referrences alone . The fact is why village like this will be on wiki which is of no importance? Then here are almost 7000 villages . Will wikipedia enlist them all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamir 121 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on their behavior, I am going to block Tripnot and Qalchoun as sockpuppets of Aamir 121. I defer judgment on Ambivertt, who is perhaps more like a meatpuppet. --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. It appears to exist as a place, which is enough for Wikipedia. clpo13_(talk) 15:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per wp:GEOLAND, or merge to a list. Do we have an explicit guideline about villages ... there are hundreds of thousands in South Asia ... I personally think they're notable as much as any high school is. But probably it would be better to create List of villages in Kupwara district and cover this in a section or a table-row there. Organize the list of villages by "block", and split the list if/when it grows too large. By the way in the article there is mention of fixing the "bund" or "bunk" of the river, is "banks of the river" or "riverbank" what is intended? --do ncr am 18:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'bund' means a form of flood defence, doncram. A concrete bundh is referred to in the article about the village here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's not in some dictionaries, but then I find my way to "Bundhs are special types of perennial and seasonal tanks or impoundments where riverine conditions are simulated during monsoon months. The bundhs are ordinarily of two categories, viz., a perennial bundh commonly known as “Wet bundh” and a seasonal one called “Dry bundh”, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t0555e/t0555e08.htm. --do ncr am 19:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any specific guideline or policy, but I did find this old village pump discussion suggesting there's long-standing consensus that villages are notable, so long as there's evidence they exist. clpo13_(talk) 19:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Referenced as an Indian village (Bohipora or Buhipora): http://www.census2011.co.in/data/village/58-buhi-pora-jammu-and-kashmir.html. Vipinhari || talk 19:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vipinhari. The place is real, although the article needs to be cleaned up. Bradv 20:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable human settlement that is notable per WP:GEOLAND. Wikipedia requires that sources be reliable, not perfect. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There are thousands of villages out there, and having an article for every single village makes no sense. Furthermore, IMO, this article does not meet the Notability guideline. Wasiq 9320 (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. This place is included in official census data, and government-recognized places are notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GEOLAND. It's a real population center. There are "thousands of villages out there" just as there are thousands of towns in the US and UK of smaller population yet we make zero effort to delete those. This is looking like WP:BIAS. --Oakshade (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Edwards (actor)

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

Famous for only one thing. Alligators1974 (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete As per nom. If passes WP:GNG then keep. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as above. I found several sources to improve the article (expanding on the movie - he was the only boy from England, he was the only actor that improvised his speaking role, etc.) But I won't bother improving the article since it's still not notable. Most notable mentions post-acting is as an executive for Mars candy, he "built" a candy factory in Russia and has been an executive for Bristol Myers Squibb in Russia. MB (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems to suggest he has nothing for solid independent notability, no compelling improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete unsourced. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broader Than a Border Tour

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

No references at all, PROD removed. Google search seems to reveal nothing, same goes for Google news. There seems to be absolutely no single page about this tour on the internet, except this article. Laber□^T 10:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per nom. A possibly upcoming tour from a very minor rapper is not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. ~Kvng (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Novak

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whenever I see a stub article on a minor-league, high school or amateur hockey player that claims the player won some minor honor, I think "Must be one of Dolovis'." In this case, as unfortunately usual, I'm right. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence of meeting the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 10:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles seems to be premature to be here. Not enough sources to verify. Zedopuppy (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Malgin

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whenever I see a stub article on a minor-league, high school or amateur hockey player that claims the player won some minor honor, I think "Must be one of Dolovis'." Fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence of meeting the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 11:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Delete: Till now not enough sources are present to notability guidelines.Zedopuppy (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MA Razak Master

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

Article PRODded with reason: "Not notable candidate for local office, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN." De-PRODded by article creator without reason given. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidate for a local election, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If I read this correctly, he is a candidate for the State legislative assembly, equivalent to a US State Legislature. Should he win, he would clearly pass WP:NPOL. Simply being such a candidate is not enough, but it may be enough when combined with other coverage. has anyone done a WP:BEFORE search to find such coverage if it exists? I see there are at least a few mentions in what i recognize as major newspapers in India. The current article is not well-written, and is a bit promotional in tone, but that can be cured by normal editing. I don't think that the case for deletion has been thoroughly stated as yet. DES ^(talk) 15:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search doesn't bring up any coverage more substantial than the in-passing mentions that are already in the article. At this point, it is impossible to know whether he'll win a seat in the state legislature or not, so at best, this is WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I believe that if elected it is a state legislator, and so he would then pass WP:NPOLITICIAN. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotion piece, not elected to anything yet. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate and no other convincing claim to notability is made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since he fails WP:POLITICIAN as of now. OK to create later if he wins the assembly election. Vipinhari || talk 19:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify pending the election outcome. No need to throw out all of the current content, that which is properly sourced can be kept in draft-space until the election result is known. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace per above- their notability depends on the election result. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume that those !voting to draftify this stub have looked at the references and noticed that at least two do not mention this person and the others are either not independent or only mention him in passing. Basically, "all of the current content" that can be verified is that he's a candidate and chairman of an apparently rather minor government-owned company. --Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Planescape. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outlands

