Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 February	7 February >

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kal : The CSGO Player[edit]

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

Article about an alleged Counter-Strike (a first person shooter) professional player. The sources say nothing at all about the player. One is bout the role of AWPer he is supposed to play; another is about Overwatch, some entity which controlled his performance; and a third about playing the game. A picture of an avatar looking just about any soldier, with a huge blurred chicken on the foreground does not add to the credibility. It may be notable, it may not, it may even be a joke. It sure is a unsourced BLP, at best - Nabla (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost certainly not notable, COI. Curro2 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nearly speedy material and nothing suggesting a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non-notable, unsourced BLP and possible hoax. The references on the page just point to generic information on esports and CS:GO.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's a plain joke article. It has subtle joke quotes like "many believed he was using 3rd party aid in terms of aiming and vision assistance." I also couldn't find anything but the player profile (which all of the hundreds of thousands who play get). The writer doesn't understand what adding the percentage to the kill to death ratio means (it would mean the ratio is 1 to 20). --Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:40, 13 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. Speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skratch The Surface[edit]

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

Article about a British online music magazine with no strong claim of notability under WP:NMEDIA, with its sourcing parked entirely on Facebook, Bandcamp, a non-notable blog and some Photobucket images. This could potentially be a valid article topic if it were reliably sourced to media coverage of it, but blogs and social media posts aren't legitimate sourcing — and the level of completely unsourced detail here is far, far too high and far, far too deep for this to be anything but direct conflict of interest editing by an insider. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Bayer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant independent coverage and WP:MANOTE with no indication of martial arts notability.Mdtemp (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG and there's no supporting evidence to show he's a notable martial artist. Papaursa (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 13 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. Speedy deleted by Diannaa, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Njg[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a repository for school projects. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have always argued that there should be a speedy deletion criteria for pages that are clearly not intended to be encyclopedia articles. In any case, WP:NOTWEBHOST applies here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as un-encyclopediac. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 6 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 redirect to New Japan Pro Wrestling. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NJPW Dojo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant independent coverage. I have no problem with redirecting this to New Japan Pro Wrestling, but it doesn't deserve its own article.Mdtemp (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination. CrashUnderride 01:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - anything that can be salvaged into New Japan Pro Wrestling. No prejudice against recreation if reliable third party sourced can be found to create a separate article. Nikki♥311 09:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - a short (sourced) mention could easily be put into the main article, but 99 percent of this article fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY. No stand-alone notability established. GermanJoe (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I reverted an early deletion of the article to allow a formal closure of this discussion beforehand. GermanJoe (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mention at New Japan Pro Wrestling and then redirect if needed as there's nothing to suggest a currently better article overall. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything salvageable can go to New Japan Pro Wrestling.LM2000 (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra de Helen[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, completely unsourced except for a single unreliable source which fails to even verify the content being cited to it. There's enough substance here (she's claimed to have published quite a large volume of work) that she would probably be eligible to keep a properly sourced article — but it's the quality of the sourcing, not the volume or the potential impressiveness of any unsourced claims in the article, that determine whether she gets one or not. On a Google News search, however, she gets just five hits total and they're all glancing namechecks of her existence rather than substantive coverage. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when her sourceability improves. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, no indication of notability per WP:AUTHOR. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MB298 (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. found a review of one of her books here [1], that she was a 2000 finalist for the Angus L. Bowmer Award for Drama [2], and a 2013 nominee for The Yvonne Lynch Breakthrough Award of the Robert Finlay Awards [3], but this is not enough for notability. Also, WorldCat shows libraries only have 36 holdings of her works - [4]. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 8 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 keep. An article being a stub is not a valid rationale for deletion. For examples of valid rationales for deletion, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prioridad nacional[edit]

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

Not only is this a stub, it's a stub of a stub, it literally has a title and 7 words. Schuddeboomw (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Also note that a) the article is longer than seven words and b) There are shorter ones out there. You might also take a look at WP:BEFORE MarnetteD|Talk 22:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep length is not a justification for deletion. Curro2 (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Moreover, this is one of a series of Spanish language WP:PRODs which points out a systemic bias. A lot of serious Spanish language cinema is not translated into English. So they are underrepresented in various search engines. in fact, the change in languages, lettering and names creates a GIGO conundrum for searchers, even though they may be diligent and seemingly thorough. Finally, this motion fails because of WP:Before. All one has to do is click on "HIGHBEAM" above to see that this is a B.S. Nomination. Clearly it should be expanded. Clearly more references can and should be added. But deletion is out of the question. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The debut film of an Academy Award winning director, director of The Secret in Their Eyes. While I agree it's weak notability and not as notable as his later films we generally accept early works by prominent film directors on here. Being the 1970s, I'm sure most sources about it are offline in newspapers. We're better off having the article than not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiichi Nakamoto[edit]

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

My search found no significant independent coverage. The article gives no reason why he's notable except for his rank and rank has never been considered enough for martial arts notability. Mdtemp (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator. The article needs a lot of work to get it up to standard - it makes it hard to see some sort of notability. As mentioned rank can not be an indicator of notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. There's also no real claim to notability, except for his rank, and nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 13 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hill (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. The only 2 references are a link to his fight record and the reporting of a fight result. The titles he fought for (winning neither) were a British regional title and a title from the Commonwealth Boxing Council (CBC). Not only was he knocked out in 30 seconds of the first round, but the Commonwealth title doesn't meet WP:NBOX since the CBC's title doesn't qualify under WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's news to me. I'm almost certain that only last year, NBOX contained an entry which stated that anyone who has fought for a Commonwealth title is automatically notable. Either it's changed since then, or my memory of it is hazy. Nonetheless, I maintain that the Tony Hill article should not be deleted, as discussions for overhauling NBOX are still very much underway at WP:NSPORT, and it's likely that Commonwealth challengers—not just winners—may be granted notability under the revamped criteria. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of third-party sources. Doesn't meet notability guidelines; the one fight mentioned is nearly four years old, and while there was a profile on Eurosport, it's from 2009. Otherwise mentioned just in passing everywhere else; I found more search results on the former Cowboys player of the same name. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No good reason for deletion provided. The article is lacking but that's not a reason to delete. He fought for the Commonwealth title, which in itself is enough to have an article - how long the fight lasted is irrelevant. He was a junior ABA champion, an international at amateur level, representing England 15 times, was ranked in the top 10 in the UK as a pro at two weights, and has received enough coverage to justify an article (e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]). He's notable. --Michig (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep going by the reasons given by @Michig:. Maharayamui (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – at least until the revamped criteria for NBOX is finalised. I see no reason why a challenger for the Commonwealth title (essentially the second most important professional belt in the UK) is worthy of deletion, when something like this is allowed to exist. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – agreed by the reasons given by Michig. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Mihajlovic[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. He has no top tier fights and only routine sports coverage so he fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. No top tier fights, coverage is only routine sports reporting, and he can't inherit notability from having fought notable fighter(s). Papaursa (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler McCreary[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Fails WP:NBOX. Finishing third at a junior national championship is not enough to show notability. The "Title National Championship" shouldn't be mistaken for the U.S. national amateur championships that he has not won [11][12]. In fact, looking at the complete results he didn't even compete at the national amateur championships. He also can't inherit notability from his promoter.Mdtemp (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Fails NBOX. WP:TOOSOON. Most likely will see this recreated in the next two years. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable boxer. At best this was created WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Fredrickson[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Winning two state junior olympic boxing titles does not show notability. Fails WP:NBOX and can't get notability from who his promoter is.Mdtemp (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Fails NBOX. WP:TOOSOON. Most likely will see this recreated in the next two years. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable boxer. At best it's WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Undefeated professional record, famous promoter and KO win over a notable boxer in Juan Santiago should be taken into account. Victory Sports

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code biology[edit]

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

WP:NEO with no secondary sources to show the term's usage; seems to be a recent one-man splinter theory from biosemiotics. The only sources that mention the concept of "code biology" are Marcello Barbieri's 2003 paper and 2015 book, all other sources appear to be general papers about codes in nature which Barbieri has presumably used as references when writing his book.

I prodded the article as a WP:NEO. User:Marcello Barbieri edited the article a little, removed the template and explained at Talk:Code biology that "The fact that the term “Code Biology” appears to be associated with only one author (Marcello Barbieri) is because he has invented that term to indicate the study of all codes of life, and in particular the study of all codes that came after the genetic code and before the codes of culture." Even with the extra context about Barbieri dismissing biosemiotics as unscientific and forming a splinter society, if a man has invented a term and the term has not been the subject of secondary sources, the article fails WP:NEO. McGeddon (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For notability concerns, for COI editing, and for copyvio concerns. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Cleaning out the copyvio doesn't change my notability concerns and COI concerns. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:COI, WP:GNG fail, copyvio, and a very strong appearance of WP:OR as well. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Cleaned out as much copyright violations/close paraphrasing as I did find. No opinion on the underlying subject so far.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article lacks a proper lede sentence. Maybe the lede was cleaned out as copyvio. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did remove it for that reason and put a note on the talk page requesting a new one.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear case of WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:COI. Any comments on the author's page, Marcello Barbieri, for a deletion nom also? It seems to fail most of the same issues. Blythwood (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he is notable. His bio has been substantially cleaned up and I have added sources. We should not have such a kneejerk reaction to an autobio. Fences&Windows 21:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy already discussed. And how can the world be literally teeming with codes? Roches (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment “A paper unrelated to the Code Biology Society that explores the term “code biology” has been published by Evelyn Tavares and Marcos Buckeridge in Plant Science (2015) Vol 241, p. 286-294.

In that paper: (1) Code Biology is explicitly mentioned in the Abstract and in the Conclusions, (2) The Introduction begins with the words...”In the new era of Code Biology...”, (3) the forth section of the paper is entitled “Plant cell walls in the context of Code Biology”, and (4) in Acknowledgements only Brazilians institutions are mentioned and there is no mention whatsoever of the Code Biology Society. Marcello Barbieri (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I partly disagree with the original research argument, because the author's research has been published outside Wikipedia. However, I am not changing my !vote, because there are still POV and COI issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-advertisement by the coiner of this neologism, with no substantive existence outside the creator's own work. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of Marcello Barbieri page (3 Feb 2016)[edit]

Author’s accompanying letter:

The reviewer has specifically asked the author to “… provide more information on what others have said about him”, and to this purpose I have explicitly quoted the comments made by Karl Popper, René Thom and Carl Woese about “The Semantic Theory of Evolution” (1985) and those made by Noam Chomsky and Michael Ghiselin about “The Organic Codes” (2003). Admittedly, those comments appeared on the back-covers of my books, but there is no doubt (I hope) that they were free expressions of those academics.

In order to give the reader more information, I have substantially restructured the page in question, with the result that the word count has raised from 1152 to 2432 words and the references from 12 to 49. It remain true, however, that Code Biology is a field in its infancy and to illustrate this point I have compared it to what electricity was at the time of Isaac Newton and Benjamin Franklin.

Finally I have included, as requested, “an Early Life and Education section stating, among other things, where he obtained his Ph.D.” (the old Italian “Laurea” is not exactly equivalent to a Ph.D. but it was a full academic qualification).

I remain of course willing to address other questions if necessary. Best regards Marcello Barbieri Marcello Barbieri (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Code Biology page (8 Feb 2016)[edit]

Author’s accompanying letter:

This revised version aims at addressing the points raised by the reviewers.

Reviewer McGeddon has remarked that Code Biology has originated by “Barbieri dismissing biosemiotics as unscientific and forming a splinter society”. In reality the polemics with Biosemiotics was only a secondary accident and for this reason it has been removed from the revised version.

Reviewer McGeddon has also raised the issue of the secondary sources in Code Biology, and I suggest that they are of three kinds: (1) the 12 members of the Code Biology Society (see their websites in External links), (2) the participants in the Code Biology Conferences (see the conference photogalleries in External links); and (3) all those who have published articles on the organic codes that appeared after the genetic code and before the codes of culture (see their papers in References).

Reviewer Dianna has pointed out that the article “appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder”. That impression may be due to the fact that the concepts of Code Biology are bound to be expressed with apparently similar formulations. At any rate, I am the owner of the website www.codebiology.org and I am quite willing to comply with the Wikipedia rules. Please let me know what I have to do, thank you.

This revised version has also been simplified by removing the first section dedicated to the arbitrariness of genetic code, and by starting directly with the discoveries of the other organic codes.

I remain of course willing to address other questions if necessary. Best regards Marcello Barbieri Marcello Barbieri (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia – Revised Code Biology page (10 Feb 2016) NOTES for the Reviewers:[edit]

Notes for Reviewer McGeddon:

[1] The first objection was that Code Biology has originated by “Barbieri dismissing biosemiotics as unscientific and forming a splinter society”. In reality the polemics with Biosemiotics was only a secondary accident and for this reason it has been removed from the last revised version.

[2] The second objection was directed to find out the secondary sources in Code Biology, and the answer is that they are of three kinds: (1) the 12 members of the Code Biology Society (see their websites in External links), (2) the participants in the Code Biology Conferences (see the conference photogalleries in External links); and (3) all those who have published articles on the organic codes that appeared after the genetic code and before the codes of culture (see their papers in References).

Note for Reviewer Diannaa:

I (Marcello Barbieri) am the owner and the copyright holder of the website www.codebiology.org and I declare that in the article “Code Biology” submitted to Wikipedia I have used the material contained in that website only as a source of information, not as a source of content. To my knowledge all sentences have been expressed in new terms. I am willing furthermore to give Wikipedia any license that may be necessary for donating copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Yours faithfully Marcello Barbieri Marcello Barbieri (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Marcello Barbieri[edit]

You, User:Marcello Barbieri, aren't helping your cause to keep this article by posting at such length here. You are only providing us with additional evidence of non-neutral point of view and conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy later if needed as none of this suggests a better encyclopedia-set article. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12 February 2016[edit]

Code Biology is based on the discoveries of new organic codes that have been published in the past 20 years (all quoted in References). The papers in question (except one) could not mention “Code Biology” because this term was introduced in 2012, but they undoubtedly belong to that research field. The key point is that the above discoveries have circulated only in small circles, and most biologists are still unaware of the fact that many organic codes have appeared on Earth after the genetic code. The proposed article has precisely the purpose to fill this gap and to call attention to the new biological reality that is emerging from the experimental evidence.

