Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 February	10 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 redirect to Babylon 5 media franchise#Novelizations. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon 5: Accusations[edit]

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

Sources online are advertisements and websites intending to sell the product. Fails WP:NBOOKS due to lack of significance and effect on anything, and fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. No third-party sources, and article is literally nothing but a recap of the story. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent article, Babylon 5 media franchise#Novelizations, as the best extant place to cover this novel, along with probably the rest of the novels mentioned in that article, which seem to mostly have their own articles now. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because there are no serious needs for this to be deleted and this is obviously best connected to Babylon 5 itself. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 16 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 this edit, I'm closing this according to WP:SK#2. In addition, the current state of sourcing has no basis on the notability of a subject. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 08:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black pride[edit]

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

No reliable sources Ylevental (talk) 21:47, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and reliable sources are readily available, such as this book, Black Pride: A People's Struggle, published by McGraw-Hill. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: So then add it to the article Ylevental (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ylevental:

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep – Entire books are devoted to the subject, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. See also WP:NEXIST, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per North above. Easily sourced and I'd do it myself except that the page is protected at present. Possible nomination in bad faith through not understanding proper sourcing as against notability. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But page needs to be expanded with reliable sources. Subject is definitely notable. Meatsgains (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request for Ylevental's deletions from the article to be reverted and sourced on the talk page. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - bad faith nomination. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and considering this edit summary at Talk:White pride as evidence of WP:DLS suitable sanctions for the nominator. Mduvekot (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ratemonth (talk) 04:20, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brier[edit]

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

I have started the process of discussion in regards to deletion for this page with the understanding that I have no personal connection or agenda to this subject. I do believe strongly that the subject however meets no requirements for inclusion based on the Notability of Living Persons (Music) and the article itself is poorly sourced with original research and linked to primary sources provided by the subject itself from venue engagements. I have tried to find online non-primary sources and notable reasons for inclusions but cannot find any for this subject. The claim to fame meets no requirements stated in Wikipedia's pages for Notability (people) - entertainers or guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc. The subject has already been combined to the page "List of Ragtime Composers" [4] and should suffice. maineartists(talk to me) 9:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete After a thorough attempt at research to confirm the information provided in this subject's article that is not directly linked to its primary source I cannot find any reliable sources for citations. In addition, this subject does not meet any requirements as stated in the criteria for musicians under the notability (music) page WP:MUSBIO. The article itself seems to have been either created by original research: "best known for his ragtime performances on YouTube" or information provided by the subject himself through biographies provided to venue engagements. This subject's only stated claim to fame is: "ragtime performances on YouTube and his ability to sight read sheet music, without having heard the original melody or tune". Consequently, the occupation stated does not even coincide with the subject itself: Programmer and Analyst. Maineartists (talk) 6:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better solidly notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 3D (film)[edit]

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

Completely based upon sources connected with the production with no reliable third-party sources establishing notability. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 21:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

akas:

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

alts:

studio:(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)

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

Delete per being TOO SOON. While searches show the topic can actually be set with proper sources,[5][6][7] we have no confirmation of release, and most of the better available sources appear to be three-years-old. I found no new news. We might allow the article to be recreated and properly sourced when we have confirmation of release AND/OR sources to meet WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to newest news (one is even referenced) on the development of the film showing it to be more than 90% completed and is extremely likely to be given a release date very soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.73.25.173 (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's not the way it works here. Read WP:NFF. If filming can be be confirmed as under way, we need a number of independent sources which can be determined as reliable per the guides which speak in some detail about the film and its production. Sorry, but none of these qualify. Please go read WP:NYF Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with above. This film is even an "independent" film itself and as far as I'm concerned the already provided sources are reliable, and if not enough, of course one could go search the web for more. This film is evidently being just finished and soon about to be launched, and so indeed a release date is also soon to be reported. I consider this whole issue to be ridiculous and unnecessary (to temporarily remove the article for a film that's just being completed only to add the article again soon - and even if it were to be cancelled, which is very unlikely at this point, the article could still remain because it is common for Wikipedia to have articles on cancelled projects too, and that makes this whole issue even more strange). It is ridiculous in its purest sense. TurokSwe (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for lack of notability and for failing GNG and NFILMS. Whatever it will be released in months, in years or maybe never is the minor issue here compared to the lack of reliable coverage. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred", and this is not the case. Considering the very little interest the film production raised in the last two years, even when released the film would very likely fail WP:NFILMS, so the argument "producer says it's 90% completed!" carries no weight. Cavarrone 01:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and draft & userfy later if needed as this article is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 16 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 Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 01:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Watson[edit]

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

This was PRODded, but it's been around since 2005, and aside from major issues such as copyvios, I really don't think articles that have lasted this long ought to be deleted without a discussion.

The original prod rationale was fails to meet notability guidelines, and someone seconded the motion with an additional statement of WP:BLP1E applies here. Watson's sole basis for fleeting notability is his involvement with the ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, to which this article should redirect. With a standalone article, it's been a WP:COATRACK for Watson himself to continually add material about himself, regardless of its lack importance to to Wikipedia readers.

Aside from strongly supporting the use of a deletion discussion here, rather than PROD, I am neutral. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 21:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 21:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 21:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 21:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If the article as it stands is accurate, and I don't see any reason to doubt it, then he is the person principally responsible for obtaining the ratification of the 27th Amendment. I don't think that is minor or "fleeting". HIs subsequent activities show ongoing involvement in constitutional amendment ratification issues. Kestenbaum (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, where there ought to be a short but substantive section about Watson. There are stories about his role, however, As a stand-alone article, I think it as per WP:1E the best disposition merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is a classic WP:ONEEVENT. The sole claim to notability is Watson's discovery while doing research in college that the Amendment was hanging out there in ratification limbo and starting a grassroots effort to ratify it. Everything else in the article is frosting. It's been used as a WP:COATRACK by Watson to aggrandize himself (about a third of the edits to the article are by Watson himself, most of them reverting the work of other editors to keep his preferred text in place, though he's cut back on that recently, having driven away those other editors), adding a paragraph every time his name gets mentioned somewhere, and violating both WP:COI and WP:OWN when anyone tries to trim it. It's probably worth 1 to 3 sentences in the article on the amendment (and that's already there), but nothing more.

Disclosure, I'm the editor referred to by Nyttend above as seconding the PROD; the PROD itself was instituted by Notoftroy. In retrospect, redirection is a better disposition than deletion, so hat-tip to Nyttend for that. TJRC (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. I would say merge, but the material is already there. The remainder of the article consists of two types of things - contacting states about symbolically ratifying amendments that already were in force, and being mentioned by government people regarding the 27th amendment. Both are too trivial to warrant mention in the articles on the relevant amendments or anywhere else I can think of. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution as it seems he's best connected to that. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majed Kanabah[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that Al-Ahli is a pro team. However, since he has not actually played for them, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:20, 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 Snowy Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riyadh Sharahili[edit]

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

Footballer that fails WP:GNG RotubirtnoC (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has played in a fully professional league (Al Fateh in the Saudi Professional League) and so meets WP:NFOOTY. /wiae /tlk 21:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject has played in a fully-professional league and meets WP:NFOOTY. He still has a full career ahead of him, so I'm sure the article will be able to be expanded. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having played in a fully pro league, he passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:14, 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. Subject shown in reliable sources to satisfy a subject-specific guideline, overwhelming consensus from historic AfDs shows this is sufficient, no need to keep this open for purely administrative reasons. Fenix down (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Bladi[edit]

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

Footballer that fails WP:GNG RotubirtnoC (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am assuming that Abdullah Al-Bladi and Abdullah Al-Bilady are one and the same; he has played for Al Fateh, a team in the Saudi Professional League, a fully professional league per WP:FPL. Granted, he's only played 19 minutes, but he's played, and so he meets WP:NFOOTY. /wiae /tlk 21:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having played in in a fully pro league, he passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC):Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:14, 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 close. Nomination made in error. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Blaque[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Clicked on wrong article, using Twinkle too quickly - sorry. Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 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 merge to University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Men's Glee Club (University of Illinois)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a university student club, with no particularly strong claim to notability under either WP:NMUSIC or WP:ORG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I promoted the draft stub to main space on the strength of many similar groups having articles as collected on List of collegiate glee clubs. Given how hard it is to get stale drafts of anything remotely real deleted in MfD, I felt that was the best thing to do. I have no strong feelings about this, but if we are going to delete this one we should look at the similar clubs on List of collegiate glee clubs. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. The topic does not appear to have received enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. However, it is one of the oldest glee clubs in the United States, and the University article does not mention it. A merge will improve the merge target article per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as mentioned as this can be mentioned there because this is not yet solidly independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Fry[edit]