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

An impressive and informative article on a fictional place that nonetheless does not satisfy our notability requirements. It cites no reliable sources independent of the game's publishers, nor do I think it likely that any could be found. This article would make a great addition to a wiki dedicated to the D&D universe, but I don't see how it fits our own inclusion criteria. Psychonaut (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is part of a very notable game, and is a fairly major part to understanding D&D. It could be added to a list, like List of Realms in Dungeons and Dragons . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that notability is not inherited. Can you offer any independent sources that specifically cover this fictional place? (Also, there is no way that this article is of such importance that the comprehensibility of our core articles on D&D would be impaired by its absence. IIRC the Outlands are discussed only in optional rulebook supplements and the like.) —Psychonaut (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Planescape. It was one of the locations in the video game Planescape: Torment, so it is possible that some of the sources in either of those articles may discuss this topic as well. BOZ (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Planescape; it is possible that a brief summary might be merged there if there are suitable references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Planescape or Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons), or delete. This only has two sources both published by the same company as a commercial product. Outer Plane is another redirect option, but that article is also seriously lacking in reliable independent sources. Ditto Plane (Dungeons & Dragons), and probably several others. Per Psychonaut, if this hasn't already been exported to a D&D specific Wiki, it really should be. Grayfell (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Planescape. I've found a brief mention in Computer Gaming World in a review for Planescape: Torment so far. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring the socks, there is a clear consensus to delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exioms

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

WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues. Single source, and what the source says is mis-stated (it says the company was a finalist to be on the list, not that it made the list). No real evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. JamesG5 (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing at all better convincing for any applicable notability, this is expected from several believing the article is acceptable but I can see it's not yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is edited ans passes WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues. It is edited to remove any misconception about the achievement of the company. There are enough independent sources. For years the company has been known in India and recognized by various recognized institutions for its achievements. Tweak and copy edit the article rather than delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2021 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two new editors seem to be editing only this article/AFD and Silicon India... In any case, no evidence of notability, despite the deceivingly impressive-looking list of references in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment & keep . Editor is active from last few years from the logs, not for just 2 articles but done active participation in Indian related business activity and development from neutral point of view. Editor follows Wikipedia norms and considers all the criteria for article appropriateness. The comment is biased for an editor. Silicon India follows the notability guidelines. It is not only popular media source but millions of users and various media institutions (popular and recognized) covers news from Silicon India Sources.

Comment One !vote per editor. Please note that "Light21" is Exioms2050. --Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Note: This comment was made because Exiom2050 deceptively signed the previous (now unsigned) comment as "Light21". --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editor is aware of One vote per editor. Vote is edited and deleted. Personal message is sent from the user as a "Warning". Respecting editor choice is freedom Wikipedia provides. User is trying to be bias with the opinion or editing process in the article & misleading arguments are presented. Privacy or name is an editor choice which Wiki community respects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exioms2050 (talk • contribs)

Delete. Just PR gush. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

*comment Fake ID is created Xxanthippe (talk) to dilute the matter or infringement of Voting process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exioms2050 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Disruptive comment struck, editor blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. --Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:CORP notability, just trivial mentions and press releases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles written in a similar context and similar kind of references are given. It clears the Wikipedia criteria for WP:CORP WP:COI and WP:PROMO . There are abundance of cases from all over the world in Wikipedia who relies on secondary (likely) media sources as mentioned in Exioms such as techcrunch, mashable, gigaom ,arstechnica ,Engadget ,The Next Web. There are some globally significant names also Apple Inc, Microsoft which relies or covered by such media. Some of the references are from Category Companies established in 2010 worldwide can be found. Few companies do not provide any values as per the references but are originated from particular geographical regions and covered by local media Adzerk, AdKeeper, Adonit About.me and kept as article within Wikipedia without any obligations. Exioms is covered by media which is recognized globally and their referenced are used in Wikipedia article creations as well. Examples are paytm, snapdeal, facebook, linkedin All content or articles are treated equal and with same significance if considered for deletion. It does not use promotional language or any advertising tone to the notability of article. Eraplackal 08:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Eraplackal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Brand new user, only edit to the article in question. Also added unsourced information that calls into question the neutrality of this vote.--Cahk (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From their use of English, this is a rather obvious sock of Exioms2050 (now Light2021). I am going to block them accordingly. --Randykitty (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, found in a reference on Red Herring: The Red Herring Awards Scam. –Be..anyone 💩 19:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It does not provide anything significant with article written from a blog? No credibility to the source itself. If that's the case every article written on Wikipedia that mentioned Red Herring must be deleted and treated equally. References: Elance, BitTorrent (company), IndiaMART, ixigo, youtube SunTec Business Solutions and thousands of other companies listed in Wikipedia. List of companies are easily found on wikipedia search. Even the Red Herring Article Red Herring (magazine) must be deleted. Apart from this Article mentioned as being a finalist, Exioms has given other credible sources for its notability. John2021 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC) Obvious sock of User:Light2021. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above comment is from another brand new user whose first action was to jump in to that article & this discussion, and who, like some of the others here, has been engaged in other questionable editing relating to Indian tech businesses. Between the editing pattern & language usage this appears to be another sock. JamesG5 (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zedopuppy, who repeated John2021's attempted close is almost certainly a sock too, but it's late and I'm too tired to file an SPI report now - I've just duck blocked the two of them for sockpuppetry instead, and I've semi-protected this page against edits from unconfirmed accounts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the likely master just did this shortly after I blocked a sock - I might file an SPI once I've had some sleep. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solutionary

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

Most of the link are PR. Some notability asserted, but on the edge Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Managed Security Service page references the "13 most significant vendors" in a Forrester Research report, and one of those is Solutionary. Of those 13, all but Solutionary have their own Wikipedia entry, and five are already linked-to by the Managed Security Service article. I have identified at least two other Wikipedia articles which also reference Solutionary. Rdb112 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This would need further available in-depth third-party sources overall to be a better notable and acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and promotional.No actually substantial sources. We should probably look at the other articles also. There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. non-notable, spam posted by his management Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Jewels