As for the license problem, I fully accept that Wikepedia has the copyright of all statements present in the article and that everybody can edit them. I do not accept, however, that people can edit the statements that are present in the website www.codebiology.org . To my knowledge, the two groups of statements have been expressed with different words, and I am prepared to make further changes if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcello Barbieri (talk • contribs) 09:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Marcello, I think it's a semantic issue, related more to linguistics. The Organic Codes book by you even has the subtitle of "An Introduction to Semantic Biology". A definition for code: "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy." If you ignore the especially it's essentially just a system for easier representation. We represent DNA with letters, numbers and the sort. But this doesn't make it any special school of biology. It just means you are simplifying patterns and matrixes to code words and characters. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge or redirect to Biosemiotics. This is a sub-field of biosemiotics (and Barbieri's work has received outside attention, this is not just a crank idea) and deserves a mention there. Anyone looking up "code biology" will be better served by finding our article on biosemiotics than being presented with nothing, as though the term and research don't exist. Fences&Windows 18:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "code" is even close to being the right word for this stuff after reading about it. Semiotics can be summarized as being about "communication" (though that's simplifying it a bit). Biosemiotics would be communication of things like cells. Semiotics is a much better word for it, indeed. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to rely on reliable sources, not our own opinions and interpretations. Fences&Windows 21:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You want a source for why biosemiotics is a better term for the field than code biology? I don't think I can offer any such studies comparing the two. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Hyder[edit]

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

Lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. There is nothing listed under references and the external link (from which most of the article appears to be directly copied) mentions him in relation to getting a fighter a title shot and that appears to fall under WP:ONEEVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Could possible !vote 'Keep' on this one IF the references are improved to show what depth there is to his roster. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator. The single reference is an aside in an article about a fighter not him. With regard to trainers they would have to be associated with more than one or two decent boxers to override the WP:NOTINHERITED without good articles directly about them.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sourcing to establish WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required for notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:11, 13 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. Speedy deleted by Sphilbrick, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Blackwell[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Winning a minor circuit's "novice" title isn't close to meeting WP:NBOX. Attending the NBA all-star game is not an indication of notability nor is having notable people serve as his trainers.Mdtemp (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Is this his correct BoxRec record or is there another. I'm confused about this one. If it is then I am straight to Delete.--Donniediamond (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG, which is the overarching basis of notability. Usterday (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the sources is that I'm not sure they're reliable. Most of the sources are more like blogs and don't seem to exercise editorial oversight like a good newspaper would. I keep seeing sections that say "anyone can write articles for us" and "your article will be posted directly". The sources are of the variety "I was interested in ... so I thought I'd create this site." The boxrec article is for the correct fighter, but it appears very incomplete (assuming the article's facts are correct). I did check and found no major boxing organization or magazine ranks him in the world top 15.Mdtemp (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is his 15:0 record not as a professional boxer but as 'semi professional' or 'white collar' boxing? I have read some of the sources provided and they are ridiculous. One seems to suggest that because he is seen wearing a TMT baseball hat that he is signing with Mayweather. It all seems a little bogus to me. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly does not meet WP:NBOX with only a minor title and charity work does not confer notability. The above comments outline the WP:GNG issues, I don't think he reaches that bar either.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now I've taken a look above at the arguments and feel that this page will need more work before it can be seen as notable. I have placed the page in a Sandbox and will request a Speedy self-delete. Usterday (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Strong argument for deletion from JamesBWatson. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currency chest[edit]

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

No reliable sources found. Web search does indicate that it may be a regional expression in Indian banking, but the content of the article goes well outside of that expression and into pure original research. The principal editor self-proclaims that this is their creation. The content was originally a Quora Q/A thread, which was duplicated here. That thread has since been blanked. Tgeairn (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The proposer says that no reliable sources have been found, but appears not to have heard of books. I know they are rapidly going out of fashion, but they are still accepted as reliable sources here. I declined the speedy delete on the grounds that there were multiple sources available, and thought that might prompt him to look, but hey ho...The subject is discussed in depth in,

Chand, The Financial System of India [13]
Gupta, Contemporary Accounting, [14]
Singh & Dutta, Commercial Bank Management [15]
Khanna, Advanced Study in Money and Banking [16]

Gbooks has literally hundreds more results for the term. I don't know anything about the subject, and am not in a position to judge whether this article is verifiable in the sources, but I need a better rationale than the one we have before I would support a delete. SpinningSpark 00:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete per JamesBWatson. SpinningSpark 21:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have been clear in the proposal here. There is the subject discussed in those sources, and then there's the subject of this article. Although there is some overlap, what is here now is not the mainstream use of the term (in India or elsewhere). This is the editor's own work, which they claim on the talk page to hold rights to. I agree with JamesBWatson, it needs a rewrite... but we cannot have independent research that the author is claiming rights to sitting here while we get around to writing an article about the actual subject. As a side note, it was Melcous that proposed the speedy. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, but substantially rewrite.~~ The present article has several faults, including lack of sourcing, being written more like an essay than a Wikipedia article, lack of explanation of the context (for example, it doesn't even mention that this is a specifically Indian concept), and not being written in good English. However, contrary to what Tgeairn says, there is enough coverage easily findable by web searches to make it clear that this subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and rewriting it to overcome the problems is more constructive than deletion. I am willing to put some work into improving the article, as soon as I have time to do so properly, which I hope will be within the next few days. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I completely agreed with JamesBWatson, it needs a rewrite than delete. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the present article, and create a new one from scratch. I am very grateful to Tgeairn for the clarification in the post above that begins "I may not have been clear in the proposal here". Reading that has prompted me to examine both the article and the sources that I found more thoroughly than I had done when I posted my message above, and I see that Tgeairn is perfectly right. According to the article, the function of a currency chest is to serve as a store place for a bank to put cash deposited by customers to prevent local branches from becoming overloaded by such deposits. However, both the sources cited by Spinningspark and the sources I found make it clear that in fact a currency chest is a mechanism for the Reserve Bank of India to distribute cash to individual banks, which is a completely different thing. For example, www.gktoday.in/answer/what-is-a-currency-chest says "The Reserve Bank of India is responsible for issuing coins and notes to the public on demand and for maintaining the quality of the notes issued. ... In order to satisfactorily discharge this duty without recourse, the RBI maintains currency chests of its own at treasuries and branches of the banks at all important centres. The currency notes printed at the press flow to the RBI offices and from the RBI office to these currency chests before they reach the public", www.educationobserver.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4601 says "To facilitate the distribution of banknotes and rupee coins, the Reserve Bank has authorised select branches of scheduled banks to establish Currency Chests. These are actually storehouses where banknotes and rupee coins are stocked on behalf of the Reserve Bank", and www.business-standard.com/article/finance/exchange-small-notes-at-currency-chest-branches-114012300367_1.html says "Currency chests are select branches of scheduled banks, which are authorised by the RBI to facilitate distribution of notes and coins. In these branches, notes and coins are stocked on behalf of the RBI. These currency chests are expected to distribute notes and coins to other bank branches in their area of operation." Nowhere have I been able to find anything remotely supporting the account given in the article, which says various things such as "Customers deposit cash in the bank branches and these branches cannot store the cash when it accumulates and exceeds the cash holding limit of the branch. A bank has so many branches and there is a need to collect these excess cash for security, monetary, regulatory and logistic purpose." In fact, the more I checked the article against sources, the more I found that its content is completely at odds with every source I found, so it really is original "research", in the very broad sense of the word "research" which is current in Wikipedia usage. Furthermore, the article is written to promote a point of view, rather than being written from a neutral point of view: for example, it tells us that Currency Chest "facilitates a good and healthy economy to our country", and there are other expressions of opinion. Thus, while I still think that an article should be written on this topic, I have to change my view on the existing article. Since it bears no connection to reality, there is no basis for keeping it in the page history, and we should delete it and start a new article afresh.

In view of what I have written above, I wonder whether either or both of Spinningspark and Amitbanerji26 may like to reconsider their views on this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future Life Progression[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-notable neologism. Not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Should have been redirected to Anne Jirsch, but that was recently deleted. czar 20:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pseudoscience per nomination. Can't find anything about it online in WP:RS. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for a better notable article, WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JD Howard[edit]

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

Biography of a writer that fails WP:ANYBIO for lack of available reliable, independent sources about the subject. - Mr X 20:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity press novelist. no notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 11 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. Speedy deleted by Bbb23, CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NixO[edit]

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

None of these "references" actually check out. www.soccertimeinc.com is a single page free website from GoDaddy, one is another wiki, one is the article subject's own company, and the rest are autobiographies written by the article subject and posted on archive.org. Emotionalllama (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - FC Dallas didn't even exist back then. Appears to be a hoax. Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3, G4 and G5, hoax repost by sockpuppet of twice AFD'd Nick Efthimiou. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RUMS hockey club[edit]

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

No source found indicating notability for this university club, although the club has been around for 200 years so I might have missed one. Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable university club. Certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps but certainly Redirect to UCL Medical School where it is listed as this may be best known for being connected to the university, unlikely solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative clustering[edit]

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

Lack of Notability. This tiny subtopic of cluster analysis appears to be only followed by a single author, cited 30 times including false positives. Most matches of "cooperative clustering" refer to very other methods - search for "Cooperative-Based Clustering" "Cooperative-Based+Clustering" Google Scholar to fully see the obscurity of this topic. All in all, not a lot of independent coverage: "Cooperative+Clustering"+Kamel Google Scholar except self-cites by Kashef and Kamel.

The article had been created to support Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooperative-based graph clustering which has already been deleted because of lacking notability. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete: not notable. --Chire (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delte at best for now as this is questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear (notwithstanding the keep !vote). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster University Table Tennis Club[edit]

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

Non-notable club, most of the article is a result listing and not encyclopedic Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems to be non-notable with no sourcing to confer notability and no suggestion that there is any wider importance or coverage in the wider media. It should probably belong on the SU website of the university rather than here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable university team Seasider91 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and move any helpful content to the university page as this is questionably notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The best University table tennis club in England. Well renowned for producing world class talents such as Dan Jackson, David Bruce, Gary Collins and Adam 'The Pez' Perry. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.178.221 (talk) 22:35, 11 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 redirect to Hunter S. Thompson. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fire in the Nuts[edit]

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

I can't find any non-commercial sources that mention it, so non-notable. Mention it in Hunter S. Thompson, but it doesn't merit an article of its own. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect per nom. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 21:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hunter S. Thompson as this is unlikely independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above. There are some commercial sources out there, but there's not really anything out there about this short story other than things that state that it exists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shreenath Madhavji Mahayoddha Mahadji Ki Shaurya Gatha (Book)[edit]

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

Notability not established, unable to find sources. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The whole thing seems to be an ADVERT for a book, so far as I can understand it: too much of the article appears to be in Hindi for me to make sense of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this would be best restarted if notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 13 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. Speedy deleted by Sergecross73, CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishwavijay (film). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prashast Singh's Vishwavijay[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM: apart from a passing one-line mention in an NDTV roundup, the sources are all database entries, and the reviews are just from a handful of user ratings websites. McGeddon (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

specific alts:

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

and WP:INDAFD gives us "Vishwavijay Movie" "Prashast Singh"

Delete per being somewhat TOO SOON. Only recently released, the project does not have an acceptable level of coverage. If/when that changes, this can be resurrected. And if it comes back, the title requires fixing per WP:NCF. While sources speak of it in relationship to it's filmmaker, that is not its name. This should most simply be Vishwavijay. Schmidt,

^{Michael Q.} 02:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WHEN THE FILM IS NOTABLE, HAS GOOD SOURCES, AND HAS EVEN ARTICLES ON NOTABLE SITES LIKE NDTV, BOLLYWOOD HUNGAMA ETC THEN WHY DOES EVERYONE WANT SO. THE FILM HAS BEEN RELEASED AND YOU WIKIPEDIANS STILL ARE STUCK IN OLD MENTALITY. WHY DID INJUSTICE? THE TITLE MAY BE CHANGED TO VISHWAVIJAY ONLY, BUT NOT TO BE DELETED, PLEASE RETHINK YOUR DECISION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.81.167 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 31 January 2016

Please review WP:NF and WP:RS. A film being listed in numerous databases is not the same as it having critical analysis and commentary. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't understand why and how does Wikipedia keeping trying these cheap tricks? When the concensus didn't give the verdict of deleting, everyone now took a jump for another attempt. How long? No idea. I have seen many cases where films don't even have references, and there pages are never deleted. Besides, many a pages of independent films were deleted because they were not 'listed in any database'. When this one is, everyone is after it. This has given me a wrong impression about Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I am neither the filmmaker nor his agent but I do understand very well that why he had previously told me not to try again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.81.115 (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no previous deletion discussion about this article. If there was a discussion, please provide a link. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishwavijay (film), from January last year. (There's a history of socking to recreate it.) Which means this should be speedy deleted as the recreation of an AfD'd article. I'll flag it now. --McGeddon (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits. The numerous database links show that the film exists and was released - which is good as far as it goes. But there is only one news link about the film, and it has only a passing mention about this film being released (and, indeed, is mostly about other films). To be considered notable, the film must be noted - and, so far, it has not been. The usual caveats apply, of course - if the film enters a wider release and sees some success, and (most importantly) that success is reported upon, then an article might be appropriate. And if that turns out to be the case, go over to WP:REFUND and show them that coverage. They'll undelete before you can say "Vishwavijay". Until then, however, it's too soon. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:14, 9 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Monaco[edit]

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

An event that happened 2x in the 1950's. Still no sources. Previous AfD had no objections after several relisting. A Prod was removed without any assertion of notability. The alleged winners don't have articles. Fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:CORPDEPTH Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2016