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning electoral candidate. This is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, per WP:NPOL — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he does not become eligible for an article until he wins the election. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails our Notability guideline for politicians as an unelected political candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen. 207.102.255.107 (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This individual appears to be barely notable, with no particular reason that I can see for this article to be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 10:42, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saeta (band)[edit]

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

There's some (local) coverage but not enough to add up to WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Michig, Richhoncho, Catlemur, Twas Now. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than a few local mentions. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm highly sympathetic to groups trying to maintain their own thing outside of the standard music industry, but the fact still remains that without reliable source coverage what is there to talk about in the article? I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:41, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bickford[edit]

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

Seems successful, but I couldn't find the reliable sources to verify WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sending WP:APPNOTE to D-Day, Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as my searches found only a few links here and there at News and browsers, nothing better convincing for an applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 16 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) 20:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Gjergjaj[edit]

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

Fails both WP:NBOX and WP:GNG I think. JTtheOG (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Has not fought for any meaningful title, even at European level. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been a Repost Speedy Delete but since its here.... Nothing has changed from the last AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete a health record with some relatively decent wins and will probably break into our of the major sanctioning bodies Top 15 rankings within the next 12 to 18 months, but for now he doesn't cross the threshold. --Donniediamond (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be speedily deleted since little has changed since the previous discussion. He does not currently meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 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. All towns etc are kept per [[WP:GEOLAND[] (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madison, Tennessee[edit]

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

Not an incorporated location, unable to find any evidence of notability Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like is a county. The lead currently notes that it is a "neighborhood", in which case would be insignificant. Meatsgains (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhoods can be significant. See Category:Lists of neighborhoods in U.S. cities for links to many neighborhood articles. It would be good to recreate a Neighborhoods of Nashville (was in this form when it was redirected back in 2010), or, better, a List of neighborhoods of Nashville-Davidson County list-article though, so that less signficant neighborhoods can be covered as list-items instead of by separate articles. There seems to be enough about Madison separately to justify it having a separate article in addition to appearing in a list-article, however. (Contrast to the mini-stub articles within Neighborhoods of Louisville, Kentucky, for example.) --do ncr am 18:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is one of the 14 community planning districts for land use/zoning in Nashville-Davidson County; see it on the map on this page. The current official plan for it is an 89-page document. It is also one of the named residential areas used in real estate; see it on this map. In Google maps, its location can be seen at "Madison, Nashville, Tennessee". I added some info to the article. --do ncr am 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains, you've confused this with Madison County, Tennessee. Local government in Davidson County is odd, because the county is partly consolidated with the city of Nashville (but not fully consolidated; see comments at Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee), but overall this probably should be treated as a city neighborhood. Neighborhoods of large cities aren't automatically considered notable, but they very often can be demonstrated to be notable. You might try looking for information in History of Davidson County, Tennessee, with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers, for example. Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. The question becomes whether or not the neighborhood is notable, and it seems from the discussion above, it is. Meatsgains (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see evidence that it exists. I do not see evidence of notability, which would require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most reliable sources I am finding use it in passing mention noting it as a location without going into detail. Meatsgains (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that this is true of the book I found; it mentions a rail line going nearby, the national cemetery one mile away, and the organization of the local Presbyterian church, plus President James Madison and assorted people living nearby, but I didn't find any solid attention to the community itself. I've not consulted any other sources. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - per WP:GEOLAND. This is a legally recognized place, per GNIS. It's also on every map I looked at...even Bing. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does GNIS listing imply legal recognition? Madison is a "populated place" which "by definition has no legal boundaries." Certainly there are many named natural features in GNIS that are not notable. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly are, but not this one. It's on Bing. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly passes WP:GEOLAND VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a populated place which has been verified to exist, and its existence is noted in an official government source, which is good enough to meet our notability guidelines. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons-thank you-RFD (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:00, 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. Overall consensus is to Keep as article's since been substantially improved & sourced (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of marching bands[edit]

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

A list with one entry is not ready to appear in the encyclopedia. DePRODded by original author. PamD 17:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A list of one item is not a list at all. (frankly I'd advocate for a speedy delete per WP:SNOW) -IagoQnsi (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Frankly I'd advocate for Speedy Keep. This is an obviously valid list, corresponding to large Category:Marching bands, but as a list it can include useful/interesting comparative information and it can list marching bands for which articles are needed. See wp:CLT for how categories, lists, navigation templates are complementary. I added some more bands to the list. Also note this is one of a new editor's first contributions. I've noted this before: there ought to be a prohibition against prodding or nominating articles for deletion for articles like this (by a new contributor, has potential, has not been in place very long). This can obviously be developed, and it is horrible to treat newbies this way...sorry I feel strongly about this. :) --do ncr am 18:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note I had briefly deleted the page under CSD G5 criteria (creations by banned or blocked users), however upon review Doncram's edits are substantial enough that it makes the article ineligible for G5 deletion and I have restored it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – The article has been expanded, so the deletion rationale atop no longer applies. The article is fully qualified per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Marching bands. It's also a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Probably doesn't matter at this point, given the additional work, but it's worth noting that the article creator was blocked as a sock puppet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd assume the subject of this standalone list is pretty undeniably notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:39, 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/speedy delete per WP:G11, as the article is very promotional. This should also be seen as a WP:SNOW delete, as I can't see that this would end any other way if the AfD lasted for another 4-5 days. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Reader[edit]

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

Vehemently non-notable. @Crystallizedcarbon: who originally PRODed Colin Schälli. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page is completed unsourced, reads like a puff piece, and lacks coverage in RS. Meatsgains (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK and our general notability guidelines I searched for sources, but I could not find any meaningful coverage from reliable sources.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely non-notable chest-thumping ("...worldly wisdoms with the intention to make people think"). sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 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 Coffee, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Schälli[edit]

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

Vehemently non-notable. @Crystallizedcarbon: who originally PRODed this. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I agree with FoCuSandLeArN. Unsourced BLP. Prod was deleted without adding sources. A search in news or books does not return any results to establish notability. I just noticed that the username is an abbreviation of the subject It seems clear that it is a promotional page. I recommend its speedy deletion per WP:G11.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:30, 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) 17:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charitybuzz[edit]

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

Promotional. I don't think it's fixable, but if someone wants to try, that's OK with me. The problem is that the key feature of the site seems to be the opportunity for namedropping DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought I would be weighing in with a Keep, because I'm familiar with Charitybuzz and their work. However, the references used (with the exception of the Entreprenuer article) are from questionable sources or don't provide extensive coverage. Still, I did an edit on the article to remove the promotional tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSFarman (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 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 16:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Subject is notable and covered in reliable sources but the page needs to be trimmed significantly as DGG noted, the name dropping should be removed. Meatsgains (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you search for news (separate Google option) about this organization you'll find hundreds of articles. The same old mantra fits here that just because the article is badly written doesn't mean the subject matter isn't worth an article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collinson Grant[edit]

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

Title previously deleted at afd [8] with the same issues as it has now - small consulting firm that fail WP:CORPDEPTH Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as none of the listed coverage is convincing enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 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 16:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of coverage from independent sources. Either the sources are not independent, or, as in the case of the nenspaper stories, the company is mentioned for its role and is not the subject being covered by the story. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Denis-Smith[edit]