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

Repeatedly created autobiography lacking in WP:RS and of questionable notability. If more/better sources aren't provided its value is questionable. JamesG5 (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to note the page's creator just stated it's the subject's management company, so clearly promotional. JamesG5 (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A brief mention in one weekly alternative newspaper is way short of what's needed to establish notability, and that's all we've got. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This looks like a proper article on the surface, but it is highly promotional and I don't think there is a single RS out there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have reduced the promotional tone somewhat. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 New Market, Kolkata. If the New Market, Kolkata article is deemed to be non-notable, it may be deleted through a separate AfD discussion, which would result in this redirect being deleted per WP:G8. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Street

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

Delete [this is the nominator's "vote"] for lack of notability. This street lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. The article also fails to make a claim of notability and fails to provide any basis for such a claim. The article has been tagged as having no references since December 2009, more than six years. The standard for roads and streets is WP:GEOROAD which requires that they meet the general notability guidelines. Lindsay Street does not. --Bejnar (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject West Bengal. --Bejnar (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bejnar (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, probably to New Market, Kolkata. Articles found by google searches above "Lindsay Street" with addition of word 'Calcutta' or 'Kolkata' yield marginally sufficient coverage of it as a shopping street, with numerous merchants. Applying the search to images yields images like this postcard of "Lindsay Street, Calcutta". My impression is that it is a major shopping street; I don't know of any more important shopping street in Calcutta, in fact. :) However from the hits it seems to me that "Hogg Market" or "Sir Stuart Hogg Market" (here is a pic and here is a Youtube about it, also/later known as New Market, Kolkata, a landmark upon short Lindsay Street, is more clearly notable. As it also has a Wikipedia article, and as that article states:
Technically, it referred to an enclosed market but today in local parlance the entire Lindsay Street shopping area is often known as New Market.

I suggest we combine the two articles, i.e. redirect from this one (there is no sourced info to merge). --do ncr am 01:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The redirect reasoning is extremely strong if I do say so myself. Lindsey St is another name for New market in practice. You, reading this, don't be afraid to close this now. Seriously. :) --do ncr am 19:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Nordic Dragon 08:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with redirecting to New Market, Kolkata, is the lack of appropriate citation in the New Market article. Redirecting from one unsourced article to another is not a real solution. I found only brief mentions for New Market, such as in Chaudhuri's Calcutta: Two Years in the City and travel books. I did not find any in-depth coverage for New Market although I suspect that it may be out there in paper sources. I am torn between what is obviously an encyclopedic article at New Market, Kolkata and Wikipedia's policy of WP:Verifiability. --Bejnar (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List I really don't think that this deserves it's own page, but it might belong in a list somewhere... ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Two of the "keep" opinions do not advance any arguments and are discounted. Sandstein 21:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air characters