Oppose: While I normally cringe to debate notability of a beauty pageant article, this IS a national level pageant, it has been held more than twice, I found a few sources (looks like they didn't always go on to the biggest pageants, but they seem to have held some sort of event each year on and off). Plus, it appear to be part of an article series on international pageants (noting navbox) and so while this particular pageant is not a winning machine, it is part of a series, which also goes to GNG. Its relative length and lack of comprehensive statistics is not grounds for deletion, but I found a bit more stuff to add. It may never be more than start class, but hey, most of the winners of Miss Montana don't have articles, either and none ever have won Miss America (I think we has a Miss Congeniality once...) Montanabw ^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 05:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per immediately above to be honest. Not the most noteworthy of the bunch sure, but I personally find it hard to simply say it doesn't in any way shape or form belong on wikipedia. Though clearly could use a little love. NJA (t/c) 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable contest, article needs work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep [1] There is sufficient independent coverage to sustain this article. [2] The article needs improvements. [3] I'm opting for speedy keep as this article should not be listed for deletion every six weeks! gidonb (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The draft article has not been accepted at this time so closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary guidance media[edit]

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

This phrase appears to be a WP:neologism created by one researcher, who has started a company with this name. Three references included which are not by this author don't appear to use the term, but are about related concepts. Mentions on the internet appear to be almost all created by her or her company, or in her various profiles. There's a draft in progress about the author, Draft:Dana Klisanin, who appears to have gained some notice for her other activities; if the draft is accepted the current article could be redirected there instead of being deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/delete - if notable enough, redirect. Otherwise, delete. There's already too much fall-out from Wilber's writings. But noability is questionable: she's not in the news, and het articles are hardly cited. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as this article is still questionably solid. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chevi Colton[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable actress with a handful of minor roles. Quis separabit? 15:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, clearly not solidly better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 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 17:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 6 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 redirect to Madhalam. And merge as appropriate from history. Sandstein 09:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maddalam of Palakkad[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The only reference merely asserts that this product has been registered with the government of India. This does not necessarily constitute notability, but the article does not even assert that the subject is notable for any other reason. ubiquity (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:WHATNOT. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: how? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Wikipedia is not a collection of things. If it would be, then we will have four hundred articles about different drums. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: Ok, but the problem is that "thing" doesn't actually mean anything. There are plenty of ways to argue that Wikipedia is a collection of "things" (articles, topics, concepts, entries) and certainly has lots and lots of articles about things as in objects -- including many, many articles about different drums. Typically when someone points to WP:NOT in an AfD it's because there's a problem with the article other than notability -- i.e. it's a image gallery, it's a dictionary entry, it's an indiscriminate list, it's a how-to guide, it's about predictions rather than what has already been written about, etc. It sounds like what you meant was that it's not notable, though. Not trying to give you a hard time, here, but you should know that just saying "fails WP:WHATNOT" without context means whoever closes this discussion can't really give your opinion any weight (it's not a vote, after all). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - Expanded the article by adding additional references indicative of the notability of the topic. The original article was started as a stub. Krishnachandranvn (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I am an organizer, I won't vote here, but let me write the same thing what I wrote on article talk page: please read this, not only the GI thing, please note the other thing written about the instrument. You may explore more here. --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why is this not an obvious candidate to Merge into Maddalam? I understand there are distinctions, but aren't we talking about a particular subset of the topic that is Maddalam? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could see it being a section in the Maddalam article. I think Merging this article into Maddalam is a better option than deleting it outright. ThePortaller (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: This article was expanded for Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Events/Geographical Indications in India Edit-a-thon. --Prof TPMS --Prof TPMS (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Madhalam as a duplicate (as far as I can tell), and clean up both. ansh 666 00:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE-After reading both the articles , what i found is that the so called subset article has more info on Maddalam than the original article about that topic.My argument here is that the original article on maddalam is deficient on many aspects , hence merging this article with maddalam article would be good.Apart from that there is a portion on peruvambu village , the article on peruvambu village is too a single line entry hence the article on peruvambu can also be enhanced with this article topics, so i propose a merger of the peruvambu section of this article with peruvambu village article Surajme23 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Madhalam and I would've also said delete because how serious the current article looks. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Cannons[edit]

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

I can't even find an article that mentions it. This, in no way, suffices as meeting the requirements of WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from this WP:TRIVIALMENTION in the Herald Sun about "Australia’s best footy club nicknames", I couldn't find any mention of this club in secondary sources. This article definitely doesn't pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I will however, direct readers to the club's Facebook page, where the curator of the page posted on June 16, 2015: "I need everybody ‪#‎ALLIN‬ tonight! If you're only ‪#‎HALFIN‬ or ‪#‎QUARTERIN‬, you might as well be ‪#‎ALLOUT‬, and we don't need that crap tonight." I wonder if they won that game? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:05, 6 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 redirect to Gurjar. Sandstein 09:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Gujjar (Uttar Pradesh)[edit]

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

Gurjar already exist no need this article Raj Gujjar•talk 05:00, 30 January 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 January 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gurjar. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article pertains to specific community. Abstrakt (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gurjar#Culture. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An ethno-religious group in India? Seems like something Sitush would be happy to comment on. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect perhaps also, at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 12 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eng Leong Medallic Industries[edit]

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

A small medal-making/gift company in Singapore. I can't find the slightest trace of notability or even assertion of notability, nor anything even resembling a reliable source. Calton | Talk 10:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete This might make an article if (like the UK medal ribbon weaver ~~whose name I've forgotten~~ -- "Toye, Kenning and Spencer", 300 years old) they had a particularly long history. As it is though, they have neither status today, nor length of history, to swing it. Viam Ferream (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see some coverage in reliable sources: [17] from Today, [18] from Channel NewsAsia, and I think there's some more in-depth coverage from The Straits Times archived here by Singapore's National Library. If you search that page for "medallic", it shows a few hits from archived newspaper articles. I'm not sure if you can actually read them from that site, though, because I couldn't get it to work. I'd be curious to see what others think of these articles. I know it's not a lot, but I think there might be more offline sources if I found this much archived online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best perhaps and draft & userfy and restart when better as the article is still questionably notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus leaning towards delete; however, sources presented here may point at notability. Editors with access to a broad array of resources are encouraged to participate. Esquivalience ^t 05:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 05:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ...but delete promotionalism as required. The company has six additional examples of significant coverage at the bottom http://elm.com.sg/news-updates/. (Viam Ferream, given that Singapore became an independent republic in 1965 and the company was founded in 1968, their history (now almost 50 years) should be considered long enough in that context). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 06:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm generally skeptical of claims of sourcing at official websites (it's often exaggerated), but these sources are readable. And I'm pretty sure that there are additional sources archived at Singapore's National Library. There does seem to be sufficient sourcing to keep this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:06, 9 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lali Kandelaki[edit]

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

Google search does not produce any reliable sources. BLP prod tag removed twice without any sources being added. Current source mentions subject in passing. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She appears notable (Order of Georgia and her ballet awards meet WP:ANYBIO#1; multiple international principal roles meet WP:ENTERTAINER#1), and I've added a few minor sources and done some copyedits. The problem is that the page appears to be a blatant copyvio of <http://bolshoibelarus.by/all-news/news-archive/lali-kandelaki-georgia-in-laurencia>. Given the current AFD, I've not tagged/blanked it. Suggest withdrawing and copyvio-ing instead. Given evidence of notability, deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 05:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep obviously a prominent dancer and soloist with a long list of accomplishments and leading roles. Masterknighted (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We have to ask ourselves if the award she won, the "Order of Honor" from the Georgian Ministry of Culture, is enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. I don't think it does. The NY Times source does not cover her in-depth, as it only mentions her a single time in a review that focused on another dancer, Nina Ananiashvili, which is a better example of a ballerina meeting GNG given the sources cited. A google search showed very little for Lali Kandelaki. Delta13C (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of Honor is a State Award and was awarded by the President (see https://www.president.gov.ge/en/Georgia/StateAwards) but presented by the Minister. The law is here. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 06:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she appears to have in depth coverage in non English language sources. I'm unable to currently go in depth with these, but I think caution is warranted in closing this AfD before those sources and databases have been consulted. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is looking into these references for me, too:

Лали Канделаки: «Я не имею права танцевать плохо»
Ar izrādi 'Djagiļevs – Ņižinskis/Šeherezāde' Rīgā viesosies pasaules slavenas baleta zvaigznes
ლალი კანდელაკი [ka] Wiki Article in Georgian

However, if anyone else can read them (Since Google translate really butchers these languages, that's super, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Russian source is quite in depth but it would take someone mote fluent than I to extract material from it with confidence. She has played several major roles in what look to be major productions and so shoule pass WP:WNT. The Order of Honor by itself does not, in my opinion, make her notable but it definitly supports the idea that her roles were major. The non-English sources are enough to pass GNG. Jbh ^Talk 17:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to vote keep based on the opinions of those who are able to read the articles. I got the impression from Google translate that she was covered heavily in the Russian article and it seemed to lend some weight that she's covered in the Georgian wiki, but I didn't want to trust the machine translation. The references support her GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps even if not confidently as the article is somewhat still questionable but it may be keepable for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Sod[edit]

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

Unable to find any in-depth coverage to establish notability. There are acting credits, but very minor - no major roles. Was looking to clean it up and remove the maintenance tag from 2007 but unable to do so. CNMall41 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, he has directed/wrote some minor films, however there are no reliable sources that prove he himself passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as insufficiently notable per nominator's rationale. Quis separabit? 21:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with the nominator that this individual is insufficiently notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdpw (talk • contribs) 22:23, 8 February 2016‎

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. A clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Who Never Slept[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable film. No coverage so far as I can see. only (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per failing WP:NF. While the topic is not unsourcable, the film does not have the depth of commentary and coverage to meet standards. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see [19] and [20] from LinuxInsider.com, but I'm not 100% convinced that it's a reliable source. The problem is, even if it were, that's not very in-depth coverage. It's mostly just a few comments from the director in an interview about the status of the wider concept of creative commons films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 12 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dan arndt (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hema Premadasa[edit]

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

Just because she is the spouse of the President of Sri Lanka does not necessarily mean that she is notable - see WP:INVALIDBIO, as relationships do not confer notability. There does not appear to be any supporting/referenced sources that establish notability in her own right. Dan arndt (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has been a prominent political figure at the time of her husbands rule as the president and also up until present says. Simple google search will prove the same. Daan0001 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Daan0001: there is no referenced content provided in the article that supports your claims that she was a prominent political figure independent of the fact that she was the President's wife. If that is the case then I strongly suggest you edit the article. I would be happy to withdraw the AfD if there was evidence provided establishing her notability. Dan arndt (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I found some of the evidence that she was a prominent political figure. I added what I've found so far. She passes GNG as it stands since she's notable for being a first lady and as a political figure on her own, even though she wasn't successful in her presidential bid. BTW, politics in Sri Lanka are somewhat confusing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is another case where the First Lady of that country could be considered notable for a separate article as DGG has also noted. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spouse of heads of state are indeed done of the accept ed cases of articles that form an exception to the general rule. It makes sense because usually there is in fact material. One of the ways we make guidelines and policy here is by consistent practice, and this is one of the examples. There was however nothing wrong is taking it to afd to ask about it. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment disagree that spouses of head of state are notable as notability is not inherited. In this case there appears to be enough independent verifiable sources to establish that the subject satisfies WP:GNG and for that reason I am intending to withdraw the AfD. Dan arndt (talk) 09:29, 12 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Citizen TV[edit]

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

Non-notable list as per WP:GNG Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 13:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citizen TV is a notable television network. Having a list of its programmes seems appropriate. Whether they belong here or in the main article is a debate for another forum. Pburka (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be enough original programming to justify a list. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this may and if be improvable. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 12 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. Speedy deleted by UkPaolo, CSD A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay babu csb[edit]

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

Reason Bijay Chaurasia (Talk To Me) 18:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rogie Maglinas[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Badmotorfinger (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only coverage was Maglinas' battle with cancer, with some news report soliciting funds for the player's recovery. Beyond that however has hasn't received much coverage. This falls under WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Under N:FOOTY youth football is not automatically notable even in the national level. He played in the UAAP, a nationally covered multi-sport university event similar to the NCAA, I guess but association football is one of the less covered sport of the university league (men's basketball and women's volleyball are the main sports)Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not play in a fully professional league. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self Record[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reopening due to no other participants in the last discussion, but the notability problems I addressed last time still remain. See the last discussion for the reasons on why I've nominated this. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 17:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as none of this better suggests applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage to merit a standalone article. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandakaal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chandakaal

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

Non-notable comic book character. Unsourced, and a Google search does not reveal possible independent, reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Cordless Larry (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The characters have not received sufficient coverage to merit standalone articles. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they are certainly questionable for their own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 12 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. Created by blocked user Dao2k. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yungen (musician)[edit]

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

Sources are all promotional/unreliable. Nothing but a non-notable wannabe. [21], the only reliable source on him, does not provide salvation -- too brief and trivial. Not significant. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this better suggests satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE G5: This is Dao2k. Crow^Caw 18:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Except for the Independent piece, which is only brief, I can't find anything on this subject beyond trivial mentions. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:36, 6 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 keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 15:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akbarpur Girls Inter College[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Purely promotional fodder. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as acceptable I suppose. Delete as unlikely for the aapplicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is wholly unreferenced except for two links to lists of schools. Generally this is not a reason for deletion (nor is its being promotional), but in this case there are no sources out of which an article could be constructed. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per wp:school outcomes. It is a high school. Avoid u.s. and British bias.do ncr am 00:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a matter of bias. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not the be all end all, and specifically what part of it are you referring to? The fact that there are non-notable institutions out there which deserve, at best, a redirect to the place it is situated at? Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepMany articles like this such as Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College kalyanpur,B N S D Shiksha Niketan,Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Sanatan Dharma Vidyalaya,S C G M Inter College Madhupur Sonebhadra,JDVM Inter College,Primary school sadpur,Mahatma Gandhi Inter College etc.Teacher1943