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

I'm not sure why this individual is supposed to be notable: she is basically a lawyer with a couple of small-scale initiatives to her name. (As an aside, Obelisk Legal Support Solutions and First 100 Years should likely also be probed for notability.) The sourcing doesn't hold up, either: we have lots of links to the subject's own foundation and an article she's written, plus a couple of softball interviews/puff pieces on websites of marginal relevance. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this in Harpers Bazaar, this in Legal Week, this in the London Times, this in the Financial Times, and there are probably others. None of these are particularly substantial on their own, but I'm going to !vote a weak keep based on the fact that so many publications think that the subject is worthy of note. JMWt (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the authors of this article, I think that this individual is notable because they are the owner of a rapidly expanding business and also involved in a lot of innovative projects, as the business grows, they will have more online presence. This article is also worth keeping because not only does it offer additional information for those who need it but also this is a platform which is accessible by the public and interviewers meaning they don't have to contact this individual directly to ask basic questions. I understand this article needs improvement, but it is my first article and constantly under construction although it would be really helpful if a more experienced user helped with the editing, and things such as referencing. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimahb12 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but none of that is a reason for keeping an article on wikipedia. The criteria here under the WP:GNG is existing significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a way to answer basic questions about an individual as it is WP:NOTCV. If that is important, the service the person in question is looking for is a blog or website host. JMWt (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying but that's not exactly what I meant, what I wanted to stress is that I've seen and had multiple requests for this subject's article, and there are secondary sources, but it'll take a bit of researching to get those into place, I know at the moment the page seems and looks unstable, but it's currently under construction and am always looking to make improvements, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.111.112 (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet notability guidelines and lacks adequate coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as there's some coverage but nothing suggests a currently solid article. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with JMWt that there are sources out there noticing her, so while one source doesn't have the single depth of coverage, many sources noticing her and interviewing her do lend towards notability. A search on Google Scholar also pulls up publications and citations for her. The article needs work though and adding any sources found will help. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:53, 8 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 16:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see nothing indicating required notability as per WP:GNG or WP:Bio. Maybe some time in draftspace will make this admissable -- Hybris1984 (talk) 21:10, 16 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. Clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CEOWorld Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine sourced to press releases. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no signs of better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:05, 8 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 16:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Not seeing a path to notability with what's out there. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete— Publication article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. Refs are press releases, huffpo pieces by the Editorial Director of the magazine, or incidental mentions.Dialectric (talk) 09:19, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Hennessey[edit]

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

He had an interesting life, but I don't think the small mentions of him add up to WP:GNG and I can't see that he meets WP:BIO. Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell -- The article is far too brief to establish that he was notable. He might have been as a campaigner against what the US was up to in Central America, but the book cited sounds sensationalist. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as Books found some links but this is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 8 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 16:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is the one book about him, and a newspapers.com search turned up one article that I can't view because it requires the "Publisher's Extra" subscription. But that's it for in-depth sources. It is possible that there are more offline sources, but what I can see isn't enough. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:14, 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 delete. Clear consensus after relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Social and Economic Research[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

1st AfD didn't form properly so didn't actually happen. If the claims here are true, there is notability, but I couldn't verify it. Tagged for 7 years for notability; hopefully we can get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:35, 2 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 16:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I speedy tagged this because it is obviously not an acceptable article. Notifying DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It might be notable, but this is a press release. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches cannot find any evidence of notability or any mentions in reliable sources AusLondonder (talk) 18:45, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By a Thread (band)[edit]

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

Article about a band which makes a potentially valid claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC, depending on how much importance you attach to Revelation Records for the purposes of criterion #5, but completely drops the ball for reliably sourcing it: the referencing here is to (a) their own page on the record label's website, (b) last.fm and (c) discogs.com, none of which counts a whit toward getting a band over WP:GNG. A band does not get an inclusion freebie under NMUSIC just because the passage of one NMUSIC criterion is claimed; it gets included or excluded on the basis of the sourcing you can provide to verify the claim, but none of the "sourcing" here passes muster. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although they're signed to a record label, there's nothing else better convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 2 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 16:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HTTP Debugger[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2014 lets make a decision one way or the other. Non notable piece of software IMO Gbawden (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better satisfying the software notability. SwisterTwister talk 15:56, 2 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 16:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Michael Smith[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best because my searches found nothing immediately better and the article is currently still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 8 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 16:54, 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. Sandstein 09:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Pennell[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Although he has worked for some notable organisations, this does not infer notability. He also holds an OBE, but this does not infer notability either. He has some marginal notability for alleged failure (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/01/university_of_manchesters_it_director_resigns/) but I don't think it is enough to warrant a listing. Furthermore, more of the work on the article appears to have been done by a single-purposes account which makes me suspect that it may have been written by someone connected with the article's subject. Shritwod (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has some notoriety in connection with the CO-OP bank fiasco, a major event in recent UK financial history. The fact that his actions have had definite effects on people, especially those made redundant in his re-structurings, and on the history of such notable institutions as the CO-OP and Olympic Games speaks to his relevance. Perhaps the problem is the sparseness of the article, and not the notability of its subject? Urselius (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he would have notability in certain circles - for example, notable enough to be mentioned in specialist publications (technology or banking, maybe). But ultimately what is different between this person and anyone else who runs a large IT department? We don't even list the CEO of many FTSE 100 companies, so managing IT for a bank doesn't really make him notable. It's unusual to manage an IT department and have an OBE I guess.. Shritwod (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The OBE was for his involvement in the Olympic Games, perhaps that is the strongest case for notability? Billlion (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to this about 500 people annually receive an OBE. While it certainly adds to his notability, we wouldn't create an entry for all of those 500 people every year on the basis that they were awarded one. Shritwod (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed. What I meant was that perhaps his work on the Olympics is what his is known for while Coop and UoM are

just 'what he did next'.Billlion (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although the listed coverage is noticeable, this article is still questionable for the applixable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 8 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 16:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming that the Order of the British Empire does not a notable person make (correct me if I'm wrong), I don't believe subject is notable. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 08:13, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Member-to-Member financial transactions[edit]

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

This article makes some highly dubious, unsubstantiated claims about the regulatory position of transactions between members of a cooperative organization. With no sources to back up such claims, they must be removed from the article, but that leaves a simple WP:DICTDEF (a tautology, practically) stating that "Member-to-member transactions are transactions between members." No point in keeping. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economy-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this article is questionably notable, keepable and improvable. No signs of convincingly better, SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 8 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 16:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:11, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drilon Hajrizi[edit]

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

This basketballer, created by sockpuppet, does not seem notable after discussions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Driloon77 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Balkan league. He has not played in notable league and from what I can see no international matches played for "Kosovo national basketball team". Qed237 (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rikster2 (talk) 15:27, 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 16:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not noteable and promotional ("where he took the first steps and showed his talent") -- Hybris1984 (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for the applicable notability, delete for now at best until a better available article comes. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 16 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 and redirect to British Gliding Association#Junior gliding. Consensus that this is not yet independently notable. Sandstein 12:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK Junior Gliding[edit]

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

Likely hoax. There is no indication that the British Gliding Association has a dedicated youth arm. The article is based solely on primary sources, neither of which confirms the mere existence of a separate society, much less any of the specific details given in the article. If it exists at all, UK Junior Gliding is utterly non-notable. The article was prodded, prod removed without addressing these key issues. Huon (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:44, 2 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 16:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK Junior Gliding is far from non-notable, and is most certainly not a hoax. The Movement as a whole operates under the umbrella of the British Gliding Association to promote gliding to people under 26 years of age, and in the past few years has gone from strength to strength. Regular "Winter Series" events are held throughout the Winter, with up to 100 Junior pilots travelling to a gliding site for a weekend's flying and networking. The UK Junior Gliding Facebook page, which acts as the Juniors' main website, has over 1800 followers^[1] In December 2015, a group of Juniors travelled to Narromine in Australia for the FAI Junior World Gliding Championships, and returned with both Gold and Bronze medals in the Club Class ^[2]

In summary, this Page needs more information adding to it, but it certainly does not need deletion on the grounds of being a hoax, nor on the grounds of being non-notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMugglePilot (talk • contribs) 10:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.facebook.com/ukjuniorgliding/?fref=ts
^ http://www.jwgc2015.com/results(hidden)/overall-results.aspx

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant see anything of note but might be worth a mention on the BGA article if reliable references are found. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with~~Redirect to British Gliding Association. It is very evidently not a hoax but there is insufficient material to justify a standalone article. Its web site hangs off the BGA web site - its mention on Wikipedia should do the same. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting notability guidelines "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."

It's not a Hoax, it's notable, and policy disallows deletion due to poor content.

