Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 January	29 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 Speedy delete. as G7 by RHaworth (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 23:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Komitee Twee of the Netherlands[edit]

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

Unreferenced. May not exist Rathfelder (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. Author of the article.Ans-mo (talk) 12:48, 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 speedy delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Support Group[edit]

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

lacking in content or references Rathfelder (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even looks like WP:A1 speedy. The name, combined with that one short sentence, is just too general to properly identify the subject, so it is impossible to find the correct sources. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.Rathfelder (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 23:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 23:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have tagged it as A7. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Bhopal[edit]

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

This is an unsourced list of buildings, all of which fail our general guidelines for notability. The list was first deleted ~3 months ago, on 5 November 2015, following an uncontested proposed deletion. As this has since been reposted, I am bringing this here for community discussion on how we may best proceed. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ueutyi (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and mention at Bhopal, India's Wikipedia article as this is currently questionably solid. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dew computing[edit]

Dew computing (before reverting) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ywangupeica (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable, with questionable minor journal as sources. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloud-dew architecture. Mys_721tx (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We had quite discussions about reverting, conflict of interest, spam. Our discussions involved other editors. Among all these situations, you did not mention about 'not notable'. Just few hours after I posted my opinion on the talk page, it became 'not notable'.

Why?

Your power as an editor was given because of other people's trust. Please do not use your editing power to attack people unfairly.

If an research area like this is not notable, what is notable?

If you think some sources are minor, you can point it out, and we can change. But you never point out concrete problems. What you did was to wipe a person's work completely, instead of pointing out authors problems and help authors to grow.

What is in your heart?Ywangupeica (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editor Eteethan did not find this article 'not notable'. Editor SwisterTwister did not find this article 'not notable'. Editor BG19bot did not find this article 'not notable'. Editor Jasonzhuocn did not find this article 'not notable'. Editor Cerevisae did not find this article 'not notable'. You are smarter than all of them so that you found this article 'not notable'. But why did not you find the problem earlier? Why did you find it is 'not notable' right after I posted my opinion on your reverting decision? Ywangupeica (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Max. citation count for any of the sources is two. This concept, whatever it is (the article isn't particularly clear on the definition of dew computing) has not gained significant traction in the scientific community or elsewhere. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This version has a clear definition of dew computing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dew_computing&oldid=701776129. This version also provides more citation and other information. Ywangupeica (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the talk page about reverting Talk:Dew computing. The editor reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dew_computing&oldid=701776129 to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dew_computing&oldid=698944492 (the one shown now). Because I posted my opinion about this reverting, it triggered the editor to nominate deletion. The logic was: I reverted it. If you do not obey me, I will delete it completely. Let us see who is the boss. Ywangupeica (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I heard about this dew computing controversy and came here to have a look. Then I felt I should say something. I think the version written by ywangupeica was well-written except its application in Internet of Things is not quite clear. The reverted version has unclear language, not structured at all. To me, the reverting was ridiculous. The story about reverting escalating to deletion is horrible. I cannot totally believe what this writer said ywangupeica, but at least, I guess you Wikipedia has a ethic committee or something. It should be investigated. Apparently dew computing is very important. deletion? strange idea. I just went to google.com and typed in dew computing, the first few pages were full of information about it. I do not know why someone wants to delete it. It is like a person wants to cut his own hand off and also make the audience feel sad. Adgjpiy (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC) — Adgjpiy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reminder: All editors/readers of this discussion: Please do not only read the current version of the article. A previous version is significantly different from the current version. Because the editor reverted it, it is not visible. The discussion about the reverting (see Talk:Dew computing) triggered the deletion proposal. Please also read https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dew_computing&oldid=701776129 before you judge this article. Thanks. Ywangupeica (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A COI editor of the article asks "If an research area like this is not notable, what is notable?" That is easily answered: a theory is considered notable here if there is evidence that it has attracted substantial attention from other academics in the field. A simple rough-and-ready measure of that is provided by the number of cites shown by Scholar. In this case the maximum cites for any of the papers are 2. That indicates that the topic is not notable by our standards and it is WP:TOOSOON for Wikipedia to have an article about it. It also turns out that the page is a copyvio; I'd normally have nominated it for speedy deletion as G12, but have instead blanked it and listed at WP:CP so that this discussion can run its course. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe also salt. Non-notable neologism which may or may not have anything behind it but, even if it has, it not showing up in Google News, Newspapers or Scholar as a notable subject. The COI stuff is annoying but not fatal in itself. The lack of notability is. I make up new cloud computing terminology to amuse/confuse/annoy my colleagues all the time. Sadly, that isn't notable either. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation to the copy right issue I agree with editor Justlettersandnumbers's decision regarding copyright issue of this article. This is one of the reasons that I revised the article. Although the current version (which was an old version that editor 'Mys 721tx' reverted to) has copyright issue, the version I revised does not have this copyright issue. Ywangupeica (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, no, Ywangupeica, that version is a copyvio too, as this useful tool clearly shows. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you very much for telling me the tool. The few sentences are minor. Will be dealt with easily. Ywangupeica (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOR. No evidence that this term has any real traction outside of a paper or two. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:05, 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 redirect to Cliff_Schecter#The_Real_McCain. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Real McCain[edit]

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

Tagged with notability concerns since 2009. Still seems non-notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 23:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So far it's slow going. I did find this article, but it's predominantly about McCain himself. Schecter was interviewed about it and the book is mentioned a few times, but I'm not entirely sure if this is enough to establish the source as an in-depth RS about the book specifically. I do need to note that the HuffPo article likely wouldn't be considered independent since Schecter has a HuffPo blog. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still slow going. I found this book review, but it's through the MidWest Book Review, which has been considered dubious at best ever since they started openly requesting fees for review. Initially it was just e-book, but now it's "ebooks, pre-publication manuscripts, galleys, uncorrected proofs, ARCs, and pdf files". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found mention here, but it's trivial at best since it's just a brief blurb refuting one of the claims in the book. This one is better since it's about the book and two others that released at the same time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cliff_Schecter#The_Real_McCain. The coverage for this is fairly light, all things considered. There's enough here to where this could technically merit its own article, but the coverage mostly centers around claims made by Schecter in the book in question. (At one point one of the claims was mentioned in this academic book.) There's one review but not really anything else. By large the book was passed over by most media. This is already fairly well covered in the main article for Schecter and at present I don't really see where the coverage is really there to justify this having its own article at this point in time. The subsection in Schecter's article could use some work, but by large the whole gist of the coverage is that the book was met with a fairly negative reception and the claims were subject to a lot of criticism, as many questioned their legitimacy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is obvious, questionably solid as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Healthfirst[edit]