Each case merits its own arguments. Just because x exists doesn't mean y should. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing them to my attention though, I'll have you know that those are not worthy of having their own pages too. Let us delete/merge them all! If you have more suggestions do list them here or nominate them for deletion yourself. Cheers! Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rrburke, GBooks and GNews searches. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG, i.e. the guidelines that take precedence over the observations made at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I do not care if something is a high school (that would be an argument to avoid, by the way, per WP:NOTINHERITED); without reliable sources we cannot build a proper article. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is on such a basis that I nommed several others for deletion -- and I actually went to check if there was even anything that could salvage them! Alas, some prefer to generalise the situation, failing to exercise common sense and realising the fact that some simply cannot meet basic GNG and V, regardless of their inherent nature (ala being a high school). Kingoflettuce (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The are many much weaker high school articles than this--if we'regoing to be looking for sub-minimal articles to merge, this is not a good place to start. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per consensus reached in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This is a high school and has some refs to keep it afloat which is generally considered as sufficient for high schools. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the very long, securely established precedent as documented at OUTCOMES and evidenced by literally 1,000s of AfD closures. Those who vote 'delete' are strongly advised to inform themselves of the several accepted exceptions to GNG and ORG, and that AfD is not a forum for changing policies, guidelines, or clearly accepted practices. Perhaps the nominator, may which to famiiiarise themselves more with the way Wikipedia works before engaging in backroom activity and disagreeing with some of our most senior and best informed editors on matters of notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evennia[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. It is sourced entirely to primary and unreliable sources, and there is nowhere near enough depth from secondary sources to write a detailed article on this topic. The academic uses are passing mentions. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 16:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was hoping some reliable secondary sources would turn up, but when I first came across the article and noted the sourcing issues, I couldn't locate any myself either. My talk page section received no further comments from the major contributors of the article. -- ferret (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from the article in MIT News, the article references only primary sources. I couldn't find any secondary sources to remedy the problem, which suggests the subject has insufficient notability to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's certainly true that text-based MMORPG gaming (aka MUDs) is these days a small section of computer gaming, with difficulty finding traction in gaming media. A game engine for text-based MMORPGs like Evennia seeks a comparably small audience. But the referenced MIT research article is more significant than is given credit here - the article don't just give Evennia a "passing mention" as suggested here: the article is literally using Evennia to reach its conclusion. The use of text was indeed necessary to simplify their problem to a point that the AI could be tested and features of the engine and its default content is referenced in the article. As such is shows a academical use of Evennia (and text-based gaming) also in today's age. Full disclosure though: I'm the lead dev of Evennia, so I admit a bias here. Starkiel (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If MIT uses the software, that source is primary to the subject matter. If MIT's use of the software was noteworthy, a secondary, reliable source would say so. czar 12:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: if an MIT research team uses a software that they did not develop, this amounts to validation by a secondary party. Of course, that is still quite far from "extensive discussion in reliable secondary sources" since (1) all researchers at MIT cannot be viewed by default as established authorities (thus reliable sources) in their domains and more importantly (2) Evennia was not the subject of the research but merely a tool, neither the MIT press release nor the research paper can be construed as "significant discussion" of that tool. Tigraan (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My software can be used by all the companies in the world—if an independent outlet (secondary to my press releases) doesn't write about it, then we have no secondary sources to summarize. If my software is used in a noteworthy way, a journalist will note it. czar 23:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Journalist" is not a requirement in WP:GNG. The MIT team is independent from the software developpers. (However, their paper is not a reliable source because it was not subjected to any serious editorial review.) Tigraan (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of how editorially valid the MIT article is considered to be, it does sound like a strange requirement if a secondary source must not themselves use the software in order to be considered "reliable". I can see the problem with the reliability of a semi-anonymous blog somewhere, but if an established university scientist (or, say, a company rep) were to write a review of a piece of software they had no part in creating and no financial stake in, does them being a user of said software really disqualify them from being a "reliable" source? Starkiel (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine—depends more on the outlet. For notability, we're looking at whether enough has been enduringly written on the topic in sources that indicate importance. Five personal reviews of a piece of software by scientists on their personal blogs (even as experts) would not be the same as a single periodical's article on the software's prominence among scientists. But we're getting off topic now. czar 03:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that makes better sense. Thanks for the clarification. Starkiel (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The MIT reference is probably enough for me to pass it by in favor of something more promotional, but since we're here, I'll say that I can't find enough coverage in reliable sources. Wikia is a better place for this sort of thing. They don't have have inclusion criteria or sourcing requirements, and you can easily create the official wiki there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable game/framework with no in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. News articles such as [22] or [23] exist but are essentially based on MIT news, so it feels like WP:1EVENT. Doesn't appear like any sources have any original content. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no discussion in RS, blah blah blah.

The MIT article confers in my view very little notability if any. That is not a reliable academic paper in the sense it was not peer-reviewed (it is a conference paper), but more importantly, while Evannia was certainly very useful to their project, any similar text-based gaming software would have done the trick. As such I invoke WP:MILL on it. Tigraan (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1622 Slovenia earthquake[edit]

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

A non-notable earthquake; no thorough description can be found online. On the other hand, the description of the 1511 Idrija earthquake (the strongest earthquake in the Slovene Lands) would deserve its own article. Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There are deadly, damaging, or tsunamigenic earthquakes in Slovenia that have been documented as far back as 567, but this is not one of them. This event would not qualify to be on one of our lists; it doesn't need a stand-alone article. Dawnseeker2000 18:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You're probably right, though I urge you to create the 1511 Idrija earthquake article asap at least in some consolation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I was looking at some sources for that one a couple days ago, and it looks like there should be enough material to create something meaningful on it. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000 04:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could appear in an article on earthquakes in Slovenia, if ever that article is written. But not as a stand-alone article. For now, I've added an entry on the earthquake into Timeline of Slovenian history#17th century, along with a reference to the European database that describes it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moss Acid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. Its current (refbombed) sources are all passing mentions or plainly unreliable. None are in depth with enough content to write a sourced article on the subject. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 14:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 14:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this seems enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article mentions reviews from Igloomag.com, and I found two: [24] and [25]. However, I think it's probably too soon for an article. I think igloomag.com may be reliable, and he's certainly got a lot of trivial mentions scattered around reliable sources, but this doesn't quite add up to significant coverage yet. Sending the article to draft space is a credible alternative. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:03, 9 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 keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 15:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ola-dele Kuku[edit]

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

encountered at new page patrol. Notability unclear Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if unclear why nominate, you are aware of wp:before? AfD is not a process for article improvement. Duckduckstop (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't familiar with him, but he does make some interesting objects.[26][27]. This was posted only last night and could certainly have been given a bit more time before being dragged to AfD. --Hegvald (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject of the article is a is a notable Nigerian artiste. I also found this, and this. Editors need not be reminded that WP:AfD is not for cleanup. We usually do not measure notability per sources provided in an article and editors are expected to check for more reliable sources before considering a deletion as option. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is in question and there is a possibility that this was created for promotional purposes. -O.R.^Comms 00:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this source is indepth. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 03:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is now the second time I've seen editors suggest "promotional" for delete I don't like it. (the first was calling a NYTimes book review promotional). Duckduckstop (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD Hmlarson (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps if this can also be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough sourcing (provided by Wikicology) is available to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:24, 12 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alice non lo sa[edit]

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

unremarkable album KDS4444^Talk 14:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the first album of one of the greatest Italian singer-songwriters, who sold about fifty milions of copies. The album also contains "Alice", which is one of the most known and common songs of the Italian musical culture. Sincerely, I don't know how many copies this album has sold, but the rank of De Gregori certifies itself that it should be on the encyclopedia. If Alice non lo sa does not deserve to be on Wikipedia, neither the 3/4 of Italian albums do (for instance, Scacchi e tarocchi, Terra di nessuno, lots of Antonello Venditti's albums, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almicione (talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - absolutely as Almicione says on his first sally into Wikipedia. This is a major album by one of Italy's major artists, and there is no shortage of reliable sources to support the claim. I have added a few to the article, with a little of the critical reception for the album. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and request close. Clearly his reasoning for deleting the article was an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 00:54, 12 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 keep. The article could be improved (refs and such) but a consensus is to keep it. Tone 10:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brežice Grammar School[edit]

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

Grammar school with no evidence of notability. KDS4444^Talk 14:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article describes the oldest secondary-level school in the Lower Sava Valley (established in 1945) that has influenced the development of the wider region. It has received significant coverage in different media, including a master's thesis.[28][29] (pg. 8)[30] In addition, the school building formerly housed a Franciscan monastery (1659–1941) and thus has a rich history itself.[31] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a university preparatory school. We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on non-Anglophone schools. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I've added a reliable source. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 10 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 keep. per SK1 - No valid reason has been provided for deletion, I can tell just by the noms statement " Article itself does not contain enough evidence (as it stands) to qualify as notable" WP:BEFORE wasn't remotely followed so I'm closing as Speedy Keep - No objections to renomination by anyone other than the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Music Awards[edit]

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

Existence does not equate to notability. Article itself does not contain enough evidence (as it stands) to qualify as notable. KDS4444^Talk 14:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poor article state does not equate to lack of notability. There's plenty of Estonian coverage if you Google the Estonian name of the event. --Michig (talk) 18:36, 6 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 03:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous;Code[edit]

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

Bizarre title makes this article almost unfindable, but beyond that, references do not appear to indicate significant (non-trivial) coverage in reliable independent sources with broad readership. Article requires more substantial evidence of meaningful notability. KDS4444^Talk 14:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: I don't want to invoke WP:CRYSTAL, but a new trailer came out earlier today, so realiable coverage should follow soon. Japanese sources also have some coverage about the game. If anything, while searching for the game's title alone is going to reveal several false positives, more specific searches (i.e. "Anonymous;Code VN", "Anonymous;Code 5pb", etc.) reveals more coverage. About the only problem is that (as far as I know) there is no release date announced yet, but more information should come soon given the trailer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is much more encouraging. Based on that, I am willing to withdraw the deletion nomination. KDS4444^Talk 00:18, 7 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 per WP:G3 - hoax/vandalism — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rithmatist Summaries[edit]

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

Merely a plot summary of the Rithmatist series, WP:NOTPLOT sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 12:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator has added to the text: "This is a joke page. Please do not delete it." If it's a "joke page," I've placed a speedy tag on it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although there is little in-depth dicussion of the sources, nobody apart from 89.133.187.29 believes in the notability of the subject. Sandstein 09:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltán Deme[edit]

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

Cannot find any verifiable WP:BLP independent sources other than 1 Hungarian book-listing for "Deme Zoltán ... 1949" In ictu oculi (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note

The required verifiable WP:BLP independent sources coming very soon both to talk page and to the respected admins In ictu oculi and North America¹⁰⁰⁰ who placed the AfD and other marks on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.187.29 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 22 January 2016‎

Comment I saw that references had been added. However, even though I have access to newspaper databases I cannot find either of the newspaper articles listed. Could you provide a link indicating where you found them? I have to say that none of my searches has turned up anything to confirm notability under WP:CREATIVE. His books are held in very few libraries in WorldCat. LC has copies of the ones in English, probably as a result of copyright deposit. I don't recognize (nor find online) any of the publishing houses used. Some of his books are cataloged as "no publisher given" which means that the items are either manuscripts or very informally published. I also don't find anything about him in general databases or even in a Google books search. Magazine and newspaper searches do not turn up any reviews or discussions of his work. I'm searching in English, of course, but he did publish in English so it would be reasonable to expect sources in this language. LaMona (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Hi Dear LaMona! I am Norbert, a Hungarian. I worked in the Hungarian crew of one of the movies of Zoltan Demme (Prometheus) years ago. This Prometheus-shooting was an important part of my life, full with fond memories, so I was very sad when I saw that the Zoltan Demme Wikipedia Article was nominated to deletion. I am not a Wiki contributor, but maybe I am able to help with some information the decision making of the contributors, and I can give answers to the problems arised in your precise and careful comment.

Working hard during the day I had just limited time for research, but I have some initial results. Let me mention to you, talking about the biggest concern arised in your comment, that his books are rather not copyright deposits, manuscripts, or informally published releases, but real books (You can see the pictures of 20 items, if visiting this website that I found from year 2013: http://forimdb.webnode.hu/ [[32]] if visiting, please scroll down, and on the left side make a click on this: "Könyv/Zoltan Demme books"). Please, do not misunderstand me, I highly appreciate all your arguments and carefulness, but being a Hungarian for me it was probably little bit easier to search the .hu websites and to find something. The native language also helped me to identify the precise ISBN numbers of many LC numbered book (for instance: book Programme, where instead of the LC 56592831 the ISBN 9635500718 is correct, or, book Chords of Scales, where instead of LC 54373620 the ISBN 9635500726 is correct, etc.). Almost each of the books has correct ISBN, I will collect them, double-check them, and provide them for the decision makers very soon.

The basis of the other problems, as I think, that is the pre-Internet era. Most of these book are from the eighties of the past century; and who knows what happened with (not more than 2-3) involved publishing houses during the almost 30 years that passed, maybe they does not exist in our era. (Others survived, http://akkrt.hu/ [[33]], and I will continue when having time). Same thing with the 1980-1990 printed reviews of the books: researching via Internet the pre-Internet items easily runs to poor result. For instance, here, in the very local library, I found the full texts of 8 Hungarian review items about Zoltan Demme's books, while by Google none of these! In the Internet were nothing else, than, sometimes, the name of the author and the title of these reviews. (for instance, see the buttom item in this site http://vfek.vfmk.hu/00000115/sz_05.htm [[34]] and the 16th item in this site http://www.matarka.hu/cikk_list.php?fusz=27226 [[35]] I will collect them and I will provide the all to the decision makers).

The other thing is, that I am not wondering at all that these mostly philosophical books have poor presence in libraries. WorldCat lists only 74 and this is not too much, even if we know that most of the libraries of the past communist countries and Russia are still not fully digitalized, thus Russian and Hungarian books are underrepresented in WorldCat. But the Library of Congress has the larger half of his books (as I think, 2-3 books could reach the LC shelves even accidentally, but not 10). And oppositely the Internet sources, here not the "no publisher given" note is indicated, but the name of the publishing houses, each occasion. But besides his books, in Hungary this author is also known by his publications in popular periodicals, thus I made a short search on this path. ( https://www.antikvarium.hu/index.php?type=search&ksz=deme-zoltan&szid=159001&oldalcount=1&interfaceid=103 [[36]] , these are the first results.)

The other problem is the author himself. From the time of the Prometheus-shooting I know the he is an absolutely against-the-media person. This old man, close to his 70 years of age, as I know during his life consequently refused all the interview requests, all the media invitations and media appearances, saying: talk solely by the books, by the films, let them express everything, instead of myself, my colleagues, reporters, magazines, etc. He allows to release his products only 12 years by 12 years from his youth, he is against of any werkfilm, promotional material, etc. For sure, who thinks like this, will be present in Google search modest way. Despite of this, still there are lots of printed sources about his life and biography (for instance Balogh György: Deme Zoltán, Hungarológiai Értesítő 1987., Fried István: Deme Zoltán könyveiről. Irodalomtörténet 1985., etc. I will collect these too.) Besides, my starting search efforts resulted some Internet sources either (for instance http://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00001/00358/pdf/itk_EPA00001_1990_02_275-277.pdf [[37]], and I plan to continue this search).