Checkmate --Aniolare (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. See WP:PAGEDECIDE. A notable topic may be better treated as a subtopic or section of a parent topic's article. The King can still escape in a merge move. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have not seen any evidence beyond a Facebook page's title that suggests a "society" named "UK Junior Gliding" exists. To the best of my knowledge the British Gliding Association's website does not confirm that they have a separate youth organization; while it mentions junior gliding in the UK and once uses the word order "UK junior gliding", that clearly is not a reference to an organization or branch of that name. So if one of those editors claiming it's not a hoax can provide reliably-sourced evidence that "UK Junior Gliding" is an organization or society of some kind, I'd be grateful if they pointed it out. Please note that notability would be a much higher standard. In particular, there's no reliably-sourced content at all that could possibly be merged. Huon (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in content terms a merge would be little more than a content deletion and adding a new section from scratch to the BGA article, but there are some fragments that can be verified and copy-pasted across, for example the fact that it exists as an arm of the BGA and associated web links, also the merge process will create a redirect which is more useful than a red link. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that it exists as an arm of the BGA"? Citation needed. The BGA does not have a separate youth arm. Rather, The British Gliding Association has set up a network of Junior Gliding Centres (JGCs) which, the way I interpret the BGA website, do not form a sub-organization of their own but all were independently set up by the BGA. Besides, I do not think an invented name of an organization that does not exist makes a useful redirect. Huon (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it depends on whether you regard the Junior Gliding Coordinator as an "arm" or not. It's a trivial point, I really don't care. More importantly, "UK Junior Gliding" is the name they use on social media[9] and people will be typing that in to the Search box to find out more. Contrary to your personal opinion, the evidence shows that it is therefore important to keep this page as a redirect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as this is currently questionably notable and this can then be mentioned at the British Gliding Association if better sourcing can be found. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now copied across to British Gliding Association#Junior gliding the tiny fragments worth keeping and added a couple more. So that's the first part of any merge done by default. The second part is to make this page a redirect. Or, you can all agree to call an Admin in to delete it just so you can have the pleasure of watching someone like me recreate it as a redirect. Frankly, I don't care - the end point will be the same either way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:21, 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 delete and redirect to List of people executed in North Carolina. Sandstein 09:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Lee Boyd[edit]

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

Similarly to Ernest West Basden who I've also nominated for AfD, why are we honoring this murderer with a Wikipedia article? I can't see any evidence of any special circumstances or long-lasting repercussions of this conviction and execution. Though I'm sure the murder would have got some news coverage somewhere at the time, it's a WP:ONEEVENT situation. An entry on List of people executed in North Carolina should be quite adequate. Sionk (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, having a Wikipedia article has nothing to do with "honoring" the topic: notability is not a question of whether anybody approves or disapproves of the reasons why a person might be notable. Bad people get into Wikipedia if the reliable source coverage is there to support an article, and good people don't get into Wikipedia if the reliable source coverage isn't there. Unlike Basden, a bit of media coverage was cited here (check the external links section rather than the references) — but the number of media links provided was not enough to satisfy the level of reliable source coverage we demand now, and even what little there is consists entirely of dead links whose content we cannot verify. So we're actually right back to the Basden situation: primary sources published by the state's own criminal justice division. To be fair, the article was created in 2005, at a time when he was relatively current news for some people — but I'm not seeing a compelling reason why 11 years later there would still be enough sustained interest in this case to justify keeping an article that's sourced this badly. Redirect to List of people executed in North Carolina, per nom, unless somebody can actually retrieve much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll repeat my comment from the other AfD, seeing as you've done similar) The crux of the argument is whether this is more than a WP:ONEEVENT situation, regardless of whether there was media coverage or whether the subject is 'good' or 'bad'. I should have specified WP:CRIME, which covers perpetrators and victimes of crime. Most murders will get media coverage, but we wouldn't want Wikipedia articles about every murder. Sionk (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of people executed in North Carolina, per nom. I cannot see inherent notability in Mr. Boyd, or sources supporting it, and neither his crime nor his legal appeal was notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of lasting notability. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY, and WP:GNG. A person that is notable is notable.. just because the media doesnt report on his persona anymore, he has been executed what do you expect. Notaiblity is not temporary. Also per good sourcing. The two Delete !votes above seems to be drive-by !votes. BabbaQ (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alsom AfD is not a clean-up service. It is used to establish if an article is notable or not. Problems can always be solved. We do not delete on article quality.BabbaQ (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRIME above. You don't seriously expect Wikipedia to have articles on every criminal do you? Even if he was the 1000th person to be executed since the US ban on capital punishment was lifted, that's a bit of a tenuous and long-winded claim to notability. Sionk (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articls about every criminal? Do we have that? No, we have articles that covers notable crimes and criminals such as this one. A person that is notable doesnt suddenly become non notable simply because the story dies down after an execution. What do you expect, the person is dead. BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You either didn't read WP:CRIME or you disagree with it, in which case change the guidance. As far as I can see the murder was of no lasting significance (apart from obviously to the victim and the perpetrator). Sionk (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You take into consideration one of many factors. While disregarding the fact that the article is well-sourced and had lasting coverage all throughout the time from conviction until execution. That a article receives less coverage after an execution is completed is natural.BabbaQ (talk) 22:59, 4 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 16:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BabbaQ's comments. The lack of coverage since he left the media spotlight is precisely the reason to delete this article: news media reports are almost always primary sources, and coverage after he leaves the spotlight is secondary. You've admitted that there's no secondary source coverage of the guy. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 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) 18:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keo Soksela[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the subject Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - for failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 15:50, 15 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 My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic#Equestria Girls film series. The underlying consensus of this discussion is that it is indeed too early for an article about this subject. Redirecting is the stronger argument, as it is shown to be standard practice for cases like this. When and if additional information about the subject becomes available that would justify recreation of the article per this discussion, the article may be restored without prejudice. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Equestria Girls 4[edit]

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

Too early for this. While there are mentions of this film, they are in either primary sources or unreliable sources. Does not appear to be any reliable sources mentioning this film. Therefore, this fails both WP:NFILMS and WP:GNG. PROD declined by an IP who gave no valid reason for retention in his edit summary. Safiel (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. A tweet that it might get made is not the same thing as production actually starting. The article can be restored should filming ever start. MarnetteD|Talk 19:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:GNG. Perhaps delete for now and recover when confirmed. We don't know the WP:FUTURE. Frank (User Page) (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if not keep Prepress for the NY Toy Fair have affirmed this will be announced openly there. That doesn't meant there will be enough coverage yet, and if this is going DTV as anticipated, it might not be notable, but the title is searchable and should at minimum be merged to a series article. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Only to add that yes, this was fully announced, it will be DTV. So it remains a searchable term (under its proper title "My Little Pony: Equestria Girls - Legend of Everfree") but until more can be said about its production, redirection makes sense. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to whatever the most relevant franchise article is. For comparison, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallout 4, a discussion at a time when there was nothing to say about the then-theoretical game beyond that there were Twitter rumors it was going to happen but nothing was known about it. That AfD resulted in a redirect. Compare also Frozen 2, a redirect about an animated movie announced to be in production and that's it so far. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic#Equestria_Girls_film_series while there is no more info, then restore to an article as soon it there is more info and third party references. Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.88.71.99 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maclean Stewart[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this unsourced BLP to satify GNG, has had a significant role in one motion picture but would require multiple significant role to satisfy WP:NACTOR. J04n(talk page) 13:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely better for WP:CREATIVE. Notifying the only still active user Stifle. SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your diligence. My only contribution to the article was to remove an unlicenced image, though, so no opinion at this stage. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced (we can not use IMBD) it could be be a speedy. "He frequently shows up in the quirkier roles, usually cast against type, and has attracted decent reviews from critics worldwide" but we can't find any in-depth material on the subject. Murry1975 (talk) 11:35, 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. Consensus is that the article needs work to make it less promotional, but meets our inclusion requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NProtect GameGuard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable per WP:NSOFT. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 18:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - a Wikipedia Editor using an essay (= non binding personal viewpoint & private opinions written by a few Wikipedia Editors) as a deletion rationale cannot be taken seriously, as the usage of an essay is not a valid criteria for an AfD nomination. The nominating editor is advised to educate himself with Wikipedia's Deletion Policy and WP:BEFORE (especially Point # D.).

Now, here's my rationale for my Strong-Keep iVote: nProtect GameGuard passes WP:GNG. There are a couple of reliable published sources which are independent of the subject & unrelated to the software product. These sources have addressed the nProtect GameGuard software directly and in detail, thusly fulfilling WP:GNG. The sources are reliable; they have editorial integrity (= editorial oversight) and the editorial staff is listed on their site. Here are 5 reliable sources:

1) nProtect GameGuard is written about in a notable book, "Entertainment Computing - ICEC 2008: 7th International Conference", edited by Scott M. Stevens & Shirley Saldamarco, published by Springer Science+Business Media in 2008. See page 96: "Recently, anti-cheating software programs, such as PunkBuster and GameGuard, have been widely deployed in online games to prevent cheating". The author continues to describe in detail how the GameGuard software works.

2) Kotaku, notable video gaming site owned and published by Gawker Media with 19 member Editorial Staff listed on their site, has an article on nProtect written by senior editor Mike Fahey: Hooray! Aion Drops GameGuard For Launch

3) MCV Magazine, notable Computer and Video Games magazine from the United Kingdom has a detailed article on nProtect.