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

These series characters, as a set, are not independently notable from the main series, as shown through their lack of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) A merge or redirect to the parent article's character section should suffice. The parent article is a GA and sufficiently covers the characters. czar 01:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar 01:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 01:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 01:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/merge Woo, this again. Though in this case, the article has one source, which has a tiny fraction of what's on the wiki page. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 02:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I remember seeing the English dub anime release cast for this like here and there were less than a dozen characters to cover, including the guest appearances (Girl B). The video game lists 9 characters [33], so I think this can be integrated easily back into the main and not have to be hacked too much to mess up GA. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Character lists are valid additions to articles. Splitting articles when they are too long is an accepted practice. Merging or not merging or cutting the article down are all things that have nothing to do with AfD. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We only split long sections when the sourcing warrants it. You haven't mentioned any sourcing or deletion policy that would warrant "keep"ing this list. czar 00:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This article is presently at 26kb and Air (visual novel) is presently at 60kb. Note that at WP:SIZERULE, it states "> 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is already a GA and the "split" list in question doesn't have a single source. If the characters needed to be covered in more depth (based on the sourcing), the article shouldn't have passed GA review. czar 13:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the size can be cut down, Merge and redirect otherwise Keep Sheepythemouse (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and redirect , but it's too lengthy for a minor topic. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now If cleanup can be done then great, if not then there is nothing from stopping another AfD in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? It still has no sources. czar 11:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. A list of in-game characters without any sources fails WP:GNG. Just because WP:ITEXISTS does not mean it should stay. The main article might've passed GA, but this long, unsourced and trivial list wouldn't have made that possible. Wikipedia articles, also "list of [x] characters", have to be properly sourced. Now, looking through WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, using search terms like "air characters", "key air characters", "air kano misuzu minagi", etc., does not bring up any in-depth sources. I also urge other editors in this discussion to look up possible sources first, before voting keep. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a good place to look google-wise, if info does exist then it would be from interviews with the cast describing their likes/dislikes of the characters ect... Popularity rankings from magazines would also count towards WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87:, why wouldn't that be a good place to look? Air originated as a visual novel, a type of video game. The reliable sources listed at WP:VG/RS also discuss Japanese video games. As Air is from 2000, why would you disregard websites? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the caveat that sources should be added and any content that can't be sourced should be removed. First, I disagree with Czar's claim in the deletion rationale that this list of characters needs to be "independently notable from the main series". This is subarticle, with the idea being that it is split from the main article due to that article becoming too large. It is not an independent subject, but a section of our coverage on the larger notable topic. However, any content we include should certainly be backed up by reliable sources. In this case though, there is plenty of information in reliable sources to write about the characters. For example Anime News Network's coverage of the anime talks about the characters in general while providing details on specific characters (e.g., [34] describes the characters as being a collection of usual stereotypical roles for such a series, and mentions details like Michiru attacking Yukito a lot, [35] talks about Yukito and Misuzu's personalities, etc.). In addition to English language sources, there are certainly Japanese sources available (e.g., Hitoshi Doi's database lists Dengeki G's Magazine as having an issue with significant coverage of the game [36], which would likely include character profiles or interviews with the voice actors in relation to the characters). All together there seems like there is plenty of content available for someone to write a sourced list article covering the characters, and the problem here is just that the current list needs a lot of work to add in sources and trim anything that can't easily be sourced. But that is a matter of cleanup, and doesn't require deletion. Calathan (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are concerned not with what likely exists but what sources materially exist. We also don't spin-out content unless it has sufficient reason (general notability guideline) to stand on its own—otherwise we summarize it in its parent article. When we keep character articles, we assert that the characters have enough sources to be considered notable separate from the media/series itself. czar 00:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you what you have said is wrong, both on policy and on precedent. Articles are split based on size per WP:Article size, which does not mention notability of subtopics. Past discussions have kept similar lists based on the principle that it is valid to spin off content when the parent article becomes too long, without the subtopic needing to be separately notable (see Farix's comment in the bundled AFD you recently made for some examples). When similar lists have been deleted in the past, it has usually been because there isn't anything that can be written that can be backed up with reliable sources. Furthermore, I did give some sources above that say something about the characters. A simple list could easily be written by taking the official character page (linked in the article) and supplementing that with some reception and comments from reviews and the like. If that list ends up short enough, then it would make sense to merge it back with the parent article, but deletion doesn't help with that. Anyway, my point was that you don't seem to be even attempting to find sources and are ignoring any sources that exist. Calathan (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AGF. Don't discount my research. Your links are (1) a DVD review, (2) a paywalled link, and (3) a listing of potential articles with no sign of depth of content, so let's not get haughty. Every page that can be brought to AfD is subject to the general notability guideline, which means having sources. That's policy. If an article is in need of splitting, it means there is enough secondary source coverage to warrant the split. I could write 50 kb about the plot of any one of these visual novels—it doesn't mean that then would warrant a split from the main article on length alone. We cover topics in proportion to their secondary sourcing. Can't have it both ways that sourcing somehow isn't needed for character articles and that sources must exist somewhere out there—let's see them if this topic is so prominent and keepable. czar 04:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to replace the "fast" with "www" in the second link (I'm a subscriber to the site, so I have access to a faster server, but all the content is available to everyone). I've fixed that link. Anyway, I still disagree with you that additional sources are needed to show notability, but regardless, I've also been arguing that there are sources. If reviews talk about the characters, they can be used to source the article, and also are independent coverage that shows notability. It might not be enough to write the entire article, but once notability is shown, then reliable but non-independent sources like the official character page can be used to fill in more content. And why am I supposed to believe that you searched for sources, when you didn't mention any of them that I'm finding? You didn't mention the reviews on ANN (there are more than the one I linked to [37][38]), or that other article (the one I've now fixed the link to), or mention that there there was magazine coverage (such as in Dengeki G's, or Newtype USA, which a Google search is telling me had an article on the anime in its November 2004 issue). Even if you don't have access to the magazine sources, you should still bring them up in case anyone else has them. Also about the Dengeki G's issue, suggesting it doesn't have depth of content when the series is the cover feature seems absurd. How could they write a major feature, including multiple pages about the voice actors for the characters, without talking about the characters (Hitoshi Doi's database is a seiyuu database, so he only mentions the pages that involve the voice actors)? Calathan (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I want to mention so that it doesn't get lost in all that I've written above, I'm completely fine with merging a shortened list into the main article, and I'm definitely not arguing that the article should be left as is with long paragraphs of unsourced content. What I'm saying is that a sourced list of some sort can be made, and seems like useful content, so it should be kept somewhere, not deleted outright. Calathan (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs to be said that when the reviews are about a work and not a single component, we cover proportionally by writing articles about the work and not its components unless there is secondary sourcing to justify such a split. With the above reviews, I see no reason why the characters couldn't be covered within the scope of the article. Whether we want to merge unsourced material (and how much of it) is something for other people to decide. czar 06:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The entire list is just a collection of extraneous plot details best left to Wikia. Together, the plot section of the main article, character section of the main article, and other articles like the episode list can provide enough of a general overview that a separate list is unnecessary. Any relevant reception on the characters themselves can fit within the main article without requiring forty paragraphs of plot detail. TTN (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is still questionable for its own solidly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable standing by its own.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing as "no consensus" per the strength of the "keep" votes, which are not based on policy. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Warren

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

Lacks real notability, at least for now. The references lead to things she has done, such as co-hosted a show on Vimeo, and writing articles on blogs such as "the unofficial apple weblog". There are jobs at USA Today and yes, she has interviewed Johnny Ives. However this is all notability by association-- the article subject herslef is not particularly notable. I could change my mind if sources turn up that are about her, with more context and content than the one about her husband proposing by Twitter. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no apparent notability, unless there's a lot more than that one USA Today article. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the lack of profiles and interviews of her is not great, but I think that her longstanding role at Mashable and the fact that they trust her to do their big interviews makes me vote yes on notability. Verified on Twitter with 77,000 followers, for context. Blythwood (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Warren is Senior Tech Correspondent at Mashable, which gives her some notability. Meatsgains (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm deleting the marriage part, as non-notable, but she does seem notable enough to stay. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just notable enough.VanEman (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refuge du Nid d'Aigle

