Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 January	24 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Universities Association of Change Ringers

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

Unsourced since 2013. I don't see that it passes WP:GNG Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability, no coverage in reliable secondary sources that I can find. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the above comments, it's worth noting that a similar article on the Southern Universities Association of Change Ringers was recently deleted. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will move the Afrophobia (phobia) page as the nominator suggests. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afrophobia

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

It is not really a disambig page. Delete it and move Afrophobia (phobia) into it place without redirect, because of misnomer: not really a medical condition. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the nomination says, it's not a valid disambiguation page. It looks like Afrophobia was previously deleted at AfD, and I don't quite understand how we ended up with Afrophobia and Afrophobia (phobia). I haven't looked closely at the latter page to ascertain its notability, but it seems uncontroversial to simply move it here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negrophobia doesn't qualify, as not all blacks are in Africa, nor are all Africans black. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Clarityfiend. The question here is, per WP:DAB, "are there multiple articles to which the search term "Afrophobia" might be expected to lead?" It seems implausible that people would search for "afrophobia" if they were really looking for negrophobia. /wiae /tlk 01:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States Adult Soccer Association. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Premier League (soccer)

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

Article is about a regional league which does not seem to meet WP:ORG, specifically depth of sources. The only sources offered are associated with the league or are very basic press releases. I had PRODded the page but the creator removed it with the edit summary "Removed deletion template because it is unreasonable to expect detailed independent press coverage of a league which has just restarted and is currently in the off-season"; which may indicate it is too soon for an article on this regional league. There must be independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The league is affiliated with the United States Adult Soccer Association, which means its teams are eligible for the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. Being a regional soccer league, it will not gain widespread coverage outside its geographic area. Should we also bring every article for a USASA-affiliated league to AfD? — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I would not be opposed to a redirect as suggested by GiantSnowman below. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Adult Soccer Association, no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 18:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if questionably independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Joffe

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

Claim to notability is as an expert in something found non-notable at AfD. I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete vanity page. No significant independent coverage. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG, inadequate RS BlueSalix (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no specific notability. Lots of claims , though, but there's a difference. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hellaby

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Presumably you mean WP:PROF. - htonl (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected typo. Boleyn (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete no notability. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just passes WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of 23 in a well-cited field. Did the nominator consider the well-over 1000 citations? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should also have put that this is an unref blp. Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~It can be BLP:PRODED for that reason since it needs to both pass notability (I agree with Xxanthippe that it does) and have citations.~~ So Keep ~~here, and then BLP-Delete if it doesn't get a citation before the AfD is done~~. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far people have suggested it is notable, but no one has verified this with sources. Without that, it doesn't meet guidelines. It's not eligible for a blp prod as it was created before 2010. Boleyn (talk)

Did the nominator consider the well-over 1000 citations on GS and the 378 on GB? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe, if you want to ask me a question, it'd be best to ping me, as I follow a lot of AfDs, and as you didn't mention the username of the person you were addressing, I missed these. Yes, I was aware he had many citations. Do you have sources you can add that verify notability or were you unable to find any? Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 1378 sources that you can find by clicking the consolidating links considerately given above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I certzinly can't find 1378 sources confirming his notability, if you can, great. Can you name any? Do you have even one as evidence, Xxanthippe? Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried clicking on the links on this page above that are provided for the convenience of you and other editors? If you have not then do so. If you have, then tell us what you find. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe, of course I have. I'm not trying to be difficult - and I'm happy to change my vote if evidence is put forward - but so far you've spent a lot of time on here saying he's notable, but that means nothing without verification. What reliable sources do you think establish this, so we can add them to the article and prove notability? This has been tagged for notability for six years, it would be wonderful to get it fully resolved, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is directed to the succinct summary of WP:Prof by DGG below. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this person meets WP:PROF. Gbawden (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient highly cited work to show him an expert in his field, which is the basic WP:PROF criterion, and is normally shown, in the case of scientists, by citations: The counts of the highest papers (from Google Scholar) are 180, 165, 147.71, 54, 61 -- all in the most important journals of the field, 29 papers with 29 or more citations, but it';'s the most highly cited ones that count. (there is no fixed value of the h index--it is different in different fields--astronomy and related sciences have a much lower citation density than the biomedical sciences, but 3 papers with over 100 citations each would be enough in any field at all.) There is no need for sources other than the citations to pass WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems convincing for a notable article. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cosensus DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Doe

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

Non-notable blogger who according to the article goes by the names Karan Doe and Karan Goyal, and according to the site he runs is actually called Karandeep Kumar. I can find no evidence of notability under any of these names. None of the provided refs is independent - most are to his own site Pollywood Reporter, the one other is to ArtistMag, which is also run by the subject. None of these sites appears to be notable either. The article was likely written by the subject himself - see the discussion on my talk page here. Fails WP:N and WP:V. BC108 (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent notability proofs. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable blogger. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That user talk page discussion was kind of funny, and it seems to reinforce the promotional nature of this bio. Without any independent coverage, this blogger fails to demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding anything under any of the three listed names. Fails WP:BIO. /wiae /tlk 01:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments establishing notability have been made during the course of this discussion, therefore the article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentius Escarcha

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

Delete: as non-notable religious figure/cleric. Quis separabit? 19:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation if reliable sources are found. I was unable to find significant coverage about the subject. Most of the sources I found through searches were Wikipedia mirrors.
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vincentius Escarcha to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Yaro

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

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by IP user without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. I don't believe first team all-american counts as NCOLLATH is clear that player needs to have gained coverage as an individual not part of a wider team. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or widerGNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CF Sparta Selemet

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

The article's subject fails WP:NSPORTS. This article was deproded by Pharaoh of the Wizards with this edit. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Club plays in the Moldovan "B" Division which is the third division in Moldovan Football.The club has also taken part Moldovan Cup a national competition per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - has played in the national cup competition, so notable per Pharoah. Also please note @GeoffreyT2000: that WP:NSPORTS refers to biographies only, so it doesn't apply to clubs - you are looking for WP:ORG. Giant Snowman 11:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman. NSPORTS doesn't apply to clubs. Number 5 7 12:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the deprod clearly stated that the team has played in national competitions, thus clearly meeting WP:FOOTYN. Why then does User:GeoffreyT2000 choose to ignore WP:FOOTY consensus and proceed to AFD? Nfitz (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:FOOTYN - has appeared in national competitions. Fenix down (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 This article was copied and pasted from this news story (also published elsewhere) Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India's largest flag