And last, a little problem, a misunderstanding. Not me added the References and sources to the article! They are there since almost 6 years, with no changes and no dispute, as I see (if you think, please check the history of contributions of the article for verification). Many eagle-eyed persons control the Wikipedia, the 6 years time is long, from this reason I think that these data might be correct - but I did not search the databases I can access, this is a later-to-do for me, at first I collect reliable additional sources. Being a very experienced contributor as I see in your Talk Page, if you would have any advice, any proposal, any suggestion relating to my search, please, let me know.

Thanks for your attention and reading this message dear LaMona. What you did, when searching, I feel that it is great, but I feel also that this matter still needs some more further investigation and search. Sincerely yours, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 89.133.187.29 -- before you spend much more time on this it would be good for you to understand Wikipedia policy relating to notability and sources. For example, your source "www.antikvarium.hu" is an online book sales site, which cannot be used to establish notability. Publication lists (Matarka), library listings, etc. do not support notability. I'm not doubting that his books exist, I'm looking for evidence that he meets WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE or WP:NACADEMIC. This is done by showing reliable sources as per WP:RS. The best thing that you can do would be to find substantial published materials that are about him. Being on Wikipedia for 6 years is not a reason to assume the article meets the criteria. There are over 5 million articles on English wikipedia, and ones turn up here at AfD often because some comes across them by changes. LaMona (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice Dear LaMona! Now I go on that path that you proposed! I collect the published materials that are directly and clearly about the author, then I list them, double-check them, and within a short time, if you allow, I will show you. Have please nice days, nice weekend, and good health. Yours sincerely, Norbert.89.133.187.29 (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dear LaMona! Following you advice I searched for sources that are solely and clearly about the author, so I went through the printed material of the local library here, and I found 34 additional, hopefully quite informative, solid, and relaible items about him!

Hiller István: Deme Zoltán: Halász Gábor élete és munkássága. Soproni Szemle, Vol. XX. No. 4. p. 94.
Lőrincze Lajos: Deme Zoltán: Halász Gábor élete és munkássága. Szolnok Megyei Néplap, 1966-06-09. p. 6.
J. Barta: Zoltán Deme: Verseghy et le double rythme iambique. Studia Litteraria, 1973. p. 135.
Karcsai Kulcsár István: Filmévkönyv, Deme Zoltán. Magyar Filmtudományi Intézet és Filmarchívum, 1979. p. 302.
Julow Viktor: Irodalomtudományi szekció alakult (Deme Zoltán előadást tart). Szolnok Megyei Néplap, 1980-12-02. p. 5.
Karcsai Kulcsár István: Filmévkönyv, Deme Zoltán. Magyar Filmtudományi Intézet és Filmarchívum, 1981. p. 289.
Hegyi Béla: Deme Zoltán. Vigília 1982. Vol. II. p. 161.
Sinkovits Péter: Deme Zoltán: Piet Mondrian. Művészet, 1983.Vol. V. p. 64.
Fried István: Megjegyzések Verseghy Ferenc kiadatlan írásai I. kötethez (Deme Zoltán könyvéről). Irodalomtörténet, 1984. p. 756.
Mezey Katalin: Színkép, Deme Zoltán. Kozmosz könyvek, 1984. p. 47.
Sztáray Zoltán: Deme Zoltán: Elment egy nemzedék. Új Látóhatár (Munich, Germany), 1985. p. 423.
Julow Viktor: Bevezetés Deme Zoltán tanulmányaihoz. In: Debreceni műhelymunkák, 1985. p. 5.
Tóth Béla: Utószó Deme Zoltán tanulmánykötetéhez. In: Debreceni műhelymunkák, 1985. p. 121.
Fried István: Egy kis Verseghy-filológia (Deme Zoltán könyveiről). Irodalomtörténet, 1985. p. 956.
Király István: Deme Zoltán: Arpeggio, Mikrokozmosz. Könyvvilág, 1985. p. 4.
Szurmay Ernő: Deme Zoltán két újabb kötetéről. Jászkunság, 1985. Vol.III. p. 41.
Nagy Pál: Deme Zoltán: Arpeggio és Mikrokozmosz. Magyar Műhely (Paris, France), 1985. p. 45.
Balogh György: Deme Zoltán: Arpeggio. Hungarológiai Értesítő, 1986. p. 48.
Lukácsy Sándor: Deme Zoltán: Verseghy könyvtára. Hungarológiai Értesítő, 1987. p. 38.
Hopp Lajos: Deme Zoltán: Verseghy könyvtára. Magyar Könyvszemle, 1988. p. 226.
Rónay László: Kulturális krónika (Deme Zoltán: Klasszikusok öröksége). Vigília, 1989. Vol VII. p. 558.
Hopp Lajos: Deme Zoltán: Verseghy könyvtára. Helikon, 1989. p. 285.
Kiss János: Neki címezték, nekünk küldték (Deme Zoltánról). Békés Megyei Népújság, 1990-4-28. p. 2.
Szilasi László: Deme Zoltán: Klasszikusok öröksége. Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények, 1990 p. 275.
Kiss János: Deme Zoltán nem sajátitható ki. Békés Megyei Népújság, 1990-03-27. p. 2.
Michel Deguy: Zoltan Deme: Lutte contre l'absurdité de l'existence humaine. Atelier Hongrois (Montrouge, France). 1990. p. 38.
Szurmay Ernő: Helyi szerzők Verseghy-képe (Deme Zoltánról). In Memoriam Verseghy Ferenc, Vol.IV. 1994. p. 72.
Harast Alexander: Források és elemzések Deme Zoltán emlékáramaihoz (Sourcing and analyzing Zoltan Deme's poetic memoir). Jászkunság, 1996. p. 81.
Clara Gyorgyey: Introductions to Zoltan Deme's works. In: Chords of Scales, Warwick Township, NY., Universe Publishing 1995. p. 17.
Fried István: A korán jött ember (Deme Zoltán Verseghy-válogatása). Hungarológiai Értesítő, 1996. p. 42.
Istvan Udvari: Zoltan Deme Conference. Acta Beregsasiensis (Beregovo, Ukraine, former Soviet Union), 2000. p. 46.
Judit Lukovszki: Addenda to Zoltan Deme's works. In: Programme. Pompton Lakes, NJ., Globe P. House 2002. p. 116.
Zsuzsa Ujszaszi: Addenda to Zoltan Deme's essay 'Struggling against the Absurdity'. In: Programme. Pompton Lakes, NJ., Globe P. House 2002. p. 95.
Clara Gyorgyey: A Renaissance Man. Journal of American Studies. Eger 2009. p. 134.

My next step is to find Internet links to these sources, which is not easy and needs time because the Hungarian, Ukrainian, Russian libraries mostly just partially digitalized (or not digitalized at all.) When I will be done with this, and if you allow, I will show them to you. I feel deep thanks for your previous help, you made me light in the darkness of the research, without your advices these third party secondary sources maybe never would be revealed.

Last, let me share please an interesting experience. This tag on the top of this AfD page

"Find sources: "Zoltán Deme" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images"

proved to be absolutely useless for the research work. For example "Scholar" gives 1 citation, though just with 10 minutes research I got immediately 20 citations! [[38]] page 65 [[39]] p.2 [[40]] p.23 [[41]] p.1 [[42]] p.289 [[43]] p.5 [[44]] p.2 [[45]] p.353 [[46]] p.35 [[47]] p.1 [[48]] p.46 [[49]] p.75 [[50]] p.63 [[51]] p.84 [[52]] p.64 [[53]] p.1 [[54]] p.48 [[55]] p.317 [[56]] p.196 [[57]] p.101. (Plus I got many items, as "required reading" in the universities, like [[58]] p.1 [[59]] p.1 [[60]] p.48 [[61]] and so on). For other example, Books, Google Books gives 3 items, while this site (and others) show the pictures and data of more than 20 items! [[62]] [[63]] This above tag is not only useless as I think, but deceptive! (It presents misconducting information).

However, despite of the above lists, my purpose this time is not the confirmation of the notability under WP:NACADEMIC or WP:CREATIVE, this is a later-to-do for me, now as a first step I plan to confirm the firm notability under WP:GNG. If you would have any advice, proposal, suggestion relating to my work and the material I have provided here, please, dear LaMona, let me know.

Thank you for everything! Yours, Norbert.89.133.187.29 (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dear LaMona! Let me, please, inform you that I have started to improve the article. I added about 30 new sources (these are long reviews about the author and his works, and not just 2-3 sentences as summaries) and I also supported the 6 years old original references of the page with other sources (but I kept untouched the content and the data of the old references until I will have time to access each of them for verification). I also kept the original structure of the page (but temporarily I deleted the chapters about his stage music compositions and stage plays being also a later-to-do for me to find the proper sources to support these chapters). Now my first of all to-do is to enlarge the scale of the direct Internet links and this still needs a couple of days: the pre-Internet era poorly is represented in the Google and it is not easy to find 30-40 years old English, Russian, Ukrainian, Slovakian, Hungarian articles as posted pdf files or direct links. But I have some progress in this field, and hopefully within 2-3 days, if you allow, I can show the results to you. If you would have any advice, any suggestion, any proposal relating to my research, please dear LaMona, let me know. Yours, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering that the time for the relisting expires today, under the Wikipedia policy requirements I reviewed three times the improved article carefully, and based on these reviews my vote is to keep it. Unsourced parts were entirely deleted, while instead of the original 7 sources the page has now 42 third party secondary sources, it has now separate reference lists to the biography and to books of the author with altogether 80 inline citations, and it meets WP:BLP, WP:GNG as it is in the recent minute. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: can we get those sources evaluated please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dear LaMona! Let me to inform you that I have started to put aside those old sources that were placed in the page 6 years ago, but neither yourself nor myself was able to access them for verification up to the recent time. Plus I took the liberty and made a short new chapter about the youth of the author, because I plodded through the old printed material and found Internet links. If you would have any proposal or advice related to my research work, please let me know! Yours, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few non-notable films ≠ WP:creative. If he was notable, my quick news search wiuld have more than this: [64].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response Hello E.M.Gregory, thank you for commenting! I deleted the very short "Further information" section (about his films) that could be misleading. Not his films meet WP:GNG , but the long chapters "His books" (29 inline citations) "His philosophy" (34 citations) and his biography (11 citations) as I think - and I, rather, never claimed the author's movie notability under WP:CREATIVE (as you can see this here, above, in my note, made few days ago). I just wanted to give a bit of additional information for the readers with this very short "Further information" section, but probably better to avoid any misinterpretation, so I am thankful, that you drew my attention to this problem. Sincerely yours, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note People may think that he is notable because he directed films though this was a side activity of him, thus I have deleted now the all movie related parts. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Thanks for everyone who helped my research! But I still have a problem. This tag:

"Find sources: "Zoltán Deme" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images"

proved to be useless for reaching the sources of 1960-1980 decades especially in the past communist countries of East Europe where many libraries poorly digitized. For example "Scholar" gives 1 citation, though just with 10 minutes research I got 20 citations! [[65]] page 65 [[66]] p.2 [[67]] p.23 [[68]] p.1 [[69]] p.289 [[70]] p.5 [[71]] p.2 [[72]] p.353 [[73]] p.35 [[74]] p.1 [[75]] p.46 [[76]] p.75 [[77]] p.63 [[78]] p.84 [[79]] p.64[[80]] p.1 [[81]] p.317 [[82]] p.196 [[83]] p.101. For other example, Google Books gives 3 items, while this site (and others) show the pictures and data of more than 20 items: [[84]] [[85]] This misleads almost everyone, presents the subject non-notable with only one citation and three books, thus, I had to go over this problem and collect printed material. If an experience contributor with some Eastern European expertise would be online, and if her or his time would allow, please would you so kind to investigate the refreshed article, is my work now sufficient? Thanks again for everyone. Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 16:37, 11 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 no consensus. This has been relisted 3 times, and no consensus has been reached. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 15:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Marinov[edit]

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

Vanity bio of a nonnotable confused scientist Staszek Lem (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - badly fails WP:PROF. Other than morbid curiosity, why is this even here? Bearian (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not one reliable source in the article, and searching turns up evidence that he wrote articles and books but no info about him. Some of his articles appeared in Springer publications, and one is cited over 70 times. The books I can find are mostly held in <10 libraries. The publisher of his English-language books seems odd: it's located in Graz, Austria, but the name of the publisher is Italian ("Est-Ovest Editrice Internazionale"). None of the books that I looked at has an ISBN even though they are from the 70's when ISBNs were definitely in use. This translates to poor distribution of his works in the Western market. The other interesting thing is that one of the people who cites him is another very strange scientist up for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Paul_Wesley. LaMona (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An unusual and highly entertaining article, but unfortunately this doesn't meet the notability guidelines, as evidenced by the fact that nearly all references in the article are publications by the subject himself. I suspect this article was written by a family member, as it is mostly WP:OR. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not quite meet WP:Prof#C1 with an h-index of 11 but this bizarre story passes WP:GNG in the area of psychopathology. A notable fringe topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- How come it pass WP:GNG without a single independent reference? (not counting the obit, but it says nothing but platitudes and unsupproted claims). 03:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ITSNOTABLE. You need to actually provide a reason why it's notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:PERX. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. notable, though not under WP:PROF. I tend to bias any impression we may give of bias towards conventional topics by including articles on unusual people, even if the documentation is a little less than ideal. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage of this fringe theory in Economist 1977 is a reliable source for GNG (not WP:PROF). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps as this seems enough for an article. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whereas he doesn't meet the criteria for a highly cited academic, perhaps his other contributions to the science (i.e. a paradigm shift in his research area) should be elaborately clarified. Nevertheless, the article should be revised, as an illustration what does it suppose to mean that he is known for Youtube?? Arashtitan 15:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could one of the above editors please provide the independent reliable sources that cover him? The only thing I can locate is this: [86]. I don't think that is enough on its own. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at best as the current article seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeated vote