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

Non notable not-for-profit health benefits company Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- well short of any reasonable/relevant notability standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet WP:GNG BT Harrison (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's not enough convincing coverage. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Kirshner[edit]

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

Non notable entrepreneur not clear how he passes the WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elite SEM will be relevant to this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apart from one source from his own website, the sources used to establish notability are about his company, Elite SEM, which was already deleted for being non-notable. Besides that, the sources are highly suspect - at least one is a blog, at least two are written by a company which is Elite SEM's client (or vice-versa), and others read like glowing reviews and press releases. We might normally put these sources together as weakly establishing notability, except that Kirshner's company is making a business out of exploiting Wikipedia and Wikidata to try to elevate its clients' search engine rankings ([1], [2]). The creator of the article is a disclosed employee of that company who has been writing Wikipedia articles about its clients based on similarly weak sourcing for some time now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' was originally created by an employee of the subject, was speedy deleted, and then was re-created by the same employee. The subject is just as not-WP:NOTABLE this time as it was the last time. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there are plenty of references, they are mainly brief mentions and nothing significant that would satisfy WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Came across this on ANI. Delete with extreme prejudice. Blackmane (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable with dubious sourcing. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not comply with WP:GNG BT Harrison (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as this is not yet better convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft space. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Burgoyne[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist, which makes no substantive claim of notability under WP:ARTIST for much more than existing, and cites no reliable source coverage to support it. As always, an artist does not get an automatic entitlement to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists — she must be the subject of media coverage to become an appropriate article topic. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This article was created at a art + feminism meetup. Finding sources that support this artist's notability may require more effort than locating sources online. Mduvekot (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy instead as this is conceivably an acceptable article but simply still not enough convincing coverage. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate content then delete remaining mainspace redirects. Could work, but just not yet. Still needs to be improved. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Likes are not a measure of notability... Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shahveer Jafry[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a YouTube comedian, making no strong claim of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER and citing no strongly reliable source coverage — the "referencing" here is to a user-generated public relations database to which anybody can submit a profile of themselves, and two Q&A-style interviews in which the subject is talking about himself. The interviews would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after the article had already been sourced over WP:GNG, but cannot bring the GNG in and of themselves — and Wivki is an entirely unacceptable source for anything at all. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON for an article about somebody who might qualify in the future — but nothing written or sourced here gets him an article today. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. 2001:569:70DD:7500:5150:7AA0:4299:3F85 (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to List of YouTubers or a similar list per the two reliable interviews of this guy. I'll agree it's a bit too early to have an article on this guy given the too few reliable sources for a standalone article and Wivki is an unreliable source, but deleting any info about this subject entirely would be bullshit because the two interviews are still from independent publications and wouldn't have been written if he had not gotten popular the way he did. It's not like you can just be a random user who can just ask for these independent, reliable newspapers and magazines to have an Q&A interview with you. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī
Keep I disagree with the nomination. It will be wrong to say this person non-notable. He has over a million likes on his Facebook page and over 10 million views on many of his videos and the person has been interviewed by a major English newspaper Pakistan Today as well. The article is short with few references but the person is notable.--Musa^Talk ☻ 23:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No number of likes or views or listens or retweets on any social media platform gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, if WP:GNG is not met on the basis of the sourcing present in the article — and interviews do not count toward the meeting of GNG. And neither does the Milton Villager, a local community weekly newspaper with no distribution outside its own small city. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. The article passes WP:ENTERTAINER. A person is interviewed by a major newspaper and gets featured on the cover of a magazine and you call him non-notable. That's totally not fair. This article should be kept because of his popularity as WP:GNG says that the person should get significant coverage and he have over million followers.--Musa^Talk ☻ 05:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm correct. Interviews, in which the subject is talking about himself, do not count toward establishing notability under WP:GNG — people can and do make inflated and self-aggrandizing claims about themselves, so if a person could get a Wikipedia article by talking about himself we'd have to keep a Wikipedia article about every single person who has a social media profile (i.e. almost every single person who exists on the entire planet.) To establish notability, other people who are independent of his own PR machine, and don't have a vested interest in his career, have to be writing or talking about him in the third person. And a million, billion, trillion or squintillion likes on a social media platform does not give a person an exemption from having to be properly sourced — for one thing, there really is an entire industry out there devoted to inflating social media followings through the use of fake profiles and automated multiple reclicks and robot-retweets. The number of clicks a piece of social media content gets can be manipulated — and even if we do take it at face value, we still have no way to properly verify whether a million different people viewed a video once each or whether just one person viewed that video a million times, or any combination of viewers and repeat views anywhere in between. So it cannot be a notability freebie that exempts a person from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage by which we can properly verify the article's content. Bearcat (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't fails WP:GNG. I still disagree with the nomination. A million likes shows notability but if you don't like it. You can see interview of the person in Pakistan Today and a magazine and in these interviews the interviewers have also stated about this person. You can see the title of Milton Villager source. WP:GNG says speedy delete the article if it fails the guidelines but this person doesn't completely fails the notability guidelines. You should just add the tag {{notability}} instead of deleting as written in WP:GNG. And I don't know why you think he's non-notable while having a million followers. WP:ENT says that the person should have a large fan base and he has got a large fan base but you're not ready to accept it. And if you think sources are insufficient you should add the tag {{notability|biographies}} instead of deleting. A person has been interviewed three different times which shows he has coverage through reliable sources and also has large fan base. This article should be KEPT as it passes these guidelines. I'm sorry but I disagree with you.--Musa^Talk ☻ 09:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with what I personally like or don't like — I dislike lots of people (Stephen Harper, Donald Trump, etc.) who absolutely qualify for Wikipedia articles, and I like lots of people who don't. What this is about is Wikipedia's rules about how any person gets a Wikipedia article. Regardless of whether I like them or don't like them or never even heard of them before, a person gets a Wikipedia article if they are the subject of media coverage in reliable, independent sources talking about them, and not if they don't — a Wikipedia notability criterion is not passed on the basis of the claim being made, but on the quality of the sourcing that you can provide to support that claim.