4) The Korea IT Times, notable IT journal from Seoul, Korea, characterizes the nProtect GameGuard as one of three software programs which "dominate the online game security market". (Wiselogic, the Hidden Champion in Online Game Security).

5) French Tom's Hardware informs us that nProtect GameGuard "is used by several games".

There are more sources available, especially in the Korean language. With these 5 sources which are presented here, the notability requirements of WP:GNG are fulfilled, and so the article should be kept. Thank you. 93.133.24.148 (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The MCV article looks a lot like a press release. The others are mostly trivial mentions. However, there are quite a non-English few hits in a WP:VG/RS Google custom search. I'm not really sure how much I trust Google Translate to translate technical articles, so I think this could use input from someone who's able to read them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WP:VG/RS link, NinjaRobotPirate. I did some custom search and found a couple of other reliable sources which discuss GameGuard in detail (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Meanwhile, I partially disagree with your assessment that the 5 sources are mostly trivial mentions. The Kotaku source for instance discusses GameGuard in detail (=significantly), informing the reader that GameGuard is "intrusive" and causes problems like "crashing programs, not playing nice with Windows 7, and just generally behaving like a root kit". Also, the academic peer-reviewed book is a most reliable source according to WP:RS. This book was edited by Scott M. Stevens & Shirley Saldamarco, and contains several academic papers which were peer-reviewed and vetted by the ICEC editorial board which consists of scholars from a wide range of respected accredited universities (e.g. Drexel University, Bentley University, Syracuse University, Carnegie Mellon University etc.). Here's some additional info on the book from the publisher. The book addresses GameGuard directly and in detail, outlining how it works, mentioning its strenghts and flaws.

Lastly, I found this detailed and in-depth independent article on GameGuard. The link is preserved in the Wayback Machine and here as the original link is no longer working. The source is the website of The AbleGamers Foundation; the article was written by one of their directors Steve Spohn. 93.135.11.121 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actually with this case because the article has enough information and sourcing for an article. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With the sourcing provided, appears to meet WP:GNG, but definitely needs work to tone down the promotional aspect of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Festningsgata[edit]

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

It's a street, with a link to a map to verify its existence, but no indication of any notability per WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG. Deprodded without comment by original creator, who appears to have created many similar articles under two accounts. They originally each had two "references" to maps.google.com and the Kristiansand tourist office website, neither of which mentioned the street; now each referenced with a single Google maps link to prove that the streets actually exist. I prodded several of these, and tried to engage with the articles' creator at one of their two talk pages, but got no response. Can't find anything remarkable about this street online in English or Norwegian. This would probably be an acceptable entry for Wikitravel, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a gazeteer, and this is not the place for a stub article on each street in the centre of Kristiansand. Unanimous consensus for deletion in similar AFD discussions at:

I am also nominating the following related pages, which are similar articles about streets in Kristiansand with no particular indication of notability:

NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Nordic Dragon 07:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot per nom. Manxruler (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoumboulaki Gallery[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY. It is mentioned in lists on websites. Some of these Greek museums and art galleries are very hard to verify the notability of, so I thought AfD had a better chance of a more accurate result than PROD. Boleyn (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My guess is that the article creator mistakenly thought that the Zoumboulaki Gallery is a museum, or perhaps a public gallery. It isn't. It's actually called Zoumboulakis Galleries, and as far as I can tell, while it has a long history, it hasn't received much attention in reliable sources. Note that the greek wikipedia has no article about the gallery. Mduvekot (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find sources to substantiate notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:41, 16 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 Nomination withdrawn. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phibs[edit]

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

I don't think he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are enough independent verifiable sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. His artworks have been acquired by the National Gallery of Australia. The article does need further work to meet encyclopaedic standards. Will work on it over the next 48hrs. - DONE Dan arndt (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination convinced by Dan's fantastic work. Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 16 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 | 15:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Park Is Mine (1986 film)[edit]

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

I think this is borderline, but I'm coming down on the side of non-notable. I have added some sources, but it's not quite enough to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 8 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked in Google Books and found this and this right away. This seems like a case of where the film will not be well-covered online but will probably have coverage in print sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:GNG. Found this and this as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I'm now convinced it goes over the threshold. Thank you for your help. Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:34, 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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rossella Blinded[edit]

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

Already tagged for notability, I believe that this fails WP:MUSICBIO. Clear COI - article created by user Rosella Blinded. No WP:RS either Gbawden (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage online from WP:RS. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA RULES IN Criteria for musicians and ensembles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet AT LEAST ONE of the following criteria:

The musician follows:

Article #1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself".
Rossella Blinded has been the subject of multiple are reliable, not self-published and indipendent of the dj herself.

These are the links:
http://presscentre.sony.it/pressreleases/playsony-7-protagonisti-del-mondo-musicale-1-sony-urban-sound-1091776 (Official Sony Europe press releasel)

http://www.djmagitalia.com/track-of-the-day-17-072015-rossella-blinded/ (Review of her last release on Dj Mag Italia, the most important and reliable magazine and web site in the Italian dance and electronic scene)

http://www.electroitalia.it/rossella-blinded-electro-italia-exclusive-mix/
http://www.sonicagenda.com/rossella-blinded-says-all-day-i-dream-about-success-with-new-ep-a-d-i-d-a-s/
http://www.hypetrap.co.uk/rossella-blinded-massiv-ep/
(Special features and reviews - not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself - for HypeTrap (UK), Sonic Agenda (USA) and Electro Italia (ITALY), some of the most influent websites in the dance and electronic scene worldwide)

Article #12: "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network":

The artist has been featured subject of Occupy Deejay on "Deejay TV". the main italian music TV channel:

This is the video that proves it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP87xRLGCT8

The artist is the radio host of Bass Coast on Bass Island Radio: the main bass music radio station in Italy:
http://www.bassisland.fm/team/rossella-blinded/

So this page RESPECTS Wikipedia Criteria for musicians and ensembles and it has NOT to be deleted
"--Maryyssss (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)"— Maryyssss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

ANOTHER IMPORTANT NOTE TO PROVE THAT THIS PAGE RESPECTS THE WIKIPEDIA Criteria for musicians and ensembles

ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA RULES IN Criteria for musicians and ensembles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles
The musician follows ANOTHER CRITERIA:
Article #7:
"Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."
Blinded is one of the most important representatives of trap/bass music in Milan and in Italy. Not only she is one of the few professional female djs in the italian music scene but one of the most reliable exponent of these genres even with his radio show Bass Coast on air on Bass Island Radio:

The official Beatport website defines and quotes her: "Rossella Blinded had with success with two releases and changing the Trap game in her home country"... The source is: https://pro.beatport.com/release/a-d-i-d-a-s-all-day-i-dream-about-success-ep/1537675

Another sources that can show the relevant role in the trap/bass music scene in Italy, her country:
www.bassisland.fm/team/rossella-blinded/
http://www.djmagitalia.com/collaborazione-usa-italia-per-rossella-blinded/

'As according to To WIKIPEDIA RULES IN Criteria for musicians and ensembles, To meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. So after proving that, we can affirm that this Wikipedia page RESPECTS Wikipedia Criteria for musicians and ensembles and it must NOT be deleted
"--Allessioll (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)"— Allessioll (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy as this is still questionable despite the current article so this can be saved and put aside for future uses. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete this page you break THE WIKIPEDIA RULES IN Criteria for musicians and ensembles!