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is certainly interesting and this seems to be at the root of many of the keeps. Mscuthbert seems to be the only one that mentioned a good secondary source, thought I don't see it in the article. I would certainly be inclined to keep were it not for the unavoidable fact that almost all of the enormous source list is stuff written by the subject. Agricola44 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Intriguingly, they recently retweeted the article: [87] which links to the original: [88]: "The organiser is Mr Stefan Marinov of the Sofia Laboratory for Fundamental Physical Problems. His physical ideas are on the verge between originality and crankiness but are plausible enough to have attracted interest among just a few more orthodox physicists." I think that reposting it 38 years later might count as two different citations? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:02, 12 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flower's Squirt Shower[edit]

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

Fails NFILM and the GNG not to mention WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Little more than an commentary-free collection of castlists. Other sourcing and content is trivial at best. "Best Specialty Release – Squirting" is about as likely to be a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking, as required by the pertinent SNG, NFILM, as Generalissimo Francisco Franco is likely to be no longer still dead. Disruptively deprodded without coherent explanation or article improvement by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Everything seems to well-sourced to me. Adult films nominated, and even winning, AVN Awards strikes me as notable. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 14:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, the WP:NFILM standard is higher than a "notable award". It requires winning "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, it's a niche film series and the awards it won is the highest it is able to achieve. We have the precedence of aggregating the film series of individual movies rather than list each one. See [89]. There are reviews of the individual movies out there whether they be AVN, XCritic, or Rogreviews so people can theoretically add those as descriptions to the individual movies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find any non-porn sources except Amazon,fails WP:GNGAtlantic306 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy as a compromise because the current article may seem acceptable, it is also still solidly questionable for the applicable notability therefore drafting and userfying for now is acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has twelve external links to sales information including six links to hardcore porn images .This is a breach of policies 1,4,5 of WP:ELNO Atlantic306 (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Morbidthoughts. A complete list of all awards/nominations for this film series demonstrates that Best Squirting Release/Series are the only award categories it qualifies for. It makes no sense to disregard genre-specific categories and require wins in generic categories when that doesn't exist for porn films/series. Even generic-sounding categories like the XRCO Award for Best Release are genre-specific, since they are only given to what the porn industry calls "feature" films, which refers to a very specific type of plot/acting that excludes the student/teacher, secretary/boss etc. story-lines of Brazzers/Naughty America as well as parodies, which are placed in "Vignette" and "Parody" categories instead. Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that because it doesn't even "qualify" for any awards that meet NFILM requirements, it's notable so long as it wins anything? That's beyond ridiculoius, especially given the undeniable failure to satisfy the GNG. Even worse, but unsurprising, is that the factual premise of your argument is wrong, and you know it. You say that releases like this, as well as parodies, don't qualify for general awards. But for the last two years, AVN gave its "Movie of the Year" award to parodies. And releases like this, which you acknowledge are in the "vignette" category, are also eligible, and were nominated in prior years. So unless you can explain how "Best Squirting Release" meets the NFILM requirement as "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking", your argument carries no weight whatever. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - winners + arguments above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:44, 13 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 keep. SpinningSpark 19:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago (pool)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Adam9007 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The game is real, and Google produces an explanatory entry from a billiard encyclopedia [90]. So I wouldn't favor a total deletion of this content. But the encyclopedia entry suggests that it is may be viewed as a set of variations of rotation, so a selective merge/redirect is a possible alternative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as-is. Can be better sourced if needed. The playing cultures are different. Rotation was the ancestor of Chicago, and is still played quite actively in Mexico and other parts of Latin America, but Chicago is not. It's a bit like wanting to merge Canadian football into American football just because they're similar and the former a split-off of the latter. (Or merging both forms of rugby, or whatever.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable gambling game, although there are no references, some could be found. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep arguments are rather hopeful would sources. can these be found please or could the keep side expand their comments to ref;ect policy based arguments? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is imaginably improvable and can be kept for such, no outstanding needs for deletion likely. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, RoySmith, for undoing your close after the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 15#Chicago (pool). Talk:Chicago (pool) is still deleted, so would an admin undelete it? Cunard (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was an oversight on my part. Fixed. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the discussion below.

Discussion with closing admin:

Extended content

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago (pool) as delete, writing that the people arguing to keep failed to provide any sources. This is correct, but an AfD commenter in the discussion wrote:

The game is real, and Google produces an explanatory entry from a billiard encyclopedia [91]. So I wouldn't favor a total deletion of this content. But the encyclopedia entry suggests that it is may be viewed as a set of variations of rotation, so a selective merge/redirect is a possible alternative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the source Arxiloxos provided, The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards authored by Michael Ian Shamos and published in 2002 by Globe Pequot Press:

Chicago
1. (game) A form of ROTATION in which the balls are not racked but are placed FROZEN to the rails at various predetermined DIAMONDS in numerical order counterclockwise about the table. The striker must hit the lowest-numbered ball on the table first and receives credit for the numerical value of any balls pocketed on the stroke. The custom in the city of Chicago was for the lowest-scoring player to pay for general refreshments and the next lowest to play for the TABLE TIME. 1890 HRB 88, 1916 RGRG 63. Also called BOSTON POOL, CHICAGO POOL, or MEXICAN ROTATION. 1900 May 61. The term "Rotation" derives from the arrangement of the balls in the game of Chicago and not from the fact that the balls are struck in numerical sequence. Other U.S. cities appearing in names of billiard games are BOSTON and HONOLULU.
2. (game) A synonym for ROTATION. 1979 Sullivan 99. General references: 1890 HRB 88, 1891 MB 334, 1919 Hoyle 633.

I think the "keep" editors were supporting retention on the basis of Arxiloxos' source, so I don't think a "delete" close is justifiable.

Cunard (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that falls way short of what's necessary. Please feel free to take it to DRV if you feel strongly about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that source in itself is not enough. However, that source includes several references like "1919 Hoyle 633", which refers to this entry (image) in The American Hoyle: Or, Gentleman's Hand-book of Games, Containing All the Games Played in the United States, with Rules, Descriptions, and Technicalities Adapted to the American Method of Playing published in 1921, which discuss Chicago in a page-and-a-half:

CHICAGO POOL This game is played with the numbered pool balls from one to fifteen and a white cue bal as in Fifteen ball Pool the object being to play upon and pocket the balls in their numerical order 4S it ti The table is laid out for the game by placing the i ball against the end cushion at the first right hand diamond sight at the foot of the table as seen in the diagram the ball is placed at the center diamond sight on the same cushion the remaining thirteen balls are placed in the order of their numbers at the succeeding diamond sights as shown in the diagram All things being equal it is immaterial which way the numbers run in setting the balls for they may also be set so that the i ball is placed on thj diamond sight which when standing at the head of the table and looking towards the foot or lower end appears as the left hand diamond sight on the end rail with the 3ball placed at the right etc The three sights on the end rail at head of the table are not occupied by any ball In opening the game the order of play is determined by throwing out small numbered balls as in Fifteen ball Poo q and he whose first play it may be strikes the cue ball from any point within the string line The opening stroke must be to strike sie uwc ball If that ball is holed it is placed to the credit of the player and he continues his hand until he fails to score but in continuing he must play each time upon the ball bearing the lowest number on the table After playing upon that ball however should any other be pocketed by the same stroke irrespective of its number it shall be placed to the player's credit so pocketing it If the line of aim at the ball required to be hit is covered by an other bowl the player LAy resort to a bank play or masse etc 10t should he fail to hit the required ball he forfeits three receiving a scratch Should a ball be holed by a foul stroke it is replaced upon the spot it occupied at the opening of the game but should it be the 8 11 111 or 2 ball so holed they being within the string and the cu e ball in hand then the balls specified are to be placed upon the pyramid or red ball spot or should that be occupiv as near to it as is possible as in Fifteen ball Pool The player having the lowest aggregate score is required to pay for general refreshment for all in the game The player having the second lowest score pays for the game The rules of Fifteen ball Pool govern Chicago Pool except where they conflict with the foregoing rules

"HRB 88" refers to the 1898 book The Handbook of Rules of Billiards. A Google search for the title doesn't return an online copy of the book. But it returns mentions in sources like the 1903 book The Encyclopædia Britannica: New American supplement. A-ZUY, which indicates that the source is considered reliable.

"RGRG 63" refers to the 1925 book Rules Governing the Royal Game of Billiards by Brunswick Balke Collender (Amazon link), which is not available online.

Please let me know if that is enough to change your mind.

Cunard (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, please feel free to take it to DRV if you feel strongly about it. I've done that for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Is possibly sourceable, and possibly notable, but as of now fails WP:V because it cites zero sources. Verifiability requires that readers can verify the article by sources that are being provided in it. If nobody has bothered to source the article since 2007, or now during this weeks-long AfD, then we have no more reason to keep it around. And per WP:BURDEN sourcing would be the job of those who want to keep the article. Sandstein 10:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sandstein – Note that sources and inline citations were added to the article by another user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Neutral. Right, so it now passes WP:V at least. Whether it also passes WP:N I don't know and I am insufficiently interested in the topic to attempt to find out. Sandstein 14:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tentatively. References to this game are easy to find. Appears definitely verifiable. As an historic game, 50s-70s, internet sources will not abound,so be patient. No hint of promotion or any other motivation to add unencyclopedic content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Rotation (pool). There has never been any question that it is real and verifiable. http://www.billiardsforum.info/pool-rules/rotation-billiard-rules.asp and http://billiards.about.com/od/gamerulesstrategy/a/02_12rotation.htm are sufficient for verification. Without sourced commentary, there is no case for a standalone article, and the information would be better maintained and in context at the target. It being a decades past popular variation barely played anymore, it is to be no surprise that there is a lack of enthusiastic editors wanting to adopt this subject, but that is not a good reason to reactively do away with it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, those links only verify that rotation billiards is sometimes called Chicago, not that there is an independent variant called Chicago. Hut 8.5 18:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Sandstein. If it's so easily sourceable, then go ahead and do it! Otherwise this does not meet WP:V and no amount of handwaving will fix that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment @Lankiveil – Note that sources and inline citations were added to the article by another user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our deletion policies don't allow for deletion based on the lack of sources in the article. Sources exist is enough. Beyond that point, WP:V is now met in the article so the point is moot. Hobit (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources scraped together are just enough to convince me that the subject exists, but there is nothing to verify that this is a notable variant of Pool (cue sports). In passing, I note that the same could be said of Bowlliards. WJBscribe (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In all seriousness, I feel that that WP:5P1 means the fact that a number of specialized encyclopedias do cover this variant means that we should too. I take that first pillar to mean that we are trying to be a superset of most specialized encyclopedias, so I tend to treat such coverage (especially in older "encyclopedias") as very important when considering inclusion. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage in subject encyclopedias is sufficient. Had they just mentioned it in a single sentence it would have been another matter. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rotation (pool)#Variations. The article does (finally) have some sources, but they don't really go beyond a bare description of the rules. The article doesn't either, and apart from a sentence or two is describing a variant which isn't the one described by the sources linked here. I don't think the available sources are going to provide sufficient coverage to enable this article to grow significantly beyond a bare description of the rules. I suggest we assemble a paragraph which can actually be sourced and add it to the target, which already describes a number of other variants. Hut 8.5 19:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm understanding this correctly (and I'm not sure I am), this is a pretty huge variant. Both in terms of popularity (at one point) and rules. I'm honestly not opposed to a merge, but I'm not sure we can do this justice without a figure and a fair bit of text. Hobit (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not seeing much evidence of that beyond an unsourced assertion that it was popular in New York City in the 60s and 70s. If someone can present sources which cover it beyond telling you how to play it then I'm happy to reconsider, but without that I'm inclined to treat it the same way I would an article on a word with just a dictionary definition or an article on a film with just a plot summary. Hut 8.5 20:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has a few more sources in it, but they all just amount to stating the rules. The only exception, which I did see before posting the above comment, verifies that a pool hall is/was named after it - "He christened the place Chicago Billiards, not after the city but after the game Chicago, a permutation of rotation pool". That seems to be all the source says about it. Hut 8.5 18:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per ~~Sandstein and~~ WJBScribe. The "keep" arguments seem to boil down to I've heard of it and think it's probably notable and that legitimate sources might be available, which is simply not enough. The initial closer was right to discount such "arguments." Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 21:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, having an encyclopedia as one of its reliable sources, unsourced material can be removed, I think it passes WP:GNGAtlantic306 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306 and DGG, also I just added a bit of history and color, with a cite. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SwisterTwister: Could/might be improved and I don't see a reason to push for deletion. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the entries in subject encyclopedias are enough to warrant inclusion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG, albeit on a weak level based upon sources that are available online. However, the game dates to at least 1910, and it's likely that additional offline sources are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I understand that this is a grey area as there are not, as far as I can see, 2 non-trivial pieces of coverage in secondary sources but the current citations do have 2 semi-trivial pieces of coverage in secondary sources (Phalen and Wertheim) combined with 3 very clear references in tertiary sources, more if you consider the Google references (which I don't personally). Since this is obviously right on the line I have no prejudice against those suggesting deletion, but it appears to (barely) justify it's wiki-existence. -Markeer 18:04, 17 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maahir[edit]

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

From what I have seen, this film fails WP:NFILM and W:GNG, because there is an absence of substantive coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Additionally, none of the individuals involved are notable enough for all of their work to be inherently notable. I actually came to this because it was created by a user now blocked, but there were questions over whether it was G5 eligible, and so the consensus was to PROD their creations. The PROD was removed by another editor who felt this needed a full AfD. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For all the reasons outlined by Vanamonde93. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be a movie with two massively huge Bollywood superstars: Hema Malini and Govinda. Biwom (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pre-internet coverage online for Indian films is difficult to find. Does that mean anything pre-internet is automatically non-notable? Nope. We look anyway, consider cast and crew and then WP:CSB and WP:NTEMP... IE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2006 distributor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

and per WP:INDAFD "Maahir movie" "Lawrence D'Souza" "Talat Rekhi" "Harish Barot" "Bappi Lahiri" "Monang Films International" "Hema Malini" "Govinda" "Farha Naaz" "Raj Babbar" to see that it is not impossible to source them. A commercial screening almost 2 decades after initial release is one of those notability considerations. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt, I'm certainly willing to reconsider my position if enough reliable coverage is provided; but you've provided a bunch of search results of the people related to this movie, which do not really add to notability. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93: I am not asserting WP:INHERIT, only pointing out the reasonable consideration that as a film is often discussed in relationship to its principles, it is through THAT coverage that we can have a notability, even if one chooses to ignore WP:NF#Other evidence of notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film is notable as it starred Govinda and Hema Malini, two of the biggest Bollywood stars.Rajeshbieee (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Darko[edit]