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

Appears to break WP:NOTNEWS. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. A one-line addition to the article flag of India would be enough/one line to much. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 // 08:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Saadia

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

fails WP:GNG —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see reliable coverage in reliable sources. I saw a blog interview that mentioned that she's Israeli, which could complicate things if there are non-English sources that I can't locate. If someone finds non-English sources, I'm willing to reconsider my vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she may actually be notable and this article better improvable but there's nothing better convincing for the notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I interpret the discussion to show that even a edirect of entry in a list is not appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Church of Christ Cemetery

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

Unsourced, single-line stub about a cemetery with no claim of significance other than one notable person buried there. Article was deprodded by article creator without explanation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is obviously a stub placeholder and would be deleted anyway for lack of citation but doing a quick Google search shows most hits for "United Church of Christ Cemetary Holgate, Ohio" just leads to wikipedia mirror sites and the occassional mention in individuals' obituaries. So no provided evidence of notability is combined with no easy sign that evidence of notability is even possible. -Markeer 16:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Cemeteries in Ohio The content can be sourced from Google Books The Baseball Necrology: The Post-Baseball Lives and Deaths, and the Coords are available at Google maps. Category:Cemeteries in Ohio is an existing category. Unscintillating (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Unscintillating: I wouldn't oppose a merge to a list if such a list exists with appropriate inclusion criteria, but I don't see one (if I did, I probably would've just boldly done the merge rather than take it to AfD). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I intended that the link being red was part of my !vote. Also, I'm not volunteering to create the article. We need some essay somewhere that talks about the maintainability of the encyclopedia. Another point is that Google lists the cemetery as "St. Pauls...", so I'm not sure at this point that we can reliably identify the name from a primary source. This page by itself would in this future world need to be a DAB, as there are many "United Church of Christ Cemetery"s. Unscintillating (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most cemeteries aren't notable, and this one demonstrates no difference. I question the truthfulness of this article, as well: I can't find a single cemetery in Holgate (it's a tiny community), under any name. Nyttend (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having hung out tiny American towns, I AGF and suspect that there is a minor, old-time ball player named Jack Hallett buried there, but that it's hard to source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I think we can delete this article, for having no sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should keep the present name even as a merge, because the United Church of Christ used to be a pretty big denomination, and it can't be right to direct UCC cemetery to a cemetery we can't even source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan Rosenberry

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league, or indeed in any league outside of college to date. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or widerGNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mabalacat City College-Campus Youth Ministry

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

A non-notable student college organization with no reliable third party references to back up it's notability outside its school's campus. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:TNT. Unambiguous advertising. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. /wiae /tlk 01:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously as I have tagged it as G11. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Moniz Barbosa

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

Hard to find information online. Most articles mention him quickly but I didn't find anything that went truly in-depth. Seems to me that it fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of Barbosa I used was uploaded to Wikipedia in 2010 by User:Thachan.makan: I wonder if they'd like to offer an opinion? I made the page because I was tidying up a long list of authors at Goan literature, and making new entries for many of them. The relevant guidelines would be those for creative professionals. I'll add some more material to the entry and hopefully people will agree that this is evidence for 4 (c): 'The person's work (or works) ... has won significant critical attention'. I'd also note that it's harder for a lot of non-Western authors to get the kind of internet profile that Western authors might take for granted, and that Wikipedia should be sensitive to this. Alarichall (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I found some links at Books, News, browsers and WP:INDAFD but nothing to suggest a better notable article for authors guidelines. Draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 4 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, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 12 January 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) 05:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searches work better without middle name, or with just middle initial. He appears to be quite a well-known Goan journalist / author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 12:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 04:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is clearly no consensus that this list should be deleted, or that it fails WP:LISTN. Therefore, the list is retained. Any discussion about renaming the list, or making other improvements, can be made at the list's talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino beauty pageant winners