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

This mountain hut is not sufficiently notable for the article to be retained. It is at such a low altitude (2,372 m) within the very high Mont Blanc massif (4,808 m) as to not be of significance or use as a mountaineering refuge, nor is it noteworthy enought to be listed or described in any modern English standard alpine climbing guidebook as a climber's base. In some areas of the Alps, a mountain refuge at this altitude might well be significant, but not within this range. It is so close to the terminus of the Mont Blanc Tramway that it is equivalent to the majority of low level mountain hotels used by tourists which would themselves not be deemed notable (see here) There are two other significant alpine mountaineering huts well above this altitude en route to the ascent to Mont Blanc. The matter of deletion was raised recently within the WP:Alps Project here where my proposal rationale received some support. To prepare for its removal, reference to the refuge has also been made within the MB Tramway article referred to above. I trust I've put over the salient points - I have never proposed an AfD before which is related to a Project that I participate in, and do not do so lightly now. Parkywiki (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator seems to have studied this out. The article is merely one sentence and, glancing at its edit history, never had more. Clicking to the French language Wikipedia version of the article, there is not much more. This website shows not much more. I do wonder if it could be mentioned in some worldwide or regional List of mountain huts, in which case this separate article could be redirected to its place in the list. --do ncr am 18:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that this hut is currently included in lists of Mountain Huts in France which is a sub-category of Mountain Huts in the Alps. My proposal is that this building is not sufficient notable to merit a Wikipedia article, nor high enough within the mountains to be sensibly regarded as a mountain hut at all, as it is more like a hostel at the end of a tourist railway line. As such it wouldn't merit inclusion in any mountain hut list. I proposed this both from the logical arguments of Wikipedia, but also from personal experience of alpine mountaineering within this range, and would never consider it as a mountaineering refuge, despite its name. Should anyone be interested, they can see my arguments in defence of not deleting an article on a lower altitude mountain hut within a lesser mountain range here. Hope this all helps. Parkywiki (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Nothing significant to be here Zedopuppy (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will userfy the article upon request. MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Arsinoe II Octodrachm

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

No claim of any particular notability; the article currently is four-fifths explanation on the historical background and context of the coin and coin-making in the period, with the rest consisting of an "ownership history", but it fails to make the case why it is important as a cultural object distinct from any number of ancient gold coins. Constantine ✍ 19:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure how to proceed with this article. As a preliminary matter, I don't think that this particular coin at the Art Institute of Chicago passes WP:GNG. The only significant discussion of its history and significance is in this article at the Art Institute of Chicago's website. However, there appears to be a fair bit of literature about Queen Arsinoe II Octodrachms in general. See, for example, the discussion of the coins in (1) Hellenistic Art: From Alexander the Great to Augustus, (2) A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum: The Ptolomies, Kings of Egypt, (3) The Encyclopedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information, and (4) the American Numismatic Society's Descriptive Catalogue of Greek Coins. One option would be to transform this article into a description of the coins in general. Another option would be to merge or redirect this to ancient Greek coinage, and yet another option would be to merge or redirect this to Arsinoe II. I am personally in favor of merging or redirecting, though I certainly don't think this specific coin should have its own article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much agree with everything you wrote. For the record, I also have no problem with redirecting or merging. Constantine ✍ 20:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps delete -- This appears to be about one gold coin in one museum. An article about gold octodrahms in general might be worth having and some of the content of this article might be used for that. I certainly think we cannot keep the present article as it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT delete? Or else a major rewriting. I came across this article after working through the backlog of new users who moved their sandboxes into mainspace, thereby avoiding detection by new pages patrol. On 16 March 2016 there was a mass move by editors related to Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/DePaul University/ANT 256 Material Culture of the Old World (Winter). They have created potentially interesting subjects, but most of the time, they focus on one particular example in Chicago. Sometimes it was easy to turn it into a wiki-worthy page, such as Kponyungo (previously The Kponyungo Mask of Cote d'Ivoire now in Chicago), but this coin with all its distantly relevant background needs a lot more attention. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draft later if needed as this is still questionably solidly better. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus after two relistings. No strong arguments either way. MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charu Asopa

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

Relevance unclear. Laber□^T 22:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This looks like it was transwiki'd from somewhere; I'll do some digging and see if the source Wiki has any RS that might go to prove notability here. Failing that or other forthcoming sourcing, this seems an inevitable delete. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep film and television actress with easily verifiable press coverage. Biwom (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Biwom, I think you are probably right, but could you please provide those sources if you are certain of their existence. I looked through several Indian-language wikis and could not find an article on miss Asopa, nor significant leads on sources, though I continue to feel as if this article was transwiki'd from somewhere. On the other hand, in the Indian English press I did find a handful of articles mentioning her, but they were usually incidental mentions in articles more concerned about the shows she has worked on at large, and thus not going to establish her notability through in-depth coverage. Still, I tend to think it highly likely that sources do exist out there in other languages (and maybe some in English which I have not turned up) which would establish her notability. Can you point us towards some? Snow ^{let's rap} 21:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable enough for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the actress has received coverage in reliable sources such as The Times of India [39] and [40] and passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ventrac 4500 KN

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

I originally tagged this article as speedy delete, but I open this discussion since the author contested the deletion alleging that the page is not promotional. The article has no in depth coverage by independent reliable sources and does not meet our General notability guidelines I was not able to find any news coverage or any references from books. I tagged it as promotional since the article seemed like a product listing, describing the improvements over the previous model. It was created by a single purpose account that also added the complete catalog of accessories including copyrighted images that was copied from the corporate page. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an additional indication of a posible relationship between the author and the corporation that sells the product and the possible conflict of interest, the user claimed in this talk page File talk:EA600AERAVator.jpg: "I am the owner/registered user of this file. --Gymirgatey-MDM (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)" The file listed on the corporate page was deleted due to a copyvio.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question What standard applies here? There are a couple of independent reviews, but there are of pretty much every tractor model on the market . . . are all tractors notable? Chris vLS (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests any solid independent notability and there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Questions

I have removed the image tab in the tables to simplify that part of the article. I have an email from someone at the company giving me permission to use the images but I have not clearly understood how to go about getting that presented to the proper person/place. I will work on getting that completed to verify that I have full permission to use all those images. However, I am not going to add them back anyway.