Interviews, in which the subject is talking about himself, do not count toward getting a person over WP:GNG; they can be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been met without depending on the interview, but they cannot in and of themselves be the GNG. And community weekly newspapers in small towns, such as the Milton Villager, cannnot count toward GNG either: again, they're acceptable for supplementary confirmation of facts in an article that has already passed GNG on better sources, but they cannot fulfill GNG by themselves if they're the best sources you have to offer. These are not rules I made up myself: they're the standard rules that all people have to follow in all articles when it comes to establishing and sourcing notability under GNG. To count toward GNG, a source has to be substantive, and written about the subject in the third person by somebody other than himself, and appearing in widely distributed media. When it comes to Canadian newspapers, that means the major market dailies of the Toronto Star, Ottawa Citizen, The Globe and Mail, etc., class — it does not mean the Milton Villager.

And the number of likes a person has or doesn't have on a social media platform does not confer an exemption from having to source the article properly, either — sources that satisfy GNG have to be present in the article or it can't be kept regardless of what achievements it claims. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm finding no coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the BLP. YouTube likes and Facebook followers do not meet out notability requirements. J04n(talk page) 15:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with nothing else better convincing yet for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources in the article are enough to show notability. We are not here to nominate it for Good Article.--Musa^Talk ☻ 11:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources in the article are not enough to show notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fails WP:ENT.--Musa^Talk ☻ 19:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT is not passed on the basis of claims that it's passed, if those claims are unsourced or poorly-sourced — the quality of the sourcing that's present to support an ENT claim is what determines whether a person passes or fails ENT, not the mere assertion of an ENT pass. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Facebook likes don't make you notable, nor does a little coverage in the local weekly paper. I'm not seeing significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Maybe someday, but not yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liebermann Inc.[edit]

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

A trivial, long defunct company that either didn't trade at all, or didn't trade very much. Most of the article is unsourced and speculative, and what sourcing there is doesn't say much more than "there was a company; it said it wasn't a trick". None of this establishes any kind of notability - the coverage is shallow and passing, and comes from a single source (WP:CORP notes "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization"). Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 10:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 10:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 10:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this and its coverage seems better convincing of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first paragraph which has been there since the start seems to prove its unnotable. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S. M. Azhar Alam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG ,WP:PROF and WP:DIRECTOR. Autobiography written by the subject himself lacks third party sources.He is a Lecturer in a college now there are thousands of lecturers in India and there is nothing notable clearly fails WP:PROF on all counts. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. (Also not WP:PROF but that seems less appropriate a criterion for someone in performing arts, despite his academic position.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of the adequate notability for a living person. I was more successful finding scholarly work of his other namesakes including Muhammad Azhar Alam of University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Arashtitan 15:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparently not better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Cardenas[edit]

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

fails WP:NMG Semitransgenic _talk. 15:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Cardenas is notable according to point 7, in that she has "become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style", in this case Algorave and Live Coding as evidenced in the references which includes two international print publications and a television broadcast, introduction of live coding to two different continents, and appearance at major international festivals. Yaxu (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article as-is demonstrates that the subject meets the criteria of being "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style". Therefore if Algorave is notable, then so is Cardenas; she has represented algorave in international mass media including Arte TV and Wired (magazine), and been key to introducing it to Mexico and India. Yaxu (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A further comment in favour of keep, it seems clear that this meets point 7 but also on point 12, the subject "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." For example the Tracks broadcast on Arte, here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_NQKPH91kM, with additional material online here: http://www.arte.tv/de/hacking-clubbing-algorave/7769884,CmC=7768150.html Yaxu (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as of Yaxu's rationale. --Fixuture (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is internatioally recognized. I've updated the reference forms and added references. She's been performing and reported on all over the world. To be sure, this is too short an article, but it can be improved. WP:Before applies. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur D. Collins, Jr.[edit]

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

Subject is a retired executive at Medtronic. This article appears to be promotional in nature, based upon a collection of press releases of sorts. While searching for sources I was able to locate an article related to a recent stock sale, but nothing in the way of non-trivial biographical coverage. Please do not hesitate to contact me should such coverage be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article began as a spamicle, with copious copyright violations [3], and has never risen much above the initial press release. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Not seeing the significant coverage required. ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPThe subject is currently working to update all the references and revise the copy so that it complies with all guidelines. The subject asks that you please not delete the page. Updates are in progress right now. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womach1 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 January 2016‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as the subject company is another billion-dollar company so this may be keepable and I know DGG has mentioned this. If the article cannot be better convincing, I would suggest at best redirecting to the company article. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was head of Medtronix, which,when he left in 2008, has $14 billion in revenues with of over $2.4 billion. We have always regarded the ceo of such companies as notable. He also holds a honorary LLD (from Miami), which counts somewhat) Better references will; be needed, but his profile at Acorn [4] gives some usable ones that are more than mere notices. I'm sure there will be more, from his various roles. Unlike most articles on execs, this was very conservative in adding refs about his role in the company. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Director Edward Jeffries[edit]

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

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

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

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

There's a claim of notability, but imo it doesn't wash. TheLongTone (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim of notability amounts to having directed a number of independent, non-notable films. No independent sources to denote notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. If you check the reference links you'll see verifiable sources confirming these films which are also very real and avalible Ondemand via your TV if you got one. Also the casting credits for these movies are of notable people such as the mayor of port Adelaide and many others. Also two films are of popular places and officially filmed. If it wasn't officaly filmed then how else would the movies exist.

It seems excuse after excuse for not having this person listed over later by a dead mayor whome got very little references and incorrectly named as I'm sick of looking up this director and finding bad articles names about the wrong people.