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

A crazy long list of people who generally don't qualify for their own article but competed in various minor pageants. Zero sources inspires zero confidence in this random collection of information. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. We should not be building list of people who don't qualify for their own article but were involved in events that fail WP:EVENT. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP as index of articles and as complement to Category:Filipino beauty pageant winners, which shows there are clearly enough who qualify for their own article. Whether it should be narrowed down to only those who merit articles is a matter for ordinary editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~as non notable event,~~ Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davey2010: This isn't about an event. Did you accidentally comment in the wrong AFD? postdlf (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Damnit that'll teach me for pasting the same rationale! ..., I'll try again!.... - Had the list contained notable people then great keep it but I'd say a good 90% of the article is filled with non notables and pointless images which aren't really needed in an article, I still can't find anything notability wise so imho fails GNG still. –Davey2010^Talk 16:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is this basically a WP:TNT argument? Because there are over a 100 viable entries for this list, as seen at Category:Filipino beauty pageant winners. The image gallery also consists entirely of people with articles, and so is arguably more useful than the table at present, and it would be easy to convert that into a table after deleting the remainder...if that's what editors want to do, a discussion about content that should be had on the talk page. And images certainly serve a valuable function in list articles, as in List of Presidents of the United States. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When did pageant winners not notable enough for an article become comparable to Presidents of the United States? Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric that deliberately ignores the point of a comparison never accomplishes anything here. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 15 January 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) 05:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only 8 out of 54 of the A names have there own article. Most of the pageants listed don't have an article either. Although the title of the article says the names are winners, that does not seem to be the case as many are listed as semi-finalists etc. If restricted to only names or events with an article, 75%+ of this needs to be trimmed. As it sits it is unreferenced WP:NAMECHECKING Existing categories should cover the topic. Legacypac (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already commented on your content issues above; please also see WP:NOTCLEANUP and policy at WP:ATD. Not to mention WP:NOTDUP... And your approval of categories in this context also underlines that it's not the concept of the list you have a problem with, but rather its current state and execution. We do not delete articles based on nothing more than issues with the version "as it sits". postdlf (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, the % of the content that needs to be removed meets WP:TNT. You may disagree I suppose. Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming it down to this took just a couple minutes, obviously something that can be expanded from the category and the table refined from the quick version I threw up. And it's also quite possible that editors may support keeping the table that I removed, after discussion, and with the page not being deleted it remains in the history to be restored, or just to be mined for notable entries or other information. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Filipino beauty pageant winners. Also qualifies per WP:LISTPURP as a functional navigational aid and valuable information source. Sources are easily found and can be added to the article, some of which I have performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 12:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If More Citations Added I have no concerns about notability of this list, given the prominance of beauty pageantry and the evidence that several of the members of this list have passed GNG on their own, but any list like this needs in-line citations for EVERY ENTRY to demonstrate their appropriate membership of the list itself (e.g. this random list. The primary issue with this list, that absolutely needs to be addressed, is Verifiability. If this isn't done and this comes back to AfD, I know I'd lean strongly toward deletion.
Keep and rename but trim down the list. Remove those who solely won on pageants that doesn't have an article such as Miss Chinatown Manila. "Placement" is also ambiguous but a closer analysis points that these are the international editions of the local pageants listed on the left. Also I proposed changing the title to "List of Filipino winners at international beauty pageants" because technically most contestants of international beauty pageants are winners of the competition's national counterpart.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Settling on inclusion criteria is an activity for talk page discussion. I will note though that such a list is basically an occupation by nationality classification, and so [nationality] [occupation/achievement] is the standard form. The corresponding category is also titled Category:Filipino beauty pageant winners. At a minimum, anyone who is 1) notable, 2) Filipino, and 3) won a beauty pageant should be included on this list just as in the category. postdlf (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the title sits a 6 year old Filipino origin winning Little Miss Sunshine Springfield USA qualifies for this never ending list. If someone wants to build an article with a more restrictive title go ahead, but this ain't it. Legacypac (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to show that what is demonstrated is not notability DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karalyn Brown

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

Notable for being the most connected woman on LinkedIn. Is that enough for Notability? There are a number of sources in this article, but most appear to be her being interviewed or asked for an opinion. Don't believe that she is notable Gbawden (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I doubt she even has met the majority of people connected to her on LinkedIn. Recruitment consultants are notorious for trawling LinkedIn all day and adding contacts. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sources needed to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that "being the most connected person on Linkedin" is not enough for notability but the sources for publishing articles in multiple publications are mentioned. She is also a public speaker and has appeared on Australian and New Zealand TV and radio. --Siavash65 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Siavash65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete as unlikely better satisfying WP:CREATIVE and my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment IMO the article meets notability guideline's Basic Criteria and in WP:CREATIVE, no 1 and no 3 are met: Numerous second hand and first hand articles in renowned publications, book publication, seminars and regular media appearances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siavash65 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment An important missing point here is that an entry's local notability should also be taken into account. Here we are dealing with a notability in Australia. Should a person be known in all English speaking countries to be considered notable? --Siavash65 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 12:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think the issue for debate here is that this personality has multidimensional background and it may make notability assessment complicated. Apart from all the references in the document, I believe she could be nominated for notability even just for her journalism in The Australian, as a tier one publication. I insist again that local Australian notability should be taken seriously here. The Australian TV, radio and paper media are naturally not comparable to American in size, but this should not become a matter of judgement here. --Siavash65 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per discussion above. Aeonx (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reliable sources do exist and poor quality is not a reason for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Test (Unix)

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

WP:NOTMANUAL: article contains only how-to information and listings of program options. Maybe transwiki to some Wikibook? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as seemingly unlikely to better satisfying the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep This isn't Unix, it's an aspect of shell scripting. There is about a 40 year history of this feature and it marks a shift from command lines as a simple command despatcher to being a scripting environment supporting conditional branching, one of the most fundamental aspects of programming.

"test", as a simple bit of bash syntax, is uninteresting and fails HOWTO. "Test", as the innovation of shells as becoming controllable, intelligent environments, is significant and notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in reliable sources would better demonstrate notability than an assertion that it's important. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about it being part of the IEEE POSIX standard 1003.1 [1] - this is already in the article. Viam Ferream (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So add some (there is vast coverage of any aspect of Unix shell - there is no claim whatsoever that this topic fails on account of a lack of sourcing). The point is that the topic here is of more interest and importance than might be thought from a simple "it's just a manual entry listing some computer command".Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A simple how-to guide on a trivial command line utility. Assertions to the contrary seem to boil down to an "it's notable" argument without any evidence. My own searches do not show significant coverage in reliable sources, though it's difficult to find a search string that will remove the false positives, such as "test your UNIX script" or "a classroom test about this UNIX script". I'm open to changing my vote if someone can provide reliable sources rather than simple assertions of notability. Transwiki is also another quite valid result, especially if we did the same to the other trivial UNIX commands. We could have a pretty nice UNIX how-to manual, which is likely within the scope of some Wikibook or something. If someone wants to start a sourced "history" section in shell script, they could do that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"My own searches do not show significant coverage in reliable sources," Your inability to search effectively bears no relation to something's objective notability.