As to the lack of sources for the page I have done several hours of research searching for any references, articles, reviews, and news regarding this product. I have made an honest attempt to include them all. There aren't a lot of sources out there for this and the fact that it is a smaller market item may have a great deal to do with that. This is not John Deere or Kubota so I cannot find much beyond posts on discussion boards, which hardly count as reliable for Wikipedia, and what I have included was as objective as I could find.

As far as "notability" is concerned I do not know exactly what needs to happen with this. I have indicated that this tractor is and all-wheel drive, center articulation compact tractor which does give it some notability. How can I present that and not have it flagged as being an advertisement? It should be noted that I am currently working on the parent page which is the company that makes this product. I hesitated to work any more on it because I was afraid that I would put so much work into the page just to have it deleted. My understanding of an encyclopedia style article is that it presents factual information. I have done this. The facts are all verified in more than one source. Also, I understand that an article should be fairly exhaustive. I have tried to add as much relevant information as I could to the article which is why I have listed the attachments. It was not meant as a 'sales pitch" but as an educational tool for someone who might not what a compact tractor does, for example.

Finally, I have a section that lists the changes from the previous model and, although it does list improvements, it also makes mention of a drawback to the current model over the previous in that the newer diesel is under-powered compared to the older one.

I am willing to make any changes that need to be made and adjust as necessary in order to keep the page. I apologize if it appears to be in any way a violation of guidelines. I worked to ensure that it was within guidelines as I understood them to be. I never would have published the page if I had not felt that it was legitimate in every way. Please let me know what specifically I need to do to keep this page active and allow me to proceed with the other pages. Thank you. (Gymirgatey-MDM (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage to show the notability of this subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

There has been no new discussion regarding this article and none of my comments/questions have been addressed. How am I to know if this discussion is considered closed or not? At what point can I remove the deletion tag from the article? I would like to proceed forward with this now. Thanks. Gymirgatey-MDM (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Gymirgatey-MDM: Hello, please state your relationship with the product or the manufacturer of this product since you claimed to be the owner/registered user of a picture of the tractor sourced from the company's site (see here) which was deleted due to copyvio.

The main problem of the article is that it lacks any in-depth coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. If they can´t be found, then the article fails to meet our General notability guidelines and it therefore fails to meet our criteria for inclusion. The only two citations that are not sourced from the company's website are one routine comercial listing and a link to the USA EPA webpage where I could not find mention of the subject. Neither one is valid to help establish notability. If you want to create other articles I suggest you read Wikipedia:Your first article. I think it may help you to choose topics that could meet our notability requirements. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no consensus for article deletion, use the article talk page if you wish to decide how to proceed from here with merge vs keeping it as a separate article. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doombot

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

Minor comic book characters. Topic fails WP:N: Cites no independent reliable sources, and none are likely to exist. Only in-universe content and trivia (...appeared in...) better suited to fan wikis, see WP:WAF. Sandstein 18:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a short summary to Doctor Doom#Inventions, as they appear fairly regularly in Doctor Doom's plots, but they are (nearly) always seen in connection with him. No real independent notability. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect as mentioned, perhaps no serious needs for deletion and is imaginably best connected to the series. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Classic supervillain schtick. No shortage of sources if we should need them – Scholastic Avengers Encyclopedia; The Hidden Europe: What Eastern Europeans Can Teach Us; Supervillains and Philosophy; The Supervillain Book; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: How much do these sources describe the Doombots rather than Dr. Doom? Sandstein 14:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. They are recurring foot soldiers of Doctor Doom. Andrew D. is right about his claim. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Doombots are a major part to understanding doctor doom. In most any comic with doctor doom, doombots are in play. Also, Doombot is a important character in the comic Avengers A.I. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. The topic doesn't require extensive coverage. It's just one minor facet of the character that can be briefly mentioned in that article. TTN (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. Completely unreferenced, despite 24 footnotes, therefore this character is not notable on its own. Prhartcom (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Thomas & Friends video releases. MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Site with Thomas

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

Not notable enough. This should belong in the list of Thomas and Friends dvd releases. Now if this were one of the Thomas movies, then it would be notable enough. But as it is, it is just a dvd with a few episodes on it. Peter Sam Fan 16:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable, simply nothing imaginable of a better independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Thomas & Friends video releases. As nom says, this belongs there, not nowhere. Smartyllama (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No clear consensus after two redirects. Nominator changed his position from "delete" to "keep" but does not appear to be a reliable commenter either way. MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venugopal Madathil

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

~~There is one article about him in Indian Express, but fails WP:GNG. And the page creator could be related to the subject. Greek Legend (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a prolific contributor to the film industry in the field of cinematography , the Indian Express article about him is significant coverage from a reliable source, at least one more RS needed.Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are still no obvious signs of better improvements, delete considering WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T-Baby

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

Non-notable individual lacks not non-trivial support. References are only listings, nothing in depth. reddogsix (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Utterly fails WP:MUSICBIO. -IagoQnsi (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the article has to be verifiable in order for it to be notable. There are several sources that verifies this article. The facts can be verified through several links. If you google Phillip T-Baby Fender newspaper articles come up about him, if you search Light It Up (Major Lazer song) wiki page you can see he is listed as a writer on the song Light It Up by Major Lazer, so please elaberate why this article is not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.37.55.39 (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2016‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Is a minor songwriter. The group he is in is notable, but being 1/4th of a minor songwriting group is not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Visual novel#Engines. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KiriKiri