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

He is mentioned as BBC reporter in couple of articles, but not every reporter gets an it's own Wikipedia entry. I didn't find any independent sources about him, especially talking about "being recognized across the globe" and getting any awards. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence of notability either. Articles by this journalist are not the same as articles about him, which is what would be required, if I understand the policy correctly. Jmatazzoni (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources can be found independently about this journalist https://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/2012/08/24/full-list-of-nominees-for-2012-gja-awards/ https://gharage.com/event/mesttalks-how-to-get-international-press-for-your-startup-ft-al-jazeera-bbc-and-bloomberg/ http://www.newsghana.com.gh/starr-fm-attracts-heavy-weight-broadcast-journalists/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.189.162.15 (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this has been listed as an article to be delated. What is wrong with wikipedia these days?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.44.17 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 2 February 2016‎

This shouldn't be deleted! @Arthistorian1977 what you talked about has been corrected. Revert this change wikipedia —Simon T8W —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this listed as part of the to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon T8W (talk • contribs) 23:19, 2 February 2016‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 13 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ramsay (British philanthropist)[edit]

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

Ramsay is a non-notable businessman and philanthropist. There is no credible source to support the claim that he help founded Brocade Communications Systems. UI1990 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The modified search below provides sources about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - The modified search actually provides sources about dozens of people called Paul Ramsay - some of whom are dead - and is less useful than the previous search! Emeraude (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep The BBC News and Guardian links certainly demonstrate, in terms of notability, that someone named Paul Ramsay gave 1M to Birmingham University. Of course, that doesn't in any way tell us who this person actually is, since most of the other links lead to dead pages. This needs to be seriously cleaned up, but technically I suppose passes WP:N -Markeer 01:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Ramsay has given £1 million to Birmingham University doesn't make him notable. UI1990 (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG, it DOES mean there is (barely) sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article, since there have been multiple (in this case two) secondary sources that have given the topic significant coverage, in this case by writing articles that are solely about the topic. My point above is that this article has, technically, passed Wikipedia's notability guidelines, yes. I think it's a bad article, and I think it needs a lot of work, but GNG doesn't appear to be a valid argument here. Cleanup issues should be addressed in the article itself, not on AfD. -Markeer 13:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best, still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 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 12:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the Brocade Communication Systems point, this patent seems to link the corporation with Paul Ramsay. It seems entirely possible that offline sources exist to show that the subject was indeed a founder. On the substantive point, I think further investigation might be needed in offline sources to determine if he is truly notable. The two short mentions I can see in RS are barely enough to show that he exists, never mind that he should have a wikipedia page. JMWt (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided three sources below from Birmingham Post and Financial Times that verify that Paul Ramsay is a founder of Brocade Communications Systems. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not seeing the in-depth, significant secondary coverage here. The fact that some is a philanthropist does not automatically confer notability. Neutrality^talk 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both the BBC article and The Guardian article provide significant coverage of the subject.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Paul Ramsay to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more sources about the subject:
1. Naqvi, Shahid (2003-09-02). "Students' benefactor attacks Blair policy". Birmingham Post. Archived from the original on 2016-01-06. Retrieved 2016-01-06.
  The article notes:
  
  The Birmingham-born 49year-old studied computer science at Birmingham. He made his fortune after moving to the US during the high-tech boom of the Eighties.
  After working for several firm in California's silicon valley, he co-founded the world's biggest data storage company, Brocade Communications, in 1995.
  Mr Ramsay, who is worth more than pounds 55 million, said he hoped his gift would help the university take in a wider range of applicants, not just those that could afford to pay.
  ...
  Paul Ramsay -a graduate from the university whose stonemason father helped to build it -added that he found Government plans to increase tuition top-up fees 'worrying'.
2. Kelly, Jim (2003-09-01). "American culture of donation inspires entrepreneur to give". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2016-01-06. Retrieved 2016-01-06.
  The article notes:
  
  A former Birmingham University student who made a fortune in the US computer sector will today give his alma mater {GBP}1m - the latest in a series of philanthropic gifts to UK colleges.
  Paul Ramsay will be searching the red bricks of Birmingham University's Chamberlain Clock Tower for the name of his grandfather, George Harper, a mason who helped give the second city its ultimate academic landmark.
  Mr Ramsay, who moved to California's Silicon Valley in 1983, is planning a series of gifts to his alma mater in recognition of its role in equipping him for a career as a computer entrepreneur.
  ...
  Mr Ramsay made his fortune selling stock from his company Brocade Communications, set up to make switches for storage area networks.
3. Naqvi, Shahid (2002-09-01). "Graduate gives pounds 1m for hard-up students". Archived from the original on 2016-01-06. Retrieved 2016-01-06.
  The article notes:
  
  A University of Birmingham graduate has donated pounds 1 million to help hard-up students cope.
  Paul Ramsay, originally from Northfield, Birmingham, gave the money to pay for bursaries that will help people from poor backgrounds to attend the university.
  Part of the cash, which has been earmarked for his former faculty, the School of Computer Science, will go towards funding research projects.
  ...
  Mr Ramsay gained a BSc, MSc and PhD at Birmingham University during the seventies and eighties. He moved to California in 1983 and worked for several computer companies before making his fortune after establishing his own business, Brocade Communications.

Cunard

talk

[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. After discounting Schily's opinion, which does not address the concerns raised in the discussion, consensus is that this software function is not notable. Whether to redirect to List of Unix commands is a separate matter; recreating the entry there should not require a merger. Sandstein 08:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Size (Unix)[edit]

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

Manual for a trivial Unix command. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTMANUAL is stylistic guidance which is addressed by editing not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: it's part of WP:NOT, a policy regarding what material is appropriate for inclusion. If you think you can write an article about this program that is not a manual, feel free to do so. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section states:
Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.

This is stylistic guidance, not a prohibition on writing about topics of this kind. For food topics, we cover a dish such as an omelette in a descriptive way rather than providing step-by-step instructions or a recipe. The same goes for computing topics. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the actual quality of an article is irrelevant when it covers an important command such as size. Schily (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to those criticizing my deletion rationale, keep in mind that your !vote need not depend on it, and WP:GNG is also not established for this program. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unlike the recent AfD for test (Unix), I can't see any evidence for notability beyond the basics of WP:MANUAL. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Andy Dingley. This command is lacking in notability. It is rarely used, and what it does is not especially important or interesting. SJK (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some sources about the subject:
1. Dikian, Jack (December 1989). "Unix Design and Tuning Issues". AUUG. Vol. 10. AUUG. p. 17. Retrieved 2016-02-06.
  The article notes:
  The value returned via ps does not include the size of shared text. The UNIX "size" utility returns the size of text, data, and bss (uninitialized data) sections of a common object file. The text size returned by the size utility should be added to the number calculated via ps to give the total memory used.
2. Massa, Anthony J. (2003). Embedded Software Development with ECos. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 303. ISBN 0130354732. Retrieved 2016-02-06.
  The book notes:
  One utility that can come in handy is the GNU size utility. The size utility is part of the GNU binary utilities. The size utility lists the sizes of the different sections and the total size of the object file. To get the size of our example application we run the command:
  $ is386-elf-size basic1.exe
  The output from the size utility is shown in Code Listing 12.5.
  In Code Listing 12.5, the section names, text, data, and bss, are shown on line 1. Also on line 1 is the total size of the basic.exe object file in decimal (dec) and hexadecimal (hex). The size values are listed under their respective sections on line 2. Adding up the text, data, and bss sections gives the total size of the file, 113,188 bytes, under the dec column, which equates to 1BA24 in hexadecimal, shown in the hex column.
3. Raghavan, P.; Lad, Amol; Neelakandan, Sriram (2005). Embedded Linux System Design and Development. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. p. 50. ISBN 1420031619. Retrieved 2016-02-06.
  The book notes:
  size: The GNU size utility lists the section sizes and the total size for each of the object files in its argument list. By default, one line of output is generated for each object file or each module in an archive.
4. Allan, R.J.; Guest, M.F.; Simpson, A.D.; Henty, D.S.; Nicole, D., eds. (2012). High-Performance Computing. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 123. ISBN 146154873X. Retrieved 2016-02-06.
  The book notes:
  It is often important to know how the memory requirements of a code vary with the problem parameters and the number of processors used, particularly when porting between machines with different configurations. It can be difficult to trace errors due to lack of memory so a priori knowledge of array requirements can be extremely useful. Tools such as the UNIX size (or mppsize on the T3D) which give information on the memory requirements of the executable file can be useful, although these only report statically allocated memory.
5. Robbins, Arnold (1999). UNIX in a Nutshell: A Desktop Quick Reference for System V Release 4 and Solaris 7. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. p. 151. ISBN 1565924274. Retrieved 2016-02-06.
  The book notes:
  /usr/ccs/bin/size [options] [objfile ...]
  Print the (decimal) number of bytes of each section of objfile. On many systems, if objfile is not specified, a.out is used. Solaris requires the objfile name.
  Options
  -f Print sizes, names, and total size for allocatable sections.
  -F Print sizes, permission flags, and total size for loadable segments.
  -n Print sizes for nonallocatable sections or for nonloadable segments.
  -o Print output in octal.
  -V Report the size program version number
  -x Print output in hexadecimal.
There is enough material about the subject to write an encyclopedic article that does not violate WP:NOTMANUAL and that describes the different components of the size command: its inputs and outputs. A description of the inputs could list the different options. A description of the outputs could explain the "returns the size of text, data, and bss (uninitialized data) sections of a common object file" in bytes in decimal form. Source #4 further notes that size "only report[s] statically allocated memory".
From WP:NOTMANUAL, "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not."
Cunard (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, as usual, Cunard was able to dredge up many trivial mentions. However, there just isn't enough there to justify an article. What I would want to see is something like vi, which has background, history, and a clear description of why it's notable. I dispute that an article created from those sources would be encyclopedic and satisfy the requirements of WP:NOTMANUAL. Then again, we've been through this with enough AfDs by now that everyone probably already knows how I feel. If we can't create an article that doesn't violate policy, then we shouldn't have an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Unix commands as there is no expansion opportunity except for information about its use; not specified in ISO/IEC 9945:2003 or POSIX; passing notice. Esquivalience ^t 00:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing interesting about this command. Sure, there are books that include descriptions of it, but in the same way that a dictionary includes the word, size. A Google search for size returns About 5,180,000,000 results. That, also, proves nothing. Even the lead sentence of the article, size is a command line utility originally written for use with the Unix-like operating systems. shows a lack of understanding by the author; when size was originally written, there were no unix-like operating systems. There was unix. The next sentence goes on to say, It processes one or more ELF files, which is equally silly since size long predates ELF. I could see an interesting article being written about executable file formats, and what the various sections of the file are for, but all size does is take some numbers from the file header and dump them in human-readable form. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Daniel Levy[edit]

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

The only film this actor has been in that has a Wikipedia page is Shake Off the World, which may not even be notable on its own. I can't find any information suggesting that he passes WP:NACTOR at this point in his career. clpo13_(talk) 08:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; additionally, no coverage in reliable sources to satisfy general notability guidelines. Opencooper (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously not a better article for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Shake Off the World just went away by PROD. DMacks (talk) 20:54, 13 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–Philippines relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

last AfD resulted in a redirect but someone has tried to recreate the article. In its current state, it demonstrates that the relationship is not significant. No resident ambassadors. no agreements, hardly any trade, just USD 2 million in 2014 and only one ministerial visit in 20 years of relations LibStar (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep ~~These relations are no more significant now than they were two years ago. Fails GNG.~~ Jbh ^Talk 16:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Change !vote due to historic relations. Jbh ^Talk 19:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Relations exist, and in is encyclopedic to know their extent however small it is. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

relations simply existing is not sufficient to establish notability. Bilateral relations are not inherently notable . LibStar (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a response. Your opinion does not reflect long established consensus. Having relations is not the same as notable relations for a WP article. LibStar (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete relations between the two countries are minor. There were only routine visits by ambassadors. No significant lasting effect resulting from interaction between the two countries beyond the usual diplomatic puffery.See comment at third relisting Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are minor. And wp article shows that. If the page were absent, how does a reader know whether they are minor or wikipedia simply did not bother to write it up? International relations are always subject of interest. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes relations exists but there is nothing to write about except perhaps nth anniversaries of the establishment of Armenia-Philippine relations. Armenia isn't that much of a destination for Overseas Filipino workers or expatriates or the Philippines a destination of Armenian expatriates. No treaties or agreements beyond "expanding bilateral ties".Also Foreign relations of the Philippines already lists Armenia as one of the countries that has officially established relations with the Philippines. Placed applicable references from Armenia–Philippines relations to Foreign relations of the Philippines.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you understood my comment. Let me highlight the important piece. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Minor? Hell no!--Jondel (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you've given zero arguments for establishing notability. Annual trade is just USD 2 million. There are small companies that easily trade more than that in a week. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
Here are two sources in the article:
1. Reyes, F. (15 August 2012). "PH, Armenia sign agreements to expand bilateral relations". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
  The article notes:
  MANILA, Philippines – Foreign Secretary Albert Del Rosario and Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian on Wednesday signed two bilateral agreements which were meant to expand bilateral relations between the two countries.
  The agreement between the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Armenia established a mechanism on political consultation meant to monitor Philippine-Armenia relations, the DFA said in a statement.
  ...
  Nalbandian’s visit to the DFA Wednesday morning was the first visit to the Philippines by a high ranking official from Armenia.
  The statement noted that Del Rosario, during his meeting with Nalbandian, said the official’s visit marked this year’s 20th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. It said Del Rosario welcomed the European country’s interest to engage in the Asia Pacific region.
  In a separate interview with reporters, Del Rosario noted that the meeting was good for the countries since “nothing has moved between us for about 20 years.” He said that for 20 years, trade between the Philippines and Armenia was “miniscule” and that there were no investments.
2. "DFA chief, Armenian envoy push efforts to enhance ties of two countries". News5. 19 March 2015. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
  The article notes:
  Armenia may be far from the Philippines, but there's a lot of ground for boosting relations between the two countries' governments and their people, their top diplomats say.
  Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del Rosario received met with Non-Resident Ambassador of Armenia to the Philippines Raisa Vardanyan Wednesday afternoon at the OSEC Conference Room at the Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila. They discussed plans to further earlier agreements to broaden ties, mainly through the holding of the first political consultations between their foreign ministries this year at a mutually acceptable date.
  Del Rosario recalled his meeting with Ambassador Vardanyan last June wherein they committed to promote Philippines-Armenia relations in the areas of trade, investments, education, science, and people-to-people ties.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Armenia–Philippines relations to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hariboneagle927 and Staszek Lem that Armenia–Philippines relations are "minor". But, the sources from Philippine Daily Inquirer and News5 cover these minor relations enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of bilateral relations between these two countries is clearly notable. The sources found by Cunard prove that it satisfies GNG. I also agree with the comments of Staszek Lem above, that these relations are per se encyclopedic. I don't agree with the proposition that the relations are "minor", which I think is based on the false premise of comparing them to other bilateral relations articles, rather than to all our articles generally. They are certainly more important than a lot of our notable sports biography articles. I also think the signing of bilateral agreements is anything but minor. I also doubt that this deletion sorting list (WP:DSBILATERAL) is capable of establishing a consensus that any particular class of article is not inherently notable under WP:IAR or otherwise, because of the intense bullying that anyone who expresses such an opinion is typically subjected to on this deletion sorting list, which so far exceeds what is usual even on this project that some editors altogether refuse to set foot here. Precedents on this list are not necessarily valid. James500 (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not minor even if one article said Del Rosario noted that the meeting was good for the countries since “nothing has moved between us for about 20 years.” He said that for 20 years, trade between the Philippines and Armenia was “miniscule” and that there were no investments. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per James500 and Cunard. do ncr am 02:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No attempt to actually establish notability on your part as per WP:PERX