Are you really claiming that there is any aspect of Unix, let alone something so obvious, that isn't covered by a myriad of substantial sources? This is hardly an obscure topic. There perhaps is a case to be made that test is only a "user manual" topic, and so not "encyclopedic", but it's hardly credible that aspects of Unix are sitting around undescribed. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a standard and important POSIX utility that exists since at least 40 years. No expert would ever even consider to discuss whether to delete an article about such a fundamental UNIX utility. The article needs improvement but this will not be achieved by deleting it. Schily (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is obvious that the page is in need of improvement, but that is not something that will occur if it is deleted. It helps to have a comprehensive description of command line utilities, as well as some of their history. Perhaps the article could be edited in order to better fit within Wikipedia's style guidelines. The argument that it "Wikipedia is not a manual" is pedantic — simply because this article is improperly written now does not mean that it will always be improperly written. --104.129.196.60 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There still aren't any provided sources to demonstrate notability. Saying that there "must be sources" and inherited notability through UNIX don't really count. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "there are aren't any reliable sources", then maybe that's because someone repeatedly keeps removing them [2] [3] It is ridiculous to remove a source from Gnu as "advertizing". Viam Ferream (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion not relevant to the deletion discussion

The GNU Project are famous for two things: GNU (a Unix [sic]) and GPL (a software licence). I added GNU as a source for Unix shell-related stuff, as I consider them authoritative and pretty neutral overall. Schily has removed it (and an IBM source, and a simple wikilink too) because he has a 10 year old beef about how "The GPL is all wrong". That is not "advertizing", that is not good editing behaviour in an article that is at AfD on account of lacking sources. Viam Ferream (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your personal attacks based on false claims about me. Note that your comments are unrelated to the this discussion. Schily (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jörg Schilling (2nd nomination). You claim to be a Notable subject on the basis of work on two pieces of software. Yet all the visible sourcing for this comes down to, for both of them, "the project forked and Schilling left because of a dispute with Gnu". Today you're stripping good refs from this article, that is agreed to need more, because either "Gnu are advertizing" (a pretty farcical claim to make about Gnu) or else you're still harping on about a 10 year old beef with Gnu.

Policy states that AfD articles shouldnt be blanked. Editors are welcome to expand or improve them. I see stripping refs for personal reasons as much too close to the blanking than the improvement. Viam Ferream (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You continue with personal attacks, the phrase "the project forked and Schilling left because of a dispute with Gnu" leads to exactly 0 hits on Google. In other words: "Schilling left" is purely fictional by you. Schily (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, but a bad manual page. There exists better manual pages in every operating system that has this command. It could be put into a "Unix 101" book, but not into an encyclopedia. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lead section is encyclopedic, and the description can be improved. The test command is itself a fundamental UNIX utility, so there are no reasons to drop the article just because the other sections provide information that can be found in manual pages or tutorials. Ekkt0r (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added an O'Reilly reference to Further reading. There is enough material there and in other books to write a more complete article, leaving the man page information to External links. The command varies among the various Unix shells, and there is an extended test command available in two of the shells. This is just one of the many articles on Unix commands in Template:Unix commands. Is the nominator suggesting that all of these be removed? StarryGrandma (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all, but I do think that list could do with some trimming. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & stubify: Notability established as per WP:GNG by multiple substantial sources in the "Further reading" section, see [4], [5], [6]. The main reason why people vote "delete" here is because the article reads like a manual — but that should be solved by stubification, not deletion of the article about a notable subject. -- intgr [talk] 08:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- These are manuals that tell you how to use the command. How does that help to alleviate the concerns that this article is a howto? If we use them as sources, the article will remain a howto guide. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  @NinjaRobotPirate: As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't need to grow beyond a stub. Otherwise it's possible that better sources exist out there, but these are just a few that turned up and I stopped looking for more, as they appear sufficient to demonstrate notability. -- intgr [talk] 00:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that test is not a really complex piece of software, nobody should expect a long and complex article. Now that the edit warring seem to have calmed down, we finally have an article with a link to the related standard at a prominent location. Schily (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied A7. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Violets

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

Unsourced non-notable band; speedy was removed by a brand new editor. PamD 11:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see here. Band formed in 2015. No claim to passing WP:NMUSIC even attempted, let alone reliably sourced. Writing tone falls somewhere between "bad attempt at smartass comedy" and "totally WP:MADEUP". ("Their musical skill is debatable." stated one critic. "But hey, that's what autotune is for!") Only "source" is a self-published WordPress blog whose only content is a photo of five teenage boys standing in front of a fence. Enh, still completely speediable...consider the deed done. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Falah Hashim

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

This person acted only in a handful of TV series. I don't see any WP:Notability. No reliable sources. Google News does not return any hits "Falah+Hashim"&biw=1680&bih=959&tbm=nws&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI7O6u47_KAhXHiCwKHTirBT8Q_AUICSgD&dpr=1&gws_rd=cr&ei=7lyjVty5CMuRsAH036LQBQ. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is currently questionable for WP:CREATIVE. Notifying PRODer Jonesey95. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PROD tag was removed without explanation. I believe that WP:A7 also applies. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A10). Huon (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

باتريك هيوز

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

The article in another language, I tried to translate, but did not meet the content of the article. Lukaslt13 --Talk 10:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. WP:A7 by Acroterion (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 15:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sominath Warma

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

This article is not formed from a single sentence. And if you want to write specifically, or go to Facebook, or IRC. Lukaslt13 --Talk 09:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. WP:A3 by RHaworth (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 15:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Athit Naik

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

Page is not ".". Pages should be at least 600 words. Lukaslt13 --Talk 09:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Manley

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

This individual is only notable for saying that he is running for President of the United States. He has received no significant media coverage. He does not meet the minimum level of notability required for an article. ALPolitico (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring oneself a candidate for President of the United States does not constitute a notability freebie under WP:NPOL — and in reality, he isn't even verifiably that yet, but has merely been a non-winning candidate in the primary contests for two minor political parties' presidential nominations, which counts for even less. Even the Democratic or Republican candidates in a presidential election aren't really getting Wikipedia articles because candidate — they're getting Wikipedia articles because they've already previously held another office (state governor, senator, etc.) that gets them over WP:NPOL regardless of the presidential candidacy. If the reliable source coverage of Manley were to nationalize, then WP:GNG would come into play — but if you have to base the article entirely on primary sources and local media coverage in and around his own hometown, then merely being a candidate in a primary race does not get him over the bar. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and comments of Bearcat. Subject does not meet the criterion of WP:NPOL or the notability guidelines as laid out in WP:42.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AlPolitico and Bearcat. Subject has no RS coverage or acheivements significant enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN.--Cojovo (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fastmake

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any reliable sources that cover it in-depth. CNMall41 (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 11:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionably notable and improvable with nothing else to suggest a better solidly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up download sites, but no significant WP:RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waplog