Please reconsider. A thankyou message will be made if so. Any help improving the article be handy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.186.239 (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC) — 49.183.186.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Jeffries directed a The Royal Adelaide Show, apparently a commercial video documenting one year's Royal Adelaide Show. This hardly makes him a notable director. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiDan61 - no evidence of him coming close to meeting WP:CREATIVE yet. In a few years maybe. Best of luck to him. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENTS: Note the legal threat in the article's history: [5]. Also note a large amount of copyvio: [6]. Crow^Caw 23:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENTS: iv seen Jeffries work on channel 44 along with others TV channels. There's at least another 3-4 movies not listed here. From memory a medieval fair2006-7, Christmas2014 & hobby trains 2009 and a short film about recycling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.206.118 (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC) — 49.183.206.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Noted doing multiple Theatre ^[1] ^[2] 49.183.194.154 (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)— 49.183.194.154 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ http://www.starnow.com.au/edwardJeffries
^ Http://film-makers.com/cgi-bin/links/search.cgi?query=edward+jeffries

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS cant believe aint notable considering Readind the company's mo tat he founded. quotes they give everyone a chance of filming movies without any price tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.1.172 (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC) — 49.199.1.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG. I couldn't find any secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish notability what-so-ever. The sources listed on the article (with the exception of imdb) are from websites that are owned by the article subject, or social media / web profiles. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the above message is incorrect not all sites are owned by persons/company. Get your facts right!49.183.175.43 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Those so called deleaters should be ashamed. None of you have done anything even as close to what this director has and your just a big joke thinking your so big when your nothing but children. I say keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.2.205 (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC) — 49.199.2.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keeper ~~kitty~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.172.178 (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC) — 19.199.172.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Verifiable notability: Flixster Celebrity Red~Adman (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)— Red~Adman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Objection to Deletion: notable independent references:

[http://www.flixster.com/celebrity/edward-jeffries Flixster Celebrity Celebrity mention - first movie 22,000 seen & rated with 86% liked his film if more than 22,000 people seen and rated this film then liked it that's got to be noteworthy. movie he directed notably mentioned on IGN Entertainment NOTE: These referances sites do not belong to him or his company. Give this page a chance to grow ais more movies are in the works. It should also be noted his company allow people to work with him and do much more than just make movies, film or music but also provide Internet, phone credits and other items. imo this will continue to grow. You've asked for independent sources and they have been provided. Please keep article. Red~Adman (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The various SPAs that have arrived to fight for this article are misled; your arguments amount largely to "I like it, so we should keep it." The fact that you might have seen Jeffries' work is irrelevant. What we need are instances of significant coverage of Jeffries in independent media. Listings of his works in film directories is not considered significant coverage. Reviews of his movies at Rotten Tomatoes also does not provide the necessary source material. Find us some independently published coverage of Jeffries or his work, and we might be able to get somewhere. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this is convincing for the applicable notability, WP:TNT at best and restart later, SwisterTwister talk 01:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. the swarming of single purpose editors is a tell tale sign of conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the article appears to be a slightly updated version copied from a draft created in 2013 at User:EdwardJeffries. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we regard that as a legitimate draft or delete it under WP:NOTRESUME? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it here, as I suspect that user page to be likely created by the same user(s) as this article - given the comparable activity from 2013[7][8].

As far as what to do with it - I think an argument could be given for WP:NOTRESUME; or at the very least, I think a WP:MFD discussion would be appropriate, given the disruption related to the material and the long-term socking involved with no apparent improvement in the draft over the years. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The registered SPAs have been identified as sock puppets. Their !votes should be discounted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've redacted the votes of all blocked users and confirmed sockpuppets. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:, as per above. Not sufficiently notable. Aeonx (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to being notable. The only "movie" the article links to is actually a kids TV show where he was an assistant. The rest is even thinner than that. Google has almost nothing, even when you tweak the search links to compensate for the misnaming of the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete removing this page from Wikipedia will apparently hurt somebody's feelings, but that is not a valid reason for keeping someone who doesn't have the required notability. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've just deleted most of the article's prose as a copyright violation from here. Hut 8.5 22:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well played, Hut 8.5. Well played... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot. List has been moved to project space. Kudos to the editors who demonstrated nonbinary thinking and solutions. postdlf (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh people on Wikidata[edit]

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

The characteristic of being a Welsh person listed in Wikidata is not a notable topic. (See WP:LISTN.) This is in addition to my general doubt about using Wikipedia as a Wikidata mirror, instead of letting Wikidata be Wikidata and letting people go there if they want information from there. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of your 'reasons' are in any way criteria for deletion! If I had created an article on one of the contentious people on Wikipedia, then yes, that new article on that contentious person could be listed for deletion. But having a list which (may) contain one or two contentious listings is not a criteria. Are you now suggesting that the community takes down every article on WP which contains the name of a non-notable person? Please take your arguments to Wikidata, not here! Your other 'general doubt' is not a WP criteria. Please remove this tag, as it does not contain any valid criteria, in any way. Lastly, do have good faith in new and valuable technologies, which you may not understand. In five years time nearly all info on WP will be coming from Wikidata, and that's a good thing. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, surely you can understand that the issue here is not about the idea of a list of Welsh people, but that there needs to be a list of Welsh people on wikidata. There may or may not be good reasons to have a list of Welsh people, there may or may not be a reason to have that list on wikidata, but what possible reason would we want a list on wikipedia of Welsh people featured on wikidata? I cannot get my head around any possible rationale for keeping this page. JMWt (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about non-notable people on the list. Per WP:LISTN, lists themselves have to be notable. My "other doubt" is a doubt that I brought here precisely to have a discussion about it, though obviously I have my own opinion about it. Finally, drop your condescending tone. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on the notability matter, per WP:LISTN, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I am skeptical that there is a reliable source on the planet that has substantial coverage devoted to the set of Welsh people who happen at a given moment to be included on Wikidata. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I understand wikidata, one could create wikipedia pages with all kinds of sorted data - but just because we can doesn't meant that we should. Presumably we could create a list of people called Tom, people aged 52 or people with exactly 11 letters in their name. What is intrinsically notable about this nationality data that it is worth making into a wikipedia list? JMWt (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: this sort of "meta" articles does not belong on an encyclopedia. Besides, Wikidata is precisely the kind of thing made to let us create intersections of data without needing to make ad-hoc lists like this. LjL (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no notability of having info on Wikidata, and therefore making a list about enteries from WD in itself is not notable. We already have List of Welsh people, which by definition will be linked to Wikidata. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a meta list which was intended for creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/List of Welsh people on wikidata. The list has some use, but for editors rather than the general public, I'm sure User:Charles Matthews would agree with that too. List of Welsh people would benefit the general public, most people of course wouldn't want to know what a publicly generated site like wikidata lists. I do hope there's a way to act that no time will have been wasted here though. I think the table format is much more useful than a general list and could be used in the List of Welsh people article. Let's please move this rather than delete it and waste time deleting something useful for Welsh editors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking, Dr B. Support moving it to that namespace. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to the Wikipedia: namespace as suggested, without further ado. We can then, if necessary, discuss the utility of the list to the project. (What Dr. Blofeld said, in other words.) Charles Matthews (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Good thinking Dr. Blofeld! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:32, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 in Scottish football[edit]