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) We tried merging it to a list of visual novel engines, but there weren't enough sources on the engines as a concept. Perhaps the visual novel article could house a redirect. czar 05:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a Visual_novel#Engines section to the visual novel article and made a subsection about KiriKiri there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more content and several more references (including at least three significant ones, although one is a Bachelor's thesis in Finnish). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added are either passing mentions, unreliable sources, or primary sources. We need secondary sources that discuss the topic in detail—otherwise we're best off redirecting to the section where Mr. Magoo has already mentioned the engine. czar 03:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious how you rate the "History and Comparative Study of Modern Game Engines" in International Journal of Advanced Computer and Mathematical Sciences (true it mentions all visual novel engines in passing but takes the space to call out the name of a few including Kirikiri) and Janne Romppanen's Bachelor's thesis paper as unreliable and or primary. The thesis has an entire section dedicated to Kirikiri; the only downside is that is it written in Finnish of course. Since Kirikiri Japanese software is a subject covered mostly in Japanese I recommend you work on getting consensus to have the Japanese Wikipedia article removed before getting the English article removed as the English article is bound to lag behind the Japanese content (you will likely get a better response there too). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, we're independent from the Japanese one. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or~~ redirect – The standard for notability on Wikipedia is significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. There isn't enough such coverage available for a standalone article at this time. Visual novel#Engines is a potential redirect target (and thanks to Mr. Magoo for expanding that subsection), but a Google search appears to indicate that Kirikiri Maximum Security Prison in Nigeria might be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. Mz7 (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for Kirikiri but KiriKiri (with CamelCase) clearly denotes the engine, no? czar 11:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, perhaps. In that case, redirect KiriKiri to Visual_novel#Engines and retarget Kirikiri to Kirikiri Maximum Security Prison. Mz7 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why you think Kirikiri Maximum Security Prison is more notable than say Kirikiri Station, Kirikiri language, Kirikiri tanker explosion, etc. I recommend Kirikiri be converted to a disambigution page rather than a redirect (regardless of whether KiriKiri the visual novel engine is deleted or not). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because I perceived there to be more sources about the prison than other topics in my searches, especially on Google News. Admittedly, I did not even realize that those other topics existed, so now that you bring them up, I can see the need for a disambiguation page too. Mz7 (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Not enough reliable sources, and one bachelor's thesis is not enough to pass WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Visual novel#Engines - Having played a few (mostly doujin) games made with the engine, it's kind of weird for me to !vote against keeping the article. However, while there are some sources in English, these aren't enough to establish notability, while Japanese coverage is even more lacking. However, the engine appears to be relatively well-known among VN developers and fans, and thus appear to be a plausible search term, so a redirect wouldn't hurt. As there appears to be several things called "Kirikiri", Kirikiri could be converted into a disambugation page. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus. The editor most in favour of keeping the article appears to have a conflict of interest.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classic learning test

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

The Classic Learning Test appears not to meet the notability criteria. According to the article that was briefly at Classic Learning Initiative, the test has only been released in the last three days (Spring 2016). It's accepted at only eight colleges. For those reasons, it isn't necessarily to be expected that it would be notable. As for actual coverage, online, it has few mentions, none of which appear independent (the Initiative's website, job listings, registration information from schools giving the test) except a couple of blog entries that aren't reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is inaccurate. The CLT is accepted at ten colleges and many of these colleges are very notable, such as Thomas Aquinas College, which is rated 30th in the nation for best value. The CLT is referenced on University admission pages which are in no way connected to the CLT website.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyTate14 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but there are no provisions in the general notability guidelines or any of the guidelines on notability for specific types of topic that state that a test is considered notable if it's accepted by at least a certain number of colleges or at least a certain number of notable colleges. There's a general provision that notability is not inherited.

The university admissions pages aren't independent of the universities, which are using those pages to talk about their own administration of the test. This isn't independent. This is similar to the case of a stage actor who has appeared in productions at 50 different theaters. All 50 of them may have profiles on the actor in their guides to the plays he performed in. These aren't independent, and we wouldn't use them to establish his notability.

Also, the sentence "Request that your SAT, ACT or CLT scores be sent to Northeast Catholic College." on the page you cited above isn't "significant coverage" of the CLT.

Significant coverage in an independent reliable source would be something like this article about the SAT.

This is not to say that the CLT won't meet the notability criteria eventually, but it doesn't seem to now. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.northeastcatholic.edu/#!admissions-/c1yws

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can be recreated once enough media sources mention it as being somethign notable. As the nom says, it's a recently invented and largely unknown test at the moment. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @LargoPlazo: Here's a crazy coincidence: editor JeremyTate14 has the same name as one of the founders of the Classic Learning Test. (Widely available info via Google) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one media source, CLT seems to meet notability requirements ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.6.86 (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2016‎

References

^ http://catholicbusinessjournal.biz/content/new-college-entrance-exam-raises-bar-clt-exam-proves-superior-act-and-sat-content-assessme-0

Comment - seems like the creator has some affiliation to the CLT yet they have not declared the COI. A source cites Jeremy Tate as the founder of CLT as seen here. Kansiime (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. SSTflyer 03:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elgin Children's Chorus. A merger can be performed by accessing the history of the redirected article. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Kellner

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

Fails any applicable notability guideline. John from Idegon (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies the applicable music notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elgin Children's Chorus. He only seems to be mentioned in relation to the chorus. --Michig (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or Redirect I agree with nom, swistertwister, and michtig, he doesn't pass the notability requirements. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Elgin Children's Chorus. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As nom, I would not oppose the redirect. Perhaps this can now be closed. John from Idegon (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spiralmouth