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

nn app Staszek Lem (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Social networking service. A search using Google News proved that the website has been discussed about in reliable sources, but only in relation to crimes that have been committed using this service, so I can't this subject strives well enough in the notability department. 和DITOR E tails 03:26, 16 January 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) 06:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 11:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 11:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the suggested move linked above is wide and not exact for an actual social media platform such as this, best deleted if it's not better notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 03:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mirjami Heikkinen

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

Not notable for English Wikipedia. Voice actress dubs into Finnish. The Finnish Wikipedia is just a paragraph like this one plus the credit list, of which only 1/3 of it is sourced and mostly by sources that just mention her in a cast list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this currently suggests it is unlikely to better satisfy WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Keep per the several reliable from Finnish publications I was able to find in Google News. While it's hard to tell if a few of them may be passing mentions, I'd suggest some of the sources go into depth about this actor, so I don't think a delete would be the best option here. 和DITOR E tails 00:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dubbing roles such as Kim Possible, and Blossom count as major roles as they are main characters. The major roles combined with EditorE's finding has led me to a Keep (at least for now) opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 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) 06:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Englander

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

Not really seeing anything notable here. All sources are primary and not in depth whatsoever, and I can't find much else on this person. WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO, even WP:GNG don't seem to be appeased. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 05:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO, as noted by @Allthefoxes. Quis separabit? 23:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied G4 as a recreation of an article deleted by AFD less than a week ago. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan "Ali" Salehi

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

Non-notable individual, minor politician, lacking non-trivial support. A number of references do not support statements. Vanity article. reddogsix (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional, non-notable. Pburka (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deletecreated by a single edit User. Looking at the article it reeks of self promotion . Definitely AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recreation of a page deleted less than a week ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Salehi (2nd nomination), with neither the WP:NPOL nor the reliable source coverage improved a whit — the sourcing in this version is actually even more purely dependent on primary sources than it was the last time. I'm speedying this G4. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments under PROF appear to be on the marginal side and then we have the issue that the consensus here is that this clearly does not met the GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Paul Wesley

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

Vanity bio of a deceased professor obviously created by a relative with close to none independent sources . Please notice a bunch of self-published books (by a family member publisher). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the editor is a bit heavy handed in his use of his editorial rights, the page meets all wikipedia guidelines. The publisher is different from the author. I truly doesn't matter whether its a family member or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainTCook (talk • contribs) 03:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in wikipedia it does matter. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah but it doesn't matter too much. Claudebone (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah back, vanity considerations and WP:COI matter much. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. What matters is the academic rigour of the work not who wrote it. Claudebone (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - It looks like you have no idea what is this about. I am talking about books by James Paul Wesley published by a vanity publisher rather than by an established publisher. Vanity publishing is a one huge red flag when establishing notability. If you find these books published by an academic publisher then we can start talking academic rigour. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        That was my point but it's hardly my fault you lack the basic mental acumen to be able to comprehend it. Claudebone (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to tentatively say (and respectfully advise the original author) wrong venue. Note the respectful advice - I respectfully suggest tat some people are not being particularly respectful. I actually think the author here has sufficient material to submit something worthwhile to a peer-reviewed history of science journal (although it's a bit late for an obituary). They've done a pretty thorough job, with good quality sources. A lot of time has gone into this research and it would be a shame to destroy it. Note that I would accept the existence of a Wikipedia article if a scholarly article had been published, though the content in Wikipedia would have to be fairly basic. My suggestion is therefore for the author to find the right venue. For example here - note that most editors should help you even if they reject the paper (make clear to them that you are an inexperienced with academic publishing if you are inexperienced). Perhaps additionally publish (maybe self-publish) a short e-book to compliment the paper, and include a few family memories and photos to personalise it. Interview his colleagues to see what they thought of him. Print some copies and donate them to his university's library so his legacy is established, and to his friends and colleagues. That sounds great - it sounds better than Wikipedia. Claudebone (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- self-published e-books and a memoir from relatives will not make it notable for wikipedia purposes. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that depends on how widely it has been published, and in particular whether (or not) a reputable publisher has printed the book with a decent print run so that it becomes a reasonably widely available. Claudebone (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it is not. Please learn how wikipedia works. Start with WP:RS and WP:GNG, paying attention to the words "independent of the subject". Staszek Lem (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes it is. You should firstly learn to be polite and secondly you should learn how the historical method works and in particular note how there's not a dichotomy between "reliable sources" and "unreliable sources", and "independent" and "non-independent" sources. All sources have varying degrees of reliability (noting ins perfect). Though I assume that fact is lost on many of the morons who edit Wikipedia and start pointing to the poorly written guidelines whenever this uncomfortable fact is brought up. Claudebone (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        If you don't like rules written by us morons, you would probably want to join the high-brow Citizendium project. Staszek Lem (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article presents no evidence of influential publications or other accomplishments or honors that would take him above the level of the average professor, and is not sourced by in-depth reliably-published and independent publications about the subject. Additionally, searching Google scholar for publications by the subject did not find publications with notably high citation counts. As such, he does not appear to pass our guidelines for notability of academics, nor our general notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. I respectfully disagree, i think there might be a mistake when interpreting notability and believing it is equal to popularity; notability refers to notable (in other words "usable" and "useful") and i think is work appears to be just that, original, novel and maybe an outlier of the mainstream or established physics high community but certainly not an average professor; in the wiki policy it states that professor and academics usually qualify as notable! so please read the wiki policy CaptainTCook (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC) CaptainTCook[reply]