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

Page does not meet WP:N, WP:V or WP:RS. It is far too early to know any information about the 2016–17 season, other than basic details. Exxy (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Exxy (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Exxy (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt until May 2016 to prevent this topic being recreated prematurely again. Seasider91 (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 18:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably a fair idea to also salt until May 2016 Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing of note known for certain about next season yet. Fenix down (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Len Wicks#Origins_project. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origins: Discovery[edit]

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

Non-notable book. TheLongTone (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at best redirect to the author Len Wicks as there is quite some coverage but still applicably questionably notable. Notifying the only currently active AfDer Tokyogirl79. SwisterTwister talk 03:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here is my rundown of the sourcing:

Sources

Armenpress. This reads an awful lot like a press release, enough to where I'm concerned that it's just a PR reprint. Armenpress does offer PR services, so this is very likely the case. I'd consider this to be an unusable source for establishing notability.
SBS. This should be usable. SBS is public broadcasting and they do acquire content from other places, but I think that this should likely be usable.
Mediamax. This is very brief, to the point where it's almost trivial coverage. What concerns me about this site is that it puts a huge emphasis on its marketing arm and their various media monitoring services. I'd say that this source is likely unusable for establishing notability, given that they do offer PR services.
RSA Review. This is listed as "Issuu.com", but it's actually the quarterly publication of the Returned and Services League of Australia. I'd say that as long as he's not part of the RSA, it should be usable. The association would need to be verified, though.
Lyunse. This is part of Public Radio of Armenia. Granted I'm looking at a Google Translate version of the page, but their about page claims that they've won quite a bit of recognition. This interview is likely usable.
Azatutyun. From what I can see with a GT run, this looks to be sort of similar to a public radio setup as well and they post written articles on their website. I'd need someone fluent in Armenian to really go through the page to verify things, but I'd tentatively say that this is probably usable.
Kamartert. From what I can see, the site has an editorial board but does accept user content. I'd say that this is likely unusable. The article itself appears to be a review, but it written a bit like a press release at times, which doesn't help matters much.
YSU. This looks to be a press release, so unusable.
Arka. This doesn't mention the book. To be honest, it doesn't really back up the assertion that it "explores the possibility of peace". While the article is about the Armenian Genocide, an article about something related doesn't guarantee or certify the content of the book. As such, using this source would be considered original research at best and shouldn't be in the article.
Mediamax. Same issue here, it'd be considered original research and the book isn't mentioned. The issues with Mediamax as a whole are an aside, since the more major issue here is OR.

So here's my summary so far: The article has sources, but only four are ones that could be usable. (SBS, RSA Review, Lyunse, Azatutyun) Several of those are from public broadcast outlets and are interviews, two things that tend to cause sources to get depreciated on here. However if we take that aside, this could be technically enough to assert notability per NBOOK, but it'd be a weak assertion of notability. If this is kept, it'll need some cleaning to take out the sheer amount of puffery in the article. On a side note, Narine-GH, if you were paid to create this article or otherwise asked, you will need to disclose your WP:COI. I'm going to clean up the WP:PUFFERY and leave the four usable-ish sources listed above, then try to find additional coverage, if it exists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Len_Wicks#Origins_project. This is close to passing and could possibly be considered enough to technically pass NBOOK. However I noticed something when I was looking at Wicks's article - that article has its own issues with notability and puffery. To put it bluntly, we could have an article on either the author or the book, but likely not both. If we had to choose between the two, the best one would be the author's page since that could hold more information than the book page would. The way that the article is written, paired with its history, gives off the strong, strong impression that the article was written by people affiliated with Wicks. I'd like to openly state that editing with a COI is highly discouraged for just this situation: it's very likely to result in content that is written in such a positive manner that it's very promotional, as is the case here. If we were to leave the book's page then we'd have to worry about the notability for the author and given the sourcing in the main article, I'm very concerned that the author's page would end up redirecting to the book. I'll work on re-writing the article and merging the applicable content over. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clear redirect the author is only marginally notable, shifting the book's sources to the articles about the author helps strengthen the coverage of both. Sadads (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Since both delete !votes were made the article's beem moved and completely rewritten and it would appear to pass ORG and GNG, Thanks to all who have improved/sourced it. –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Village[edit]