This Wikipedia page RESPECTS 3 OF Wikipedia, Criteria for musicians and ensembles (according to guidelines of verifiability and notability has to respects AT LEAST ONE of these Criteria) and it must NOT be deleted "--Allessioll (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)"— Allessioll (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I agree with the other 2 users about that if you delete Rossella Blinded Wikipedia page you break the rules about Criteria for musicians and ensembles because, as said above, the page respects three criteria of this list and as guidelines of verifiability and notability say the page must respect at least one of these! THE PAGE MUST NOT BE DELETED! "--MelsdriveEEE (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)"— MelsdriveEEE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete once the WP:SPAm above is removed we are left with someone who is a verified artist but does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. Appearing on a program is different than having significant coverage. Artist is not found at Billboard nor FIMI, with the only offered listing at a sales site.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Artist might be notable at some point, but as of now I agree with ☾Loriendrew☽. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Having read the history page of the article, i am changing my vote to a clear delete. Sockpuppetry and autobiographic self-promotion abound... -- Hybris1984 (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ARTICLE MEETS THE Criteria for musicians and ensembles RULES. What does it mean? "Artist will probably be notable at some point" you Hybris1984 are AGAINST the rules about Criteria for musicians and ensembles. The artist meets 3 of the requirements and has to meet at least one according the rules. and it must NOT be deleted"--MelsdriveEEE (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)"[reply]

It means that the subject is (imo) not notable enough to warrant a Wiki-article as of yet. Try to not take this personal. Nobody here is out to get you - you are doing your cause (and yourself) a disservice by getting so emotional. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you Hybris1984 and Loriendrew are saying this subject is not notable enough without giving real proves. Instead the other people who want this article, give real motivations, according to the wikipedia Criteria for musicians and ensembles RULES. Remember that it is forbidden to break these rules, so this page meets the criteria and the artist is notable just also because meets these criterias. So please stop to report personal motivations. This article has the right to be on wikipedia! "--Spaceship899 (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)"— Spaceship899 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Checkuser note: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RossellaBlinded for a list of the Confirmed socks that have voted here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 19 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas42[edit]

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

Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH, clearly fails general notability. Ireneshih (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree and believe the page passes GNG. Will search for more articles though to see if the case can be strengthened. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 15:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. almost all the references are either mentions, peripheral , or written by people connected with the organization. For example, what might appear the best of them: The first NYTimes articles is written by someone who helped start the company, and discloses that in the article; the second NYT article just mentions the company. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as the article is still questionable overall including notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 16 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 Procedural close. Already deleted at 10:20, 9 February 2016 by Casliber (talk · contribs) (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.igi-global.com/article/antmeshnet/113827) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AntMeshNet[edit]

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

Unencyclopedically evaluative review of an IJAMC article. The WP author’s username suggests they may be one of the IJAMC authors. —teb728 t c 06:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC) I just discovered the first section of the WP page is actually the abstract of the IJAMC article (which explains why it is not encyclopedic). I have tagged it a copyvio. —teb728 t c 07:15, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boruta (algorithm)[edit]

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

No evidence of notablility. Tagged since September 2014. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge (to feature selection, and redirect to there). This is a method of feature selection, which seems to be selection of variables to use in prediction, out of many variables available. The term "boкuta algorithm" appears in google scholar search, it seems notable to me. However it should be covered in, and linked from feature selection. --doncram 01:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly all on Google Scholar is from algorithm's authors and coworkers. No independent analysis. Fails WP:GNG. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The relevant article has 106 cites on GScholar from various, presumably independent research groups. The article is open access though, so it naturally attracts more cites, and those are "I used your soft" cites (as opposed to "I read your research" cites). I would argue that the algorithm is not a topic of research within a small community, but rather a tool (and an obscure one) that sometimes gets picked up. Tigraan (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a particular implementation for feature selection process and they are not necessarily encyclopedic in nature. LokeshRavindranathan 09:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps and restart or draft & userfy later only if needed as the current article is questionable for the applicable notability and improvemenets. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 23:56, 16 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. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of words derived from toponyms[edit]

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

Purely wiktionaristic list. Also quite arbitrary. I doubt this subject was covered in any research. Not to say that 'Coney Island hot dog' is not a word. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a large amount of academic work about toponyms. For a more accessible source, see Toposaurus. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not about of toponyms. I even heard somewhere (must be wikipedia) there is a whole very serious science toponymy. But this page is not. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The source provided is exactly the same sort of stuff as we have on the page in question. For an example of some academic research in this domain see A Linguo-Mythological Space of the Toponym "Siberia" in Contemporary Slavonic Linguistic Consciousness. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - re 'toposaurus': OK let us add "talk turkey" and "cold turkey" into this list, then. - üser:Altenmann >t 08:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - re 'Siberia': wow! what a fancy pseudoscientific gibberish you are citing in support of your '!' ! Not to say it says noting about "words derived from toponym 'siberia'". - üser:Altenmann >t 08:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not in its current state! (Yep having a bet both ways.) Needs to be fully referenced! Needs explanations as to why they are named after whatever, not just what they are named after. I know not to rely on WP:OCE or WP:OSE but, this I suggest is far more interesting than lists of asteroids and lists of minor planets, and relevant to many more people. Aoziwe (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the current poorly-cited state of the article does not reflect the wealth of reliable sources available for the topic and for many of the items listed. The topic is undoubtedly notable, and yes, academics can sound distinctly pussyfooted about plain stuff, but that's life. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:48, 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. AfD discussions are where editors discuss whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Here, the consensus is that the subject does not meet the inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia at this time. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Hernan Pereyra[edit]

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

Non-notable. Article of recent creation, created in tandem with a claim of an elementary proof of Fermat's Last Theorem added to that page. The two references are to the index of a Proceedings volume of a conference from 2005 to justify the claim that the subject does cosmology; and to what seems to be an anonymous a press release of the claim of an elementary proof of FLT. The subject does not seem to be notable; Google provides links to self-created pages such as Facebook and linked-in, Youtube, etc. There is no evidence of notability. The creator of the page seems very likely to be the subject himself. I attempted a speedy deletion, but it was challenged because of the unsubstantiate, extremely-hard-to-credit claims of an elementary proof of FLT. Magidin (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is a rough translation of an article on Portuguese WP.

And a similar claim in the portuguese version of the Fermat's Last Theorem page of an elementary proof was added. I removed the addition to the latter. Magidin (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete and salt: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." WP:A7 calls for a credible claim of significance. A short proof (short enough to almost fit inside the margins of a book!) of the Fermat-Wiles Theorem would be big news, we would not need to be scraping for solid references. On Wikipedia, notability is judged by what has already occurred and been noticed by others (i.e., reputable independent sources), not by potential. Using Pereyra's own proposal of a proof of the theorem as a source of notability constitutes original research. After the alleged proof is validated by others and the news hits the headlines (if ever), THEN he can have an article. In the meantime, the editor of this article has been extremely uncooperative, has removed tags, engaged in edit wars, broken WP:3RR, and been blocked — such behavior indicates that should the page be deleted, it should also be salted. ubiquity (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable mathematician, and no useful WP:RSes turn up on a search. There's no way somebody finds a simple proof of FLT and proves Goldbach's conjecture in seven pages. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of being notable as a legitimate mathematician via WP:PROF and also no evidence of being notable as a crank. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no support for the claims in the article in any reliable source that I can find. If it were true that someone had published a proof of Fermat's last theorem by elementary methods, as claimed in the article, it would have taken the mathematical world by storm, and probably would also have been reported in non-mathematical mainstream news media too. This is either a hoax, or a promotional (most likely self-promotional) article about a crank who thinks he has a proof but hasn't, and thinks that Wikipedia is the way to get publicity for his mistaken idea of a proof. Either way, in my opinion it qualifies for speedy deletion (either as a hoax or as "made up"). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both I and Ubiquity attempted a speedy delete, but it was challenged by User:Teb728 (I disagree with Teb728's edit summary when removing the speedy delete tag, as it claims there are 'credible claims importance'; while, if true, the claims would certainly justify the importance, it is pretty clear to me that they are not credible claims). Rather than start an argument, I did this nomination. Magidin (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, if you want to speedily delete an article for being incredible, put the focus on credibility by tagging it {{db-hoax}}, or {{hoax}}. Or at least don’t emphasize “notability” in contested deletion replies: A7 is not about notability. —teb728 t c 22:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; but I would not call the page a hoax or the editor (assuming he is the subject) a hoaxer; on the basis of what I've found, he's a crank and deeply mistaken, not a hoaxer. So I would not have thought of using the "hoax" tag. By contrast, my understanding of A7 (particularly, lack of credible claims) indicated to me that it was the most accurate. Magidin (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I agree with Magidin, and I think that teb728 has misunderstood. Saying that a claim of significance in an article is not credible is by no means the same as saying that the whole article is a hoax. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Not a notable mathematician, and no indication of notability for any other reason. Salting is unnecessary; G4 would suffice in case of re-creation. Lagrange 613 02:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: is not a question of notability, is a question of mathematics !!!Editornovo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editornovo (talk • contribs) 02:50, 11 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