@CaptainTCook: On Wikipedia, "notable" has a specific technical meaning that is different from useful and is closer to famous: to be notable, one must have been noted, by multiple independent reliable sources (another techical term but basically means published under some amount of editorial oversight). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as WP:NACADEMIC. I found only one third-party reference, and it is in the Natural Philosopher's database which is a personal project of two people. However, I did find about ten of his articles cited in G-Scholar with cites ranging from about 35-75. That's not huge, but given the time frame I find it mildly acceptable. However, this article needs to be greatly reduced. All of his writings need to be removed from the references and instead treated as a bibliography. The article should not include a full bibliography of his works but only selected works (which can be chosen from those most cited). The long quotes from the self-published works also need to go. And the whole family history part has to go since that's not what makes him notable. This was clearly the project of a relative or family member and is more like a memorial than a WP article. My gut feeling is that he was a bit of a crank, but that doens't keep him out of WP as long as he meets other criteria. LaMona (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did the unthinkable and reduced the publications to a few key ones, took out the long quotes, removed his own publications from the reference list. This is just the beginning, but it makes the article much more in line with WP style and policies. Oh, I also removed the references to his father's books, since those aren't relevant on this page. There's still the whole family history that should be cut, but I'm a fanatic for bibliographical details so that's where I concentrated. LaMona (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"only one third-party reference" - and you say it is notable? You must be kidding. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll ping User:Randykitty for his opinion on whether we should consider GScholar cites sufficient here. Randy, if you reply here, do ping me back. I'll make up my mind after considering your views. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' with thanks to User:LaMona. Wesley's alleged intellectual range is so diffuse, that the notability claim looked improbable to me: 4 wives, couldn't hold a job, too many fields of expertise, he sounds eerily John Forbes Nash, Jr.-like. One absurd sentence that caught my eye was the claim that this theoretical physicist had a fellowship at the Center Advanced Study Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) at Stanford University. Anyone who can claim that is notable, but you have to be a social scientist, not a physicist. I figured this would prove that somebody was making stuff up, or that he was actually at the Institute for Advanced Study, but sloppiness on that level would call the whole article into doubt. So I poked around, and to my amazement, in 1962, he published: Wesley, James Paul. 1962. “Frequency of Wars and Geographical Opportunity”. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 6 (4). Sage Publications, Inc.: 387–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/172617. written at: Center Advanced Study Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University. Moreover, as J.P. Wesley, his papers are cited. It suffices.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep = easily passes WP:PROF. It also appears to have been fixed per WP:HEY, although your opinion may differ. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets criteria #5 of WP:PROF as he served as a professor at the University of Missouri for 10 years. Ya sh ! 11:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. That interpretation is very far from the plain meaning of WP:PROF#C5 which specifically asks for a posting to a position at a step higher than full professor (i.e. a named chair, distinguished professor title, etc). There is no evidence that the subject ever held such a title. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies for the oversight and thank you for the clarification. I have struck my !vote. Ya sh ! 07:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The work as a theoretical physicist is fringe, with a few papers in a speculative journal, a number of self-published books (published by an apparent member of the family, which amounts to the same thing; the comment above ,"someone other than the author" misses the point entirely); There are a few orthodox papers in geophysics, for which Google Scholar shows citations of 79, 32, 29, not enough for notability in this field. There is a elementary book, Ecophysics; the application of physics to ecology from a decent technical publisher for which Worldcat shows 297 holdings, but that alone wouldn't be enough for notability as WP:PROF or WP:Author. There is one social science paper: Wesley, James Paul. 1962. “Frequency of Wars and Geographical Opportunity”. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 6 (4). Sage Publications, Inc.: 387–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/172617 which ha been cited 62 times. (From reading the citations, it seems he took an unsual position here also) nFellow not notable by itself: it's a postdoc, not a permanent appointment . I cannot verify that the position at Missouri was a full professorship; the term is sometimes used more loosely, and I have learned to be skeptical when it is used in association with fringe figures unless a formal position is explicitly stated and verified in a third party source. . If it was, while essentially all full professorship at major research universities have been found notable here, this would be one of the exceptions.

The article further shows signs of promotionalism. An apology for his political view preventing his continued employment , excessive space on family and personal life. If accepted it's going to need some trimming, an indication of the nature of the publisher, and verification of every position. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 23 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 // 03:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:DGG. I just want to point out that although fellowships at Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, are post-doctoral, they are offered to senior academics, people who are tenured at major universities and, the offers are a big deal, and you only get offered one if you are already at the level of eminence in your field that you could have a page here. It's like Institute for Advanced Study, except for social sciences and the weather is better.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:DGG, I was unable to turn up any info on the publisher with the same last name. It was nom who suggested it was a relative. Do you have a reason to believe the two are related? There are other oddities, such as that the books are published in Germany, which makes little sense if the author was aiming at a US market. But I can't verify the relationship between the author and the publisher, so I'm just thinking of that as "very small and probably not important publishing house." Note that the article was much more promotional before I took an ax-sized swing at it. It is definitely promotional - but that can be fixed with some more editing. LaMona (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I cannot find any publisher by that name either, except for books by James PaulWesley; the address give in google Books for them is Weiherdammstrasse 24, 7712 Blumberg, West Germany, Blumberg and therefore conclude it must be a relative or pseudonym or otherwise related. Since continental Europe has maintained until very recently the tradition that doctoral dissertation must be actually printed, there are a number of small printers there capable of dealing with technical manuscripts; this is not the case in the US, where in the days that physical typesetting was needed, only a very few of the largest firms could deal with mathematical texts. The only logical conclusion is that they are privately printed for the author. They certainly are not published by any well-known publisher, and that will have to be inducated in the article if it is kept. Probably the best phrase to avoid OR will be "a publisher who has printed nothing except these books byJP Wesley". DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ran "John Paul Wesley" in a Proquest archice search. Fount this [7] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Risks of nuclear radiation underestimated?: American physicist's theory Our Scientific Correspondent The Guardian (1959-2003); Mar 2, 1960; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Guardian and The Observer pg. 4 He is identified as "a physicist on the staff of the University of California's radiation laboratory" The study argued that natural background radiation could produce fatal congenital malformations; I make no judgment on the science. It is hard to figure out the notability of minor figures form the pre-internet age.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

one paper noticed by the Guardian--among the 100s ofpapers publiched in that debate-- does not make for notability DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Publication of papers and texts is a routine aspect of academic research. Even after reading the arguments given above, I'm still not seeing how the subject had any impact on his field beyond that of the average researcher. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Most of the sources presented by the "keep" !voters are either not significant coverage or not independent of the subject, and there is no evidence that the award he won is particularly notable. However, most of the "delete" arguments are of the form WP:JNN without addressing the validity of sources which do seem OK, like [8]. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayrton Cable

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

Firstly, he's 12 years old so WP:BLP especially applies.