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

notability & unsourced. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 16:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unsourced nonsense ("some sort of Asylum...the facts are unclear"). sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 18:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Seems to be a jumbled-up mismash, possibly conflating several real institutions. There is a playschool of this name, but it was founded in 1976. Isaac Hopper is real (we should probably take this link out of his article) but sources on his life (another, another) don't mention him founding a school, much less a surviving one. There is coverage in Google Books of some organisations in Philadelphia with this name dating back to the 20s and 1910s (including this in the 70s, which may be the modern one, but huge chunks of this article seem apocryphal.
I can't find sources to convert this into a decent article. Blythwood (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as originally written was a jumbled up mishmash; but Isaac Hopper was one of the 23 people who originally chartered the Children's Village Juvenile Asylum in New York (Not Philadelphia). I've begun a re-write based on a NYT article from the 1800s. I've located a LOT of other sources with a google books search. I don't know when I'll have time to work on it further; I'm leaving in a few minutes, but this definitely has potential. Don't speedy it; let the AFD run its course, and by the time I'm done it'll be in more than a fit state to keep. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely notable, the subject of many newspaper article-- see Draft:Children's village, which needs to be merged into this article. Since there are others of this name, all is needs is a distinguishing title. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based upon comments from DGG and the rewrite-in-progreess from ONUnicorn, subject appears to be the recipient of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's comments and improvements by ONUnicorn. Some WP:BEFORE couldn't been employed - With "Children's Village" being a rather multi-use term, doing a search with Isaac Hopper would've demonstrated this satisfying notability requirements. --Oakshade (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a real, notable institution, despite the quality of the article. BMK (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Would an admin please check on the provenance of this article? I swear I've contributed to it before its putative creation date of a few days ago. Was there a previous article by this name? Is the other article still around but under a different name? I'm a bit confused about this. BMK (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incidentally, I've moved the article to Children's Village (New York) in order to disambiguate it. BMK (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Blythwood. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blythwood's comment was made before the article was considerably rewritten and sourced. Are you sure you read the current version? BMK (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to Xexocom. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xexecom[edit]

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

Not notable. Apparently a tiny hamlet. Couldn't find any Spanish-language sources, just seems to be a placename on a trekking route. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:GEOLAND, any populated place is presumed notable. There are few good secondary sources, but I'm thinking there are enough to suggest that this is a real place. On that basis, I'm saying keep. JMWt (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit uneasy about this being a real place at all. The name doesn't seem to read right for a Maya place name. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to Xexocom The government of guatemala has coverage at [site:gob.gt xexocom]. I added a reference for the school to the article. I don't know why the trekkers often refer to this as Xexecom. Unscintillating (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. That spelling makes more sense, and returns plenty of results from Guatemalan government websites - I would support a move to the correct spelling. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:19, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

87.9 Pride FM[edit]

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

Article about an unlicensed radio station, broadcasting only by Part 15 rules and online, which is sourced only to its own self-published content about itself and is the subject of no reliable source coverage that I'm able to locate. Wikipedia's notability standards for radio stations only grant a presumption of notability to radio stations that have a full FCC license — a Part 15 or online startup can still get into Wikipedia if it's the subject of enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, but is not automatically entitled to an article just because it exists, if its existence can be verified only to itself. Also there's a direct conflict of interest, as the creator's username matches the name of one of the two guys named on the website as the station's operators. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: two additional sources have been added, but neither of them assists at all — one only supports the existence of an unrelated but similar radio service while not mentioning this one at all, and the other sources the general details of the FCC's Part 15 rules while again not containing any information about this Part 15 station. So the quality of referencing needed to make this station eligible for a Wikipedia article still is not there. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as support of an LGBTQ station in South Carolina is sorely needed, this is a limited station with no FCC backing, which we generally require for an article here. Nate • (chatter) 14:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Problem so a keep? TV episodes are notable but the radio station is not. This is maddening. It exist. It is not a fake article. Therefore, a keep. It is notable because it is a real station. I kNow abOut bankS (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Above user has been blocked indefinitely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Part 15 stations, which this one is, do not enjoy the same notability under WP:NMEDIA, as full power AM/FM/HD stations do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet better convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not bring up arguments relevant to inclusion per our policies and practices. Sandstein 08:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avni Sali[edit]

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

Non-notable doctor, failing GNG and BLP. Sources are poor and additional search turned up nothing. Delta13C (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is an owner of Swisse a notable vitamin company and he's also the plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit against the Australian Broadcasting Company.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That point does not convey notability. Further, Swisse also looks to be suffering from a severe lack of reliable sources, and it should probably be considered for AfD. Delta13C (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems he may not be convincingly solidly notable. Keep perhaps even though I'm not entirely certain but this seems convincing enough to keep. Notifying DGG for familiar analysis. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is claimed as his "major" research is trivial: the first paper listed has been cited only 4 times in Google Scholar [9]; the second,only two times [10]. Of all his work only 16 articles have beencited 16 times or more,which is trivial for someone in clinical medicine. The awards are minor. Only his book on biliary surgery is a medical textbook (held in 84 libraries) ; "Guide to evidence-based integrative and complementary medicine" is apparently a popular work, for it is held in almost no medical library. That one textbook isn't enough for academic notability, and there is nothing else substantial. His Graduate School ofI ntegrative Medicine lasted from 1992 to 2009, and was not located in a medical or comprehensive university but in a technical college. It was succeeded by his National Institute of Integrative Medicine, which is not a National body like the parts of the NIH in the US, but a private medical practice. As for other notability, the claim to public influence is based only on a web site for what is now a minor charity, but I can't find the page on it.

I note some apparent promotion/bias: The article reports on libel suit against those criticizing his research, but doesn't link to the published criticism. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I work with Avni Sali at NIIM. This article does not list many of his most notable accomplishments (eg he was Head of the Department of Surgery at Heidelberg Hospital, he was an NHMRC Fellow, he was on a number of government advisory committees, he published hundreds of research articles in peer-reviewed journals since the 70s, he was a regular author in newspaper publications such as Australian Doctor and Melbourne Review, lots of media activity in the 80s etc. etc. I can organise to have it updated and properly referenced over the next month or so? (what is the timeline for decisions re deletion?) Thanks. Surgikill talk 05:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soon @Surgikill:. It's high quality sources about the man we need, not a list of his achievements. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Malcolmx15:. OK thanks - a lot of his work was pre-internet so we will possibly need to trawl through newspaper archives, journals etc but should be able to arrange this--Surgikill (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His citation numbers in Google scholar are not high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and I am also not convinced that the awards are significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Global Beauty Queen[edit]

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

Article is very unclear, contradicting itself and in my opinion unreliable. Looks more like a failed attempt of promo. The Banner talk 14:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable event. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this certainly seems currently questionably notable, nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 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 Marjane Satrapi. Also applies to all title variants. Can be recreated at whatever may be the correct title once it's independently notable. Sandstein 08:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Fakir (2016 film)[edit]

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

Future film, speculative (to the extent that the article's creator has already changed the title of the film as presented in the article). See WP:NFF. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already the movie has been covered by Entertainment Weekly [11] and Variety [12]. I think this would satisfy notability and reliable sources. I'll go ahead and add these to the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, yet, WP:NFF. "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production." I don't see any exceptions listed. It's written very much like it's an absolute that's meant to override the usual approach, for a reason that's explicitly stated.