It is a question of notability: all article subjects must be notable. There is no special notability category or presumption for math-related articles. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although it is not a reason for deletion of this article, it may be of interest to editors on this page to know that the same editor has created an article on the same subject on Portuguese Wikipedia, where it has been proposed for deletion on the grounds that it is an autobiographical article with notability unverifiable because of a lack of references to independent sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Srs Organizadores coloco que este artículo no tiene ninguna pretencion de autopromocion o publicidad, trata de colocar una solucion elementar del Ultimo Teorema de Fermat para las personas interesadas, asunto que considero relevante. Las referencias son fiables como se puede verificar. Infelizmente Wikipedia está presentando una resistencia infundada para elaborar el mismo en qualquier idioma . Coloco que la demonstracion existe fue divulgada y no hay posibilidad de refutacion .El motivo de ser colocada aqui no es para verificación . Siendo asi solicito una respuesta si wikipedia dara condiciones de terminar el articulo de lo contrario no vale la pena el esfuerzo.Editornovo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editornovo (talk • contribs) 01:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above was also added to the talk page of the article. I am copying my translation and reply below. Magidin (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation To the Organizers: I submit that this article does not pretend to be auto-promotion or publicity, it tries to place an elementary solution to Fermat's Last Theorem for those who may be interested, a matter that I consider relevant. The references are reliable as can be verified. Unhappily, Wikipedia is presenting an unfounded resistance to do this in any language. I submit that the proof exists was disseminated and there is no possibility of refuting. The reason for placing here is not for verification. Given that I request an answer whether Wikipedia will give conditions to finish the article; otherwise it is not worth the effort. (Translated by User:Magidin)

Si el proposito de el articulo es poner la "prueba" a disposicion de los interesados, entonces se trata de un intento de publicidad de la "prueba", y por ende no es permitido. El contenido de Wikipedia debe de tener tres caracteristicas: verificabilidad, punto de vista neutral, y no a resultados originales. Las citas que pones no son confiables ni verificables en el sentido que importa en Wikipedia. Por favor lee las politicas de Wikipedia para entender que significa eso y por que no son consideradas ni confiables ni verificables. El que la "prueba" sea, segun tu, correcta e irrefutable, is completa y absolutamente irrelevante: el principal criterio para inclusion en Wikipedia es verificabilidad, no si es cierto o falso. El umbral de inclusion es que se trate de un evento o personaje notable; no encontramos ninguna referencia fuera de lo que tu pones ni a la persona ni a sus supuestos exitos matematicos. Eso indica que hay una ausencia total de verificabilidad y de notabilidad. Esto es algo que cuenta a traves de todos los idiomas de Wikipedia, y esa es la razon por la que tu intento de agregarlo en portugues tambien esta siendo cuestionado. Revisa la politica de Wikipedia sobre que es considerado digno de inclusion, y que es considerado fuentes verificables y confiables, y si consigues que el tema llegue a esos niveles, sera considerado para inclusion.

Translation: If the purpose of the article is to put the "proof" before those who might be interested, then it is an attempt at publicity for the "proof" and therefore not permitted. Content in Wikipedia must meet three characteristics: verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. The citations/sources you put forth are neither verifiable nor reliable in the sense that matters for Wikipedia. Please read the policies of Wikipedia to understand what this means and why they are neither reliable nor verifiable. That the "proof" is, according to you, both correct and irrefutable, is completely and absolutely irrelevant: the main criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. El threshold for inclusion is that it be an event or person who is notable; we could not find any reference other than those you put forth either for the person nor for his supposed mathematical triumphs. This indicates that there is a total absence of verifiability and notability. This is something that matters across all languages of Wikipedia, and that is the reason your attempt at adding him in Portuguese is also being questioned. Review the policies of Wikipedia on what is considered worthy of inclusion, and what is considered a reliable and verifiable source, and if you manage to reach those levels, the subject will be considered for inclusion. Magidin (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Magidin le agradezco la traduccion, considero su colocacion como respuesta de los organizadores) Ya he leido las solicitudes de wikipedia y coloco que son en mi ver demasiadas, algunas contradictorias y otras obscuras. No creo que actualmente pueda ser llamada de una enciclopedia "free" (claro que tiene que tener sus margenes de orden y aceptabilidad), no se como era antes. Le hago transparecer este hecho, por ejemplo en la publicacion de la prueba del teorema de pitagoras (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem) (que es uno entre varios) y usted al mismo tiempo me dice que esto es una practica publicitaria? Sobre la fiabilidad de las referencias , lo son porque la universidad existe , la noticia sobre lanzamiento del la contribuicion del biografado existe y es verdadera, la publicacion existe, demas articulo existe publicado. Sobre la repercución del biografado y su contribuición , wikipedia al parecer solicita algo que no és obligatório, que el biografado y contribuicion sea famoso o comentado en mecanismo de busqueda , o destacada por medios de divulgación como diarios programas televisivos palestras en universidades etc, la noticia colocada se refiere unicamente al surgimiento de su contribuición, y hay que tener en cuenta que el biografado puede ser persona no interesada en repercusiones de otro tipo. Tambien no vá a encontrar repercución negativa, refutación, pues se trata de un teorema provado Por estos motivos vuelvo a colocar que la resistencia colocada por wikipedia es infundada. Saludos. (Editornovo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editornovo (talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation (Magidin, I thank you for the translation; I consider your reply as the answer of the organizers). I have read the policies of Wikipedia and I submit that they are in my view too many, some contradictory, others obscure. I do not believe that it can be currently called a "free" encyclopedia (of course they must have its boundaries for order and acceptability), I do not know how they were before. I make known this fact, for instancee, in the publishing of the proof of Pythagoras's theorem (one among many) and you at the same time tell me that this is an attempt at publicty? On the reliability of the sources, they are because the university exists, the news release on the publishing of the contribution by the subject exists and is true, the publication exists, the article exists and has been published. Over the notability of the subject and his contribution, wikipedia apparently requests something that is not mandatory, that the subject and contribution be famous or be commented via some search method, or noticed by the media such as newspapers, teleivison programs, universities, etc. the news release refers only to the beginning of the contribution, and one must take into account that the subject could be a person that is not interested in any other kind of notability. You will also not find any negative notice, refutation, since it is a proven theorem. For those reasons, I once again submit that wikipedia's resistance is unfounded. (Translated by User:Magidin

The above was also posted in Talk:Pablo Hernan Pereyra; you can see my reply there. Magidin (talk) 23:04, 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) 22:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Cohen (political activist)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Coverage only in late 2014, and only for co-sponsoring a failed petition to recall two councilmen, and for a failed candidacy for a town council seat, in the very small town of Yucca Valley (population 21,000). Coverage is only local and only within the very small town of Yucca Valley: [10], [11], and even then all local coverage is passing mentions except two articles in the local small-town newspaper: [12], [13]. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very local activist with no significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I could have SPEEDYed this under WP:A7 instead of nominating it for AfD, but for whatever reason I neglected to, even though it definitely meets A7. Softlavender (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Barely any context for a better article, delete and restart at best. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zeb Rao[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Last time I checked not the whole crew of a movie/series/program was notable enough to be given a wiki article. She/He fails to establish notability and should be deleted. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this better suggests a WP:CREATIVE article. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No indication of notability. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 10:34, 16 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) 11:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waqas Ali[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as per WP:MUSICBIO. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pakistan idol alone does not give notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for the independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Overall quality of the article is also very low: "Waqas Ali is a Pakistani singer Famously known for his first reality show Pakistan Idol" - "his" reality show? -- Hybris1984 (talk) 10:45, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mehwish Maqsood[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. For the specific guideline governing notability of musicians please see WP:MUSICBIO which states that participants of tv shows are not notable unless they do something independent of the said tv show. Furthermore this seems to be one of a handful of articles which have violated these policies, and have been successful in getting through the new page patrollers net. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he is not solidly independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zamad Baig[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as per WP:MUSICBIO, relevant quote is

Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable independent of Pakistani Idol.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete notable independent of Pakistani Idol, as he is series winner and release several covers and singles. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 13:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely better for the solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Raza Sonu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as per WP:MUSICBIO, relevant quote is

Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable independent of Pakistan Idol.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no signs of better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 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) 11:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Ali[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as per WP:MUSICBIO, relevant quote is "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable." FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable independent of the competition he was in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely better for the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has no significant notability. Reality program competitors are not notable.GeeAichhBee (talk) 09:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shameer Aziz Quidwai[edit]

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

Non notable "singer" who seems to have participated in a reality contest based on the format of American Idol. His other claim to fame seems to be his being the "lead vocalist" of a band which seems to be non existent. The only source is a wordpress blog(which in itself is a WP:BLP vio) and one other site which my browser(chrome) has identified as being full of malware. Braver souls with lesser personal material in their laptops are required to visit this site. So in a nutshell fails WP:GNG FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is questionable for the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has no significant notability. Reality program competitors are not notable.GeeAichhBee (talk) 09:54, 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) 11:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waqas Ali Vicky[edit]

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

Non notable participant in a singing competition who fails WP:GNG FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pakistan idol competitors are not notable for that alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete which seems best as this is questionable for the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has no significant notability. Reality program competitors are not notable.GeeAichhBee (talk) 09:53, 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 Withdrawl. WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Bautista de Acevedo[edit]

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

Questionable notability. There is definitely coverage but are the sources reliable? Delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment These references are on the Spanish wiki article on him:

Referencias[editar código · editar] Volver arriba ↑ Mencionado en ocasiones como Azevedo o Acebedo. Volver arriba ↑ Algunos autores datan su nacimiento en 1567. ↑ Saltar a: a b Gil González Dávila: Teatro de las grandezas de la villa de Madrid (1623), págs. 383-389. Volver arriba ↑ Juan Loperráez Corvalán: Descripción histórica del obispado de Osma (1788), vol. I, pág. 472. ↑ Saltar a: a b c Mateo Escagedo Salmón prologa y reproduce un manuscrito biográfico atribuido a su hermano Fernando: Los Acebedos, parte I, parte II, parte III, parte IV . Volver arriba ↑ Matías Sangrador y Vitores: Historia de la muy noble y leal ciudad de Valladolid (1854), vol. II, págs. 117 et seq. Volver arriba ↑ Decreto 45/2003, por el que se declaran Bien de Interés Cultural las "Esculturas Orantes de Los Acebedos".