Secondly, he's a nobody who's had his article written by WP:SPA, in entirely un-WP:NPOV hagiographic terms, and I suspect WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY by user:888AlexanderAranda888. The article has been WP:REFBOMBED with irrelevant nonsense, and fantastic and somewhat improbable claimed achievements.

While Master Cable might be an honourable schoolboy, he's still a schoolboy who needs protection from WP:BLP, and he's still a schoolboy that nobody cares about. See similar case of Jacob Barnett, where a previous AFD resulted in a clear consensus to delete in line with policy, not once but twice. Claudebone (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously not notable and the kid should be sent to detention for creating this. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does need work. Notable for his age and notable for his activities and accomplishments. Ayrton Cable at age 9 presented a film to members of the British Parliament.[9] and was awarded a notable prize.[10]. If Quvenzhané Wallis, a 12 YO child actress (article created in 2013 when she was 10) who is probably more protected than Cable can have a Wikipedia page, why can't Cable? Jim1138 (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Award is utterly nonnotable. A candy for a kid. "Presented to members of Britiash MP" - no big feat for business secretary Vince Cable to arrange it for his grandson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs) 05:28, 20 January 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and one thing Cable definitely hasn't been nominated for is an Oscar. Claudebone (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable yet. I also find creating articles on precocious children a bit embarrassing, since if they fail (by whatever criteria their haters prefer) to live up to expectations of their life having a Wikipedia article at 13 I find it all too easy to imagine it being used as a way to mock them. Blythwood (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could do with refinement, though user:Claudebone has clearly not followed the links and evidence, all of which are totally credible, to support the facts that have been written about Ayrton Cable. Yes he did present a film to members of the British Parliament aged 9[11], yes he did receive a notable awards such as the WAF AWARD [12] and yes there are new things he has done which have not yet been listed on the page such as being the "face and voice of new vitabiotics wellkid campaign to inspire social action in young people"[13]. He is now 13, has not stopped campaigning and shows no sign of stopping. Given his age and achivements I felt the need to include as many references as possible and certainly did not intend to WP:REFBOMB the article. It would be more productive to make appropriate edits instead of deleting the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 888AlexanderAranda888 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonnortable vanity run for a big politican's grandson. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't be neutral on this one so I will not !vote, but the article has a veneer of mis-direction that I am not comfortable with. The kid did NOT make a film -- an NGO had the film made with him as narrator. (And he's not a very good one, but that's my POV.) He didn't "launch" a bill even though that's the wording in the article -- the bill was written and introduced by a group of NGO's and he was there, with the movie, to basically do a show when it was introduced. I checked references and some do not mention him, others are just mentions. The article is a serious example of WP:UNDUE and needs to be reduced to a couple of paragraphs. In any case, we may want to keep the article because I'm sure that we'll be reporting on his spiral into drugs and risky behavior by age 18 and early demise, just like so many child stars (which is what he is). See, I said I couldn't be neutral! LaMona (talk) 21:13, 20 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 // 03:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Even a cursory search of Ayrton's name on google reveals thousands of results. More concretely, in accordance with the Wikipedia regulations on notability, 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.' WP:GNG The Huffington Post ^[1], The charity TearFund ^[2] and TEDYouth ^[3] constitute relevant sources in this regard. Further, Ayrton has appeared in the media increasingly since the age of 9 and continues to do so ^[4]. As per the above comment, Ayrton has been involved in recent events which have not yet made it onto the Wikipedia entry, indeed showing that his social activism is an ongoing commitment. It would surely be more pertinent to address constructive remarks for the improvement of the page (which is itself a new entry and open to refinement). In addition, in line with WP:BIO guidelines on people entries on Wikipedia, Ayrton is notable for not just one but various events and activities, awards and nominations and has certainly met a satisfactory level of notability for Wikipedia standards, his Food Labelling films now having 150,000 views on Youtube ^[5]. I suggest the page be kept and the necessary refinements made in order for Ayrton's ongoing activities to be documented in the clearest way possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smphillips912 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 January 2016‎</ qspan> — Smphillips912 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

^ "Young People Need to End World Hunger But We Have to Work Together". www.huffingtonpost.co.uk.
^ "TearFund". www.tearfund.org.uk. Tear Fund.
^ "Theme: Thoughts for our future". www.ted.com. TED.
^ "Labelling Matters". www.ciwf.org.uk. Compassion in World Farming.
^ "LABELLING MATTERS CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED TO MPS". www.ciwf.org.uk. Compassion in World Farming.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Smith#Religion. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 03:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith (bishop)

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

The title of this disambiguation page itself includes a parenthetical disambiguator other than "(disambiguation)". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Smith#Religion. No need for deletion or AfD. Pburka (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close this Afd as unnecessary and then merge John Smith#Religion per WP:INCOMPDAB. (We will want to keep this page as a redirect.) St Anselm (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Smith#Religion. It's a valid search time, no gains from deletion. Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as others have suggested. It will be a useful redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's School, Nevta

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

This article has no sources other than the school's own web site and so no evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The school's web site looks like a hoax. The Principal is the same for both schools, and the photo of the Nevta campus is just a photo of a building with the school name photoshopped onto it. The only clue that it's real is the link to it from the Jaipur location's site, but there's no actual mention of the Nevta campus anywhere. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are 2 campuses of a school the first one is located Xavier's Sr. Sec. School, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme,Jaipur - 302001, Rajasthan and the other in Nevta-Mahapura Road Jaipur Dist.Rajasthan - 302029 as per the official websites and about 22 kilometres from the other school.The Times of India briefly mentions the School here .Would pass WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the school is new and growing one class at a time. It should be tagged as a stub, not for deletion, until the not-ubiquitous Indian media have a chance to add references.Jzsj (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and my own standards for schools. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 21 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 // 03:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Strictly speaking with what's available it should probably be Merged and Redirected to St. Xavier's School, Jaipur, with the expectation that it would be split out in a few years when weight of sources are available. It doesn't currently meet WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG on the sources presented. On the other hand, it's cleaner not to, WP:NOTBURO, the Times source above is reasonably strong, and (per WP:INDAFDKI) as a Nursery to Class XII school it is "almost certainly notable". No local (Rajasthani... Hindi...) language sources have been (apparently) searched for so far, and it's likely that there'd be some. Other English language sources are here and here. It is probably accredited by the CBSE under its parent school's number (1730003). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 06:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep as it seems (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Bingham