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

Unsourced article that was deleted at afd a long time ago, deleted a couple times after that, and stuck around when created the fourth time despite still having no sources. 8 years later it still has no sources. There are some credits which could be a weak claim to notability, but my search didn't yield any significant coverage. Given the afd was so long ago, even though this was recreated not long after its third deletion, going back to afd seem the best route. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches also found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is notable by no stretch of the imagination. Looks possibly promotional. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable group. Fails WP:NBAND. I suggest creation protecting also. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Jericho Summer

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

Fails WP:BAND notability. - Mr X 15:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it does pass WP:GNG I'm fine with just cleaning it up, but is largely promotional. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability has been established. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Vasilopoulos

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

Actor Significance is not shown. No awards, no full coverage in the press is not noticed.--Кориоланыч (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just added a references, so WP:BASIC is fulfilled. Inwind (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the listed sources are simply still not enough for other notability aside from BASIC which is not solid enough to save this article. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: See WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, although on a weaker level, per coverage in Greek Reporter: [41], [42], [43], [44]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gabriel Shaoolian. There is consensus not to have a separate article, and to cover this topic as part of the target article. How much of it is up to consensus of editors, who may merge content as appropriate from the history. (This undoes a previous non-admin closure, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 17.) Sandstein 21:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biowars

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

Non-notable self-published comic series. Only has one good reliable source (the CNET article), not enough to sufficiently establish notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IagoQnsi:Hopefully I'm responding to this correctly, but I did add another reputable source (Wired article) to add some validity, as well as linking from Gabriel Shaoolian's (mentioned creator) Wiki page in order to eliminate its orphan designation. For a webcomic, this is one of the more notable to have come out in the past 5 years, so I feel it's deserving of a Wiki page. --Ekoolaid8

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekoolaid8 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 17 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gabriel Shaoolian at best for now because this itself is still questionable for a better independently notable article and there perhaps no serious needs for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gabriel Shaoolian. I think there's a good amount of sources to create a very nice-looking section in Shaoolian's article on his Biowars project – enough even to establish GNG if the creator wasn't notable already. Shaoolian's article is short, so there's no good reason to keep these two split. We can at least get rid of the blog sources this way :p ~Mable (chat) 05:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 04:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gabriel Shaoolian. The list of characters is clearly not notable, we should just merge the introduction paragraph, because the rest is not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's try not to lose the Wired source while doing so, but yes. ~Mable (chat) 13:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: why is this getting nominated for deletion? Notability is clearly given. There are multiple news articles on it [45], [46], [47], [48] and its facebook page has 125.037 likes. --Fixuture (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Engines and Escapades

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

Not notable enough. It belongs in the list of the Thomas and Friends videos. Anyhow, we don't have any other articles about individual Thomas Dvds that aren't part of the movie series. Peter Sam Fan 14:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as simply too questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 03:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As one episode of a TV show is not notable. Perhaps we could put it on a list? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery in ancient Egypt

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

This is non-encyclopedic beyond repair, a personal essay based, by the look of it, on nationalist pride. Put it outta its misery. Anmccaff (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe that an acceptable encyclopedia article could be written on this topic. However, this personal essay contains nothing worth saving and so anyone interested in writing a decent article should start from scratch. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic. It just needs correct information from reliable (and hopefully scholarly and respected) sources. Borock (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is certainly notable as, for example, there's a book about Slavery in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. It's WP:TNT that is the invalid essay. Our actual policy is that poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Andrew D. (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is notable. It just is terribly written, so cleaning it up is what we need to do. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. A notable subject in history. I also concur with a Rewrite. Slavery in ancient Rome and Slavery in ancient Greece could be useful examples. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to clean up the article's lead, sections, and references, to make it less "essay-like." If I were a history major or had the energy to do it, I'd be able to put more effort into giving this article more content. And based on the existing sources, there does seem to be more info out there that's worth adding. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep But keep it with dated banners asking for help.VanEman (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been improved since the nomination, and additional improvement is certainly possible. As implied by GabeIglesia, this article is as relevant as Slavery in ancient Rome and Slavery in ancient Greece. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to editors who developed it during this AFD. But I agree with Andrew Davidson that if the notability of the topic is not in question (and arguments like wp:TNT indicate that it is), then the topic should be kept, with or without improvement during the AFD. I want there to be a bot that closes "Keep" any AFD where wp:TNT is mentioned! --do ncr am 12:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is clearly notable. Dorpater (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A notable topic, though the treatment is far from ideal. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. It's a major historical topic. But it needs to be rewritten. Smartyllama (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dellusion Records

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

Start up record label that fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Per comment on talk page contesting a Speedy the page was created by the label's owner, so WP:COI and WP:PROMO apply as well. Submitting to AfD due to an editor's concern about speedying it, but can find to WP:RS to show validity as a page. JamesG5 (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agreed. ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 15:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, non notable self promotional article. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Per nom. Ridiculous that this was sent to AfD in the first place. JMHamo (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tarar Media

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

Less than one year old company, with a poorly translated article that only references the company's own pages as sources, no WP:RS offered. Nommed for Speedy, another editor disagreed on the basis of the founder's (Waseem Tarar) notability but that does not accrue. Company appears to exist solely to operate Fitraak News so at best it should be merged as a section there, no evidence it warrants its own article. Also noting that User:Win 734 C is heavily involved in creating or editing all 3 articles, it appears there's a potential WP:COI and WP:PROMO issue. JamesG5 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Smith(talk) 22:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a noticeably newly founded company with no convincing sign of the necessary notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.northeastcatholic.edu/#!admissions-/c1yws

[2] ttp://catholicbusinessjournal.biz/content/new-college-entrance-exam-raises-bar-clt-exam-proves-superior-act-and-sat-content-assessme-0

[1]

[1]