To me, this makes perfectly good sense. How many articles should Wikipedia have that eventually take the form, "X was a film that 15 years ago a bunch of people conceived of that would have been produced by Steven Spielberg and would have been directed by Alfonso Cuarón and would have starred Anne Hathaway and Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise and Scarlett Johansson (assuming that, even if the film did happen, none of those celebrities backed out, in which case this information would be wrong anyway) except that funding was diverted to another project and then everyone lost interest and it never happened so we have no actual information to give you about it except the preceding string of hypotheticals." The milestone that WP:NFF provides—principal photography—is basically telling us that, up to that point, all the buzz about a film is a rumor. Wikipedia isn't a rumor sheet. And, looking at things from the other end, there is no pressing need to have an article here now rather than waiting for principal photography. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

actual sourcable title: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and per WP:INDAFD: "The Extraordinary Journey of the Fakir" "Marjane Satrapi" "Dhanush"

Redirect for now to director Marjane Satrapi per my analysis: According to unreliable IMDB, the proposed title is The Extraordinary Journey of the Fakir, so the article is mis-named. And sources confirming THAT title Bollywood Hungama, Indian Express, Variety, Entertainment Weekly, and many others, give us enough coverage that the article can "for now" be redirected to a sourced mention in the director's article, and resurrected once WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral; new reference added, more reliable sources are available online [13] Markonal (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to the director's article until principal photography begins, as per above. We have sources, but we're still in WP:CRYSTAL territory. Obviously, the correct film title should be redirected. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best for now with this current article still seeming questionable. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about redirecting The article's author has now moved the article to a title with "2017" instead of "2016". He previously changed the title of the film. I'd agree with the motions to redirect if we had any reason to believe that "The Fakir" is actually the title of the film and knew in what year it's going to be released. There isn't much sense in redirecting either The Fakir (2016 film) or The Fakir (2017 film) to Marjane Satrapi when the film, as far as we know, is going to be called "That Crazy Fakir" or "Tea for Two" or "War and Peace and Zombies" and is going to be released in 2018 or 2019. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move over The Extraordinary Journey of the Fakir (which currently is a double redirect to the 2016 page), and then redirect to the director Marjane Satrapi. This should preserve the content in the right place for when it can be un-redirected. ansh 666 07:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Wisconsin-Madison. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anaguma Eisa[edit]

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

Non-notable club. This is a club formed on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Available coverage includes an article in the university paper (not considered independent) and a listing of their appearance at an event (not significant). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Wisconsin-Madison or just delete. Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now and briefly mention at the university article if needed as this is not yet better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geektime[edit]

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

Weak sources do not demonstrate WP:CORP notability. The claim that it is "largest technology blog in Israel" is simply a quip from the lead-in to a piece written by some Geektime writers about another company. Another source is describing the company in passing in the context of an event they hosted. The third and final source is likewise in-passing mention of the source of a story involving Microsoft and Apple. Brianhe (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any third party coverage. Considered a redirect to Moran Bar, but there's no sources available for that either and no article. Probably WP:TOOSOON.--Jahaza (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for just listing a company. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. There are many articles by the site but no significant coverage about the site. Jbh ^Talk 21:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also as none of this is better convincing of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to add that there are a number of editors here who harangued the creator of this article enough to prevent them from even wanting to show up here. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 01:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: just another blog; fails GNG. Jonathunder (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avoidant (Film)[edit]

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

Unsourced article on newly-released, non-notable film. I can't find reliable sources. —teb728 t c 10:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - spam by the film's maker. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- By what CSD category? It can't be G11, which says, "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." Although the article may have been written to publicize the film, it was written from a neutral point of view. —teb728 t c 21:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Account opened solely to advertise completely non-notable film. Poster in infobox additionally created by user. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 15:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

Delete (or userfy) as being TOO SOON. Only recently released, the thing apparently does not (yet) have the requisite sourcing. I have addressed some article issues, and the thing can be resurrected if or when souces come forward. As tone is (and was) addressable, a speedy is inappropriate. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I agree that we should be careful to avoid biting new editors, but the article is entirely promotional and I could not find any sources to substantiate notability. If you'd like to get sense of what the movie is about, you can check out the trailer on YouTube; apparently the film's subtitle is "Blackmail is Just the Beginning." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A film does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because it exists, or even just because it has a page on IMDb or a trailer on YouTube — to get an article on here, a film has to be the subject of reliable source coverage which verifies a legitimate claim of notability under WP:NFILM. I'm also side-eyeing the claim of making $12,000 in the "global online box-office" — I can find no sourced indication that this is available on any VOD platform that a viewer has to pay to subscribe to, and even the already-speedied article that was simultaneously created about the director only claimed social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook where "box office" for a video clip is utterly unquantifiable as a dollar amount. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as there are no better signs of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. Those requesting the retention of this article have failed to produce convincing, policy-backed arguments; unlike those requesting deletion, who have shown that there is limited coverage of this individual outside of primary sources. Therefore, the article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Allan Feldman[edit]