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

As much as I hope to play Caiaphas from Jesus Christ Superstar in the future (I do have a damn good bass voice), it's a shame that the guy who played this character in the film version, Bob Bingham, is only known for Jesus Christ Superstar. There is hardly any reliable sources about this guy, so the subject lacks notability. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 02:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search of Google News turns up a nice amount of coverage of Mr. Bingham during the past year talking about the famous movie [14]. The notability of his playing the role on stage and screen is enough to justify the continued presence of this article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to say, but this argument doesn't work here. The subject must be able to have in-depth coverage of its own, and not just in relation to only one movie or play he was in. This argument is also bullcrap because the source search here only finds articles that use him as a passing mention as part of some cast reunion DVD. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 13:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is clearly notable because of the continuing international success of the film. This is reflected in the hundreds of 'hits' his article gets each month. Jack1956 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone who is making or wanting to make a Keep argument, please read WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:GOOGLESEARCH and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Arguments that the actor is notable "because of the continuing international success of the film" and that "A search of Google News turns up a nice amount of coverage of Mr. Bingham during the past year talking about the famous movie" will not work here. All sources are in relation to the film and only mention the actor as related to that film, which is not enough for the subject to satisfy nobility. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 20:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As a counterpoint, WP:NACTOR says that actors can be notable for having roles in multiple significant works. However, that doesn't apply here since Bingham has only been in one significant work (in two formats). clpo13_(talk) 20:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long established article. I have been working on the article which in my opinion demonstrates notability - it is well sourced and clearly referenced. Jack1956 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous reliable sources (see the Google Books, for example); these show the extensive coverage relating to the JCS role, but also a fair amount relating to his appearance in Hair. NACTOR isn't applicable here—it's a straw man, as is NOTINHERITED, given Bingham's other roles. – SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bingham played an important role, Caiaphas, in the original national tour of Jesus Christ Superstar, in the long-running Broadway production of that show, and in the enduring film version. He has thousands of Google hits, even though he retired before the internet was created. Obviously notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This, I would think, is the kind of article we would want on Wikipedia. JCS is an important show and Broadway is one of the most famous theatrical areas in the world. As per SchroCat, Google throws up thousands of hits for Bingham so why would we not want people to visit this site for ready information on this actor whose entry appears in the first few results? Cassianto ^Talk 23:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to an admin before closing this nomination. While whoever's trying to expand this article has added a couple of reliable sources that briefly discuss him, he's added a ton of unreliable ones with it (The Internet Broadway Database is about as reliable as The Internet Movie Database and that cast looks like it's from what might or might not a fan site). Again, the sources are in relation to his appearance in Jesus Chris Superstar, and minor performances in a couple of other shows will not change the subject's notability much enough. The information about where Bingham is now is uncited, and all the users in this debate keep making useless WP:INHERITED, WP:SOURCESEARCH and WP:GOOGLESEARCH arguments ("He has thousands of Google hits, even though he retired before the internet was created. Obviously notable.", "JCS is an important show and Broadway is one of the most famous theatrical areas in the world. As per SchroCat, Google throws up thousands of hits for Bingham so why would we not want people to visit this site for ready information on this actor whose entry appears in the first few results?"). edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 03:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not try and smear the arguments of other editors. You may not agree with the arguments provided by those above, but please don't try and dismiss them as "useless", especially when they are NOT in breach of WP:INHERITED, WP:SOURCESEARCH and WP:GOOGLESEARCH. (The last one, particularly, as most have made sure their references are to Google BOOKS, not a general Google search). I'll also correct you on The Internet Broadway Database, which is used regularly as a source at FA and FL and have been classed as reliable: it's not a fan site, it was created and is run by "The Broadway League in association with Theatre Development Fund and New York State". It's an official database, not a crowd-sourced one. – SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Petryschuk

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

I believe this article is a hoax. A WP:BEFORE search does not substantiate any of the material and the sources appear to be fake. For example the article claims he currently plays for the Windsor Stars but according to their website roster this individual does not. This aligns with a report from an VRTS ticket # 2016012210001416 that brought this to my attention. Mkdw ^talk 01:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mkdw ^talk 01:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mkdw ^talk 01:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mkdw ^talk 01:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per concerns outlined by the nominator. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned, certainly questionable. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Note that one of the "references" is from when he was putatively ~13 (1999) and another ~16 (2002). Windsor Stars are an Association Football (soccer) team and not an NFL one -- a player switching professionally at age 29 is unlikely. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 00:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per valid concerns raised in nomination.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Aha... (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA All-Star Total Votes

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

Topic fails WP:LISTN. Total accumulated votes over a player's career from annual NBA All-Star Game balloting is not discussed by multiple independent, reliable sources. Pure statistical listing discouraged per WP:NOTSTATS. —Bagumba (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can't improve on the nominator's words or rationale. Aspirex (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, the list topic isn't discussed in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rikster2 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. Non-notable trivia that is lacking in significant coverage per WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wrong venue. Redirects are discussed at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 01:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roughskinned

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

Not an actual word in reliable sources. Not found at target. Rough skinned and similar will be retargeted at Rough skinned newt which seems to be the primary meaning for this phrase. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] "Young People Need to End World Hunger But We Have to Work Together". www.huffingtonpost.co.uk.

[2] "TearFund". www.tearfund.org.uk. Tear Fund.

[3] "Theme: Thoughts for our future". www.ted.com. TED.

[4] "Labelling Matters". www.ciwf.org.uk. Compassion in World Farming.

[5] "LABELLING MATTERS CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED TO MPS". www.ciwf.org.uk. Compassion in World Farming.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]