LibStar (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the above sources. AusLondonder (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is present in the relations between the two countries.--RioHondo (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. you must explain how it's notable. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about you as the nominator do the necessary searches WP:BEFORE nominating this article? When the topic is on the relations between 2 nations, this should also mean to cover even the history and past linkages between the 2, which is significant and notable as per sources in Google Books Article should then include a historical account of the early Armenian quarter in Manila, the "Manilha Trade" between Manila and Madras facilitated by Armenian merchants from New Julfa, and their role in the British East India Company in the Philippines. Lets not limit bilateral relations to current ones.--RioHondo (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This adds something substantial to the current article beyond diplomat-speak. Current relations might be minor but historical relations might not be the same case. Added some info regarding the historical Armenian trade to the main article.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 18:46, 8 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Babymetal World Tour 2015[edit]

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

There is no in-depth coverage of this tour (not individual concerts, but tour) that make this notable per WP:NTOUR. It happened, and we know it, and we could possibly have a sentence or two in the main article, but this was not a notable tour. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked at other bands and pretty much all the tours of a big band are seemingly articled separately like this — like their albums or even singles. Doesn't Babymetal have hundreds of millions of views on Youtube? I don't know if the tours really need their own articles but it does seem to be the standard. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pages for the likes of U2's The Joshua Tree Tour lack online sources, but no one would submit that for AfD. Sites like KpopStarz (frequently used as a source for Korean and Japanese culture on EN Wikipedia) refer to the tour as opposed to individual concerts [92] and the number of verifiable sources on the latter for this 2015 tour is hard to dispute. Article doesn't meet WP:NOONECARES. Jun Kayama 15:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps as the current article seems satisfying and convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google news search brings up plenty of 3rd party coverage from various music news magazines sites. Seasider91 (talk) 21:04, 6 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 redirect to Young Liberals (Australia). (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 06:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Western Australian Young Liberals[edit]

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

As per similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Australian Young Labor, this page is not independently notable from Young Liberals (Australia). It does not have reliable third party sources and should be deleted and merged into the main article to avoid an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. There should not be separate standalone pages for different state branches unless they satisfy the WP:NOTE criteria, which these clearly do not, and even then I would argue Young Liberals (Australia) provides superior context. Paperclip Maximiser (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I didn't even realise the first one had an article, and neither should have one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Young Liberals (Australia), although that article is also problematic in that it's just a laundry list of stupid things that Young Liberals have done that have gotten into the press. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect both - the West Australian one with a wish list of red links, and not a single cite in 3 years is tell tale enough JarrahTree 11:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as mentioned as this seems best. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 12 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 Keep as although there's still time before a week comes for this AfD, it seems the consensus is clear and there are no serious needs for deletion thus keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double chin[edit]

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

Completely unnecessary article. No information worth merging anywhere. Lazarusloafer (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Double chin[reply]

Keep – An encyclopedic topic that passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in scholarly sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]. The topic has also received significant coverage in various news sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mahatma Gandhi
^ "Plastic correction of double chin. Importance of the position of the hyoid bone". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
^ "Surgical elimination of the retracted submental fold during double chin correction". Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "CHIN AUGMENTATION BY MEANS OF ROTATION OF DOUBLE CHIN FAT FLAP". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources cited by North America, I also found "Surgical treatment of Double Chin in Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery and a variety of more mundane pieces on the subject, such as this "The 10 Best Exercises to Reduce a Double Chin" in Livestrong. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it is a sufficiently notable topic in terms of both society and medicine (plastic surgery) as evidenced by the sources provided above. Deli nk (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic and has been mentioned in a lot of sources, e.g. CNN. πr² (t • c) 05:45, 7 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. Speedy deleted by GB fan, CSD A7: No credible indication of importance. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SK Pathela[edit]

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

not famous Seth R (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Mithun Ramesh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm repeating what I exactly said at my first AfD, "Questionably notable for WP:CREATIVE as there's nothing solid, aside from the claims of Guinness World Records, to suggest a solidly notable and acceptable article; the best my searches found was only this (News), this (browsers links) and this (WP:INDAFD) and none of it seems convincing enough.". SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the coverage I find for this person is because he set longest radio music show record which shows that he's famous but not notable per WP:ONEEVENT. Other than that I can only find passing mentions across various news articles not enough to make him pass WP:NBIO—UY Scuti ^Talk 06:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article fails WP:ONEEVENT and references are not available to state whether he's notable. JackTracker (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only person arguing to keep is the article's creator and pretty much a WP:SPA -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice of China (season 5)[edit]

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

This program is under planning and it violates the rules of WP:NOT. Shwangtianyuan (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 05:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-not clear Seth R (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need pages for every season of every show ever created. Curro2 (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete This page shows some information about the upcoming season such as the coaches. The page will also come into use later when the season starts. Da Funny Dude (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arben Krasniqi[edit]

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

Created by a sockpuppet of User:Blendi111 and there is no evidence of notability as the coach has not been playing in fully pro Adriatic League or similar. The kosovo national league is not enough for notability (at least according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanimir Marinov). Qed237 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 23:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Curro2 (talk) 05:45, 6 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 speedily deleted as author request. —Kusma (t·c) 19:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Schumacher[edit]

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

Seemingly unheard of prior to his death, unknown actor fails WP:NACTOR. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm the creator of the article, and I agree with you. Nobody heard of him until the news of his death appeared, which includes me. The article is better off getting deleted anyway. MeAsAPerson (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article creator (MeAsAPerson) has indicated that "article is better off getting deleted anyway". Quis separabit? 04:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: His only notability is a macabre death. He has no body of work which has attracted any plaudits or awards, and has no notability by association even, through appearing in any productions attracting critical acclaim. As a dead person, his article has nowhere to go bar backwards, by maybe filling in unremarkable details of his early life. Basing an article on an obituary is always a bad idea. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - per nom. also WP:ONEEVENT Happiest persoN (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only his death was notable. See WP:1E. Edwardx (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only his death was notable. - Csurla (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say don't delete, just flesh his article out with his history, though his death was notable. - Hui lan zu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What history? WWGB (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Google search nets only articles regarding his death, with no prior information available. In other words, his only "claim to fame" is his unfortunate demise. He is best suited to Wikipedia as a bullet point on List of entertainers who died during a performance, not with his own page. Skudrafan1 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Complete not notable. Not even worth mentioning at the Performance list. Non-notable actor, non-notable play, non-notable theater. Accidental death. — Wylie pedia 16:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Peterson[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 04:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing but uncredited roles. Curro2 (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything, (though I did find a neat Wikipedia mirror site). Nothing that would push this over to meet WP:GNG. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 05:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches do not turn up anything in the way of notability. An actress who seemingly only appeared in small uncredited roles. Cowlibob (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2011 NSCRO Men's Division III Rugby Tournament[edit]

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

I question if this article ought to exist on Wikipedia. The sources I find online talk primarily and broadly about NSCRO and only mention this specific 2011 tournament in passing if at all. The article itself is promotional and cites only itself. May fail WP:NSPORT, WP:NEVENT. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as the best I found was only this, nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried to looked for anything new for this article but nothing so delete this Matt294069 is coming 05:31, 9 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zombadings 1: Patayin sa Shokot si Remington[edit]

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

Film with questionable notability, see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Ng Sablay Wgolf (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ per this Variety review. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 02:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep per more of the sources provided below. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 17:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More reviews: [93] from The New York Times, [94] from The Hollywood Reporter, [95] from the Los Angeles Times, and [96] from The Village Voice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per easily meeting WP:NF. Sorry Wgolf, but you really need to use a touch of due diligence when making your determinations, as notability is not based upon sources being used, but upon their being available. It took me only seconds to find coverage in multiple reliable sources. We improve weak articles as possible, not delete them because it has not yet been done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:11, 7 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 redirect to Long Distance Voyager. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 15:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Painted Smile[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Just another album track lacking any individual notability. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to the album. While a single release of this song does exist and I did find through Google Books a Billboard review of the album that had a brief opinion on the track, the song appears to be lacking in significant coverage and chart performance. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 09:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Long Distance Voyager as there's nothing to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ezbt Abou Awad[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and PROD was recently removed without explanation. Meatsgains (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now because my searches found nothing to confirm its existence. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not verifiable. Searching for the Arabic name there is such a place in Egypt, but it is in Giza: http://www.alborsanews.com/2013/04/10/8-7-مليون-جنيه-تكلفة-رصف-طريق-عزبة-أبو-عوض/ Fences&Windows 21:40, 13 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 redirect to Thomas and Friends. Any merges can be discussed on the talkpage, Overall consensus is to Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends magazines[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about... apparently numerous different magazines. I am unable to find any reliable sources discussing these magazines individually or as a group. SummerPhD^v2.0 03:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to the article about Thomas and Friends, as it seems someone from the YouTube Thomas Club (*Insert blacklisted Encyclopedia Dramatica entry here*) who doesn't understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines decided to create this, LOL. But in all seriousness, the magazines do exist, but no significant coverage can be found about them. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 02:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomas and Friends as there's nothing else convincing for an article. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomas and Friends - clear WP:FANCRUFT. Blythwood (talk) 09:08, 8 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Himani Dalmia[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Delete at best for now perhaps as there's nothing to better assume WP:CREATIVE yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I removed all of the unsourced material and then rewrote the article, adding sources. She is covered in multiple reliable sources, several of them completely about her. She passes GNG. The book made it to bestseller status in India. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the article and sourcing have been substantially changed (by Megalibrarygirl) following all but the last comment here, I'd like to see other editors look at the sourcing as it now stands. joe decker ^talk 00:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 00:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kudos to User:Megalibrarygirl for her WP:HEY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eyedentify[edit]

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

Unnotable video game. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a theoretical game in development for eleven years is not notable. Curro2 (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft & userfy at best as there's nothing to suggest a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple6[edit]

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

This company provided an enterprise social media platform. Trying to find out if it still exists was a puzzle. It was acquired by Gannett in 2008 but then was folded into the company Pointroll. Gannett spun off its digital division as Tegna which later sold Pointroll to Sizmek in 2015 (http://adage.com/article/digital/sizmek-acquires-pointroll-11-million-deal/301324/). But so far, I can only find information about Ripple6 from 2006-2009 and I'm not sure a business with a three year independent lifespan is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. They definitely no longer have their own website any longer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Curro2 (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and at best we would merge to the parent company because this particular subject seems questionably notable. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ligia Lieder[edit]

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

No sources, sources found online are all mirrors and forks. Dustiest article on Wikipedia (prior to me adding a AfD notice). I'm not even sure if the subject exists. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is someone's joke. Curro2 (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The work is listed in Juan Maria Solare, Catalogue of Works, p. 68, though not sure it qualifies for its own article: Noyster (talk), 13:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background: I recall there was a lot of detail in the Juan Maria Solare article about individual compositions, making it unmanageably long. I split some of them out into their own articles. At the time there was no requirement for citations. Deb (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and then mention and redirect at Juan Maria Solare's article as this is questionably independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 12 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 keep. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Quest[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG ~~and WP:N (video games)~~. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As this is a film and NOT a video game, we do not judge it by video game standards. We instead use FILM criteria and see if, as a FILM it might meet those inclusion criteria.[97] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per my WP:BEFORE finding the topic easily meets WP:GNG. Wow. Who failed in his diligence?? I quickly found (among the many) VICE Gaming, Fanboy Nation, Following The Nerd, Revolution SF, Geek and Sundry, Girl About Film, Retro Magazine, Nintendo Life, Game Source, WIRED, Retro Dustbin, Temple of Geek, International Business Time, 8-Bit Central:, VGMaps.com, God is a Geek, Eye For Film, Retro Junkies Super Show, This Week in Geek, From Page2Screen, Battle Royale with Cheese, and The Film Freak... and no... not all are RS, but enough are to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:55, 6 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.

[1] Mahatma Gandhi

[2] "Plastic correction of double chin. Importance of the position of the hyoid bone". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

[3] "Surgical elimination of the retracted submental fold during double chin correction". Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[4] "CHIN AUGMENTATION BY MEANS OF ROTATION OF DOUBLE CHIN FAT FLAP". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]