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

Individual does not appear to meet minimum notability requirements. -- ALPolitico (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: this page is about me, so I am biased. I am concerned that the consideration for deletion appears to be made by the same person who I asked to include me back in March. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ALPolitico&direction=next&oldid=651084954 It would seem more objective if the consideration for deletion was made by a different editor. The article is sourced with a number of independent secondary sources and should meet objective criteria for notability. I hope this decision is reviewed. Mfeldmanmd (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From your vantage point as the article's subject, this concern is understandable. However, I can see no clear indication of a bias against you on the part of the nominator. The mere fact that you previously contacted this person does not constitute a lack of objectivity on his/her part. Look at it from another angle: if a different editor - which you had no previous contact with - had nominated the page for deletion, and ALPolitico had instead argued in favor of keeping the page, would you have asked that his/her comments be disregarded for the same reason you expressed above concerning objectivity? My guess is likely not. Besides, the motive of the nominator is not as important as the strength of the arguments put forward (by other participants as well as the nominator) concerning the notability - or lack thereof- of the subject, based on WP policies and guidelines.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who made this page, I'm confused on why it is up for deletion. This article is well constructed, has many scholarly and secondary sources, and looks a lot better than many other pages on Wikipedia about people running for president in this cycle such as Willie Wilson, David Mills, Darryl Cherney or Austin Petersen.I would like a clear answer on why these pages who have less sources, which are not scholarly or secondary are allowed, but not Dr. Feldman. He should be in the same light as them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brody9311 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (referenced below by an IP): ".... just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet." Indeed, several of the articles you referenced do seem to be short on adequate sourcing (note that the Petersen article is tagged for inadequate sourcing, among other issues). I will take a look at those articles within the next few days, and see if more substantial sourcing can be found for them. If not, I will consider them nominating them for deletion.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is notable enough and has enough sources to sustain itself. I've seen very short stubs with barely two references and yet they still stand. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF not a reason to keep, but rather delete the stubs "with barely two references". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.47.4.27 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - individual does appear to meet the minimum notability requires. See all the coverage included in the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the delusion that nobody looked at the references at all. Trust me: we all did, and very few of them are reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL and notability guidelines as spelled out in WP:42. Quoting from the former: : "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." So, considering that merely being a candidate does not establish notability, that leaves us with the following questions:

a) is the subject notable aside from being a political candidate? If the answer is no, then:

b) does the coverage of the subject's campaign/candidacy go far beyond mere WP:RECENTISM and the routine, run-of-the-mill campaign coverage that nearly all candidates (even generally unknown "citizen-politicians", minor-party candidates, and so-called "fringe candidates") receive? More elaborately, has the campaign received significant coverage in multiple national/major media sources (think Vermin Supreme or Alvin Greene), and not just in local press, blogs, niche publications?

My answer to (a) is no. Quoting from WP:42: "We need multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it." AFAICT, all of the non-campaign related sources in the article are either directory listings or make only passing mention of the subject.

My answer to (b) is also no. Again quoting from WP:42 (emphasis added by me): "We need sources that are independent from the subject of the article. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or their organization." Looking over the campaign-related sources, it seems that more than half are written or created by the subject (e.g. his own commentaries published in The Times of Isreal, self-made YouTube videos). The others consist of local press (Cleveland-based publications, the subject is an Ohio resident), non-notable blogs (Irregular Times), and niche publications (Modern Healthcare is a trade publication of the subject's profession), and a directory listing. Thus, I agree with the nominator the subject fails to meet the minimum notability requirements.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:06, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He wasn't notable before but he seems to be now. Also judging from his age and his activity it seems like he'll be in politics for some 15 more years. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:Ddcm8991 nailed it. The small handful of articles reporting on his current third-party presidential campaign are not enough to establish notability under wp:politician, and the other sources don't provide the significant coverage needed to pass the general notability threshold.--Newbreeder (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As things stand right now, the sourcing here is far too dependent on unreliable and non-independent sources (e.g. YouTube videos, blogs, primary source public relations profiles on the websites of directly affiliated organizations, and content where he's the author and not the subject of the cited reference), which is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a person into Wikipedia. A candidate in a party primary is not entitled to a Wikipedia article on that basis itself, but rather gets a Wikipedia article only if they were already eligible for one before running in the primary — but nothing that's been written or sourced here demonstrates that he had any preexisting notability at all. Given that this is the presidential primary, it's possible that merely winning the nomination could be enough notability to get him over the bar — for most offices it isn't, but most offices don't generate even a fraction of 0.0000001 per cent as much media coverage as the presidential race gets. And even if that does happen, it still doesn't confer an automatic inclusion freebie — if the reliable source coverage still doesn't take a big jump afterward, then he still won't get to keep an article that's sourced like this. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he wins the party's nomination and the coverage of him increases accordingly — but until that happens, he doesn't get to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is clearly established in the article. Curro2 (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is based almost entirely on primary sources. How is it "clearly establishing" notability at all? Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 27 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 // 07:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few-paragraph mention on NPR, but I'm not seeing anything in reliable independent secondary sources which is more substantive. On that basis, I'm going with delete until/unless he does something which gets sufficient coverage. JMWt (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016: Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO on coverage in reliable secondary sources in or out of the article. There are currently [12 recognised candidates] for the Libertarian Party candidacy. Though accomplished, he doesn't appear to get an end-run professionally with few cites or other hits (and FWIW, he does not appear to meet the inactive WP:Notability (doctors) either). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a redirect. The article's edit history could remain so the page could be restored without needing a starting-from-scratch restoration if the subject gains enough independent RS coverage in the future to attain clear-consensus notability. Such a redirect would be within the guidelines of WP:NPOL.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Bearcat and WP:10YT. As a creator and editor of several different articles about minor-party and lesser-known candidates, I would really like to say "keep". However, after a closer look at of the sources provided (and a search for others), I have to conclude that the assessments of the delete !voters are correct. The vast majority of the sources are either: primary; provide no significant coverage of the subject, only a mention or passing reference; are written or created by the subject, rather than independent coverage about the subject; or are non-RS (e.g. the blog Irregular Times). That leaves us with only a modicum of mainly local coverage about his current campaign, and these fall under WP:RECENTISM. It has already pointed that just an being an unelected candidate is not enough - in and of itself - to achieve notability under WP:NPOL. In the event that he actually wins the Libertarian nomination for president, the article should be recreated as he will then be the nominee of a notable party on the ballot in enough states to have at least a mathematical possibility of winning the election. For the time being though, sorry to say, he's just not notable.--Cojovo (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I would be okay with a redirect as proposed by Hydronium Hydroxide above (although after looking over Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 and its Green Party counterpart, I'm not sure either is notable enough to have a separate article, but that's a different discussion entirely).--Cojovo (