I haven't translated them yet so I can't evaluate them nowAtlantic306 (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's the google translation:

Mentioned in times like Azevedo or Acebedo . Some authors date its birth in 1567.

a b Gil Gonzalez Davila: Theatre of the greatness of the town of Madrid ( 1623 ), pp . 383-389 .

Juan Corvalan Loperráez: Historical overview of the bishopric of Osma ( 1788 ), vol . I, p. 472. a b c Mateo Escagedo Salmon: prefaces and plays attributed to his brother Fernando biographical manuscript : The Acebedos , Part I, Part II , Part III , Part IV . Matthias Sangrador : History of the very noble and loyal city of Valladolid ( 1854 ), vol . II , pp . 117 et seq .

Decree 45/2003 laying declared of cultural interest the " Sculptures Orantes Los Acebedos"

Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute, automatic speedy KEEP Bishops of major denominations are kept. Period. WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, User:Mr. Guye, I do understand that you were unaware of this rule, now that you know it you should withdraw this AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 15 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emídio Brasileiro[edit]

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

Article has not improved, or indeed changed much at all since it was last deleted a few months ago Jac16888 ^Talk 23:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged this article AfD in September and it was deleted in October. That was the third time. It reappeared recently in the same state that caused me to tag it in the first place. Someone else tagged it as AfD this time (number 4). It has slightly improved since then, but only through massive cuts.

I read through all of the items in the article’s reference list which at first glance appear to be just at the cusp of GNG. Someone is trying very hard to get this vanity page to stick, but the fact is that this is a man (from all the evidence that appears in the {{reflist}}) who did a study with his wife in the 1990s and has been self-publishing books and creating buzz about his “expert” status ever since. There are mentions of media appearances, but no actual links to those appearances.

Google scholar uncovers only a half dozen hits—Emídio citing himself and a couple of dissertations. I feel that this guy is a relentless self-promoter …in Azerbaijani and Zulu, even. I don’t see any clear support for notability, however. giso6150 (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The October deletion was a WP:PROD, not an AfD, so it can't be used as a precedent here. Were the other deletions you mention under a different name? Because that's the only one I see under this name. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion about which type of deletion it was. I recreated the Talk page and saved this warning from the pink warning-box that was there before I did so…

23:25, 7 October 2015 Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Emídio Brasileiro (G8: Talk page of deleted page "Emídio Brasileiro")
05:06, 30 March 2009 Nancy (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Emídio Brasileiro (G8: Talk page of a deleted or non-existent page)
22:13, 29 March 2009 J.delanoy (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Emídio Brasileiro (Speedy deleted, blanked or requested by creator)

I see that the dates are close together in 2009, so that might be one event. It’s hard to contribute to these discussions without some of the admin tools at my disposal. All the past history is hidden for me. I also admit that the difference between AfD and PROD was totally lost on me until now. giso6150 (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see now. I wasn't looking at the talk page history because those are usually boring, but in this case in March 2009 a version of the article was created in Talk: namespace, blanked by its IP creator, speedily deleted, and then another IP editor made a new talk page (still with no associated article) that simultaneously requested a speedy deletion and requested it not to be deleted. That, too, was deleted, and then the next day was the creation of the actual article that was deleted by PROD in 2015. So that explains the multiple deletions, but again, doesn't give us much information that will help decide this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help interpreting and navigating this article's deletion history; my vote of Delete still stands, based on the notability guidelines for academics. giso6150 (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now because none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. Self promotional, not notable and badly sourced... -- Hybris1984 (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.That is not true.189.5.144.212 (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Jendiroba[reply]

Comment Giso6150 who knows Brazilian culture should respect more Brazilians.189.5.144.212 (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Jendiroba[reply]

Comment This page is of satisfactory level."This is a notable topic and has been mentioned in a lot of sources". 189.5.144.212 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Jendiroba[reply]
Delete. Almost no citations in Google scholar, and no other evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David,It is best to request the termination of the page , but not with that excuse.189.5.144.212 (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Jendiroba[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naoko Hayashiba[edit]

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

As a manga artist she is only known for one major manga work, but the article needs more information on her professional shogi career. Is she notable for the shogi career at all? If not, recommend this redirect to Shion no O. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shion no Ō per lack of independent notability.--十八 03:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I was in Japan when the shogi scandal occurred in 1995 and she was all over the papers. None of that is on the net now, but the CiNii database shows some 45 magazine articles on and by her in major weekly magazines, etc. [14]. A quick search of the net shows that she still appears in the major press for various reasons, recently apparently for health problems: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], etc. The fact she got this much press just for getting sick indicates how much she is a celebrity still garnering much press attention. Easily passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure if this would fall under WP:BLP1E or not, being in the news does not always equal notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly WP:BLP1E does not hold here because she is the author of a notable manga, she was a famous shogi player, and she also did other things that garnered lots of publicity (including doing a nude photo book, I might add). Please remember that objective level of coverage is crucial to WP:GNG so that we can avoid subjective statements about whether what someone does or not is "notable". Michitaro (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's probably a bit much to expect anyone outside of Japan to be switched on when it comes to knowing the subject, but she was an incredibly well-known prodigy in the shogi world, winning her first title at 14 and competing for two decades before being barred from the federation. She is also a light novelist with prodigious output and appeared in everything from quiz shows to wide shows. Even her bankruptcy was the subject of weeks of coverage. Passes WP:GNG readily. Jun Kayama 06:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found. I am convinced that she has received enough in depth coverage. Now we just need someone to add the sources, and expand the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for having been the subject of significant reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs work, but clearly notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:32, 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 speedy close. Speedily closed, vandalism reverted, redirect restored, will protect ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user (@Boomer Vial:) who requested this AfD at AN did not create any rationale for deletion. The page was vandalized and I restored the redirect to a pre-vandalized state. I would suggest a speedy close and remind the nom to always check the page history before bringing a page to AfD. Rgrds. --64.85.216.89 (talk) 14:52, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Fontana[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From one side, he does have an impressive portfolio, but photographing a bunch of famous celebrities does not make one a notable person. I didn't find any publications beside blog interviews, no exhibitions and no books. Perhaps, it's just too soon to get an encyclopedic article. I think Delete. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:33, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitou Apricot[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Kaitou Apricot" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Unsourced after a decade and there are no sources in sight. I asked at the visual novels project and there isn't enough to constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) A video game reliable sources custom Google search came up dry too. I don't see any particularly useful redirects. czar 00:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 00:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing here suggests a better notable article for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Lots of directory entries, no substantial content. I'm not proficient with Japanese sources, so my search did not include such and there's no jp: version to check sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any in-depth third party sourcing or coverage to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:28, 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 speedy delete. Copyvio of his web site. If he were clearly notable, I would have rewritten it, but all I can see by way of publications are a large number of essays to accompany art show catalogs, and the like. DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Rodrigues (philosopher)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. No indications that he has achieved the required notability for academics. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are not even minimal signs of a better notable article and I believe DGG who has familiar analysis would also say this. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Arthur Kriegsman[edit]

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

president of a company that has not yet produced a marketable product. I don't see how that can be other than promotional, DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As well as the promotional aspect this fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources.Atlantic306 (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable with nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. -- Softlavender (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.

[1] ttps://www.facebook.com/ukjuniorgliding/?fref=ts

[2] ttp://www.jwgc2015.com/results(hidden)/overall-results.aspx

[1]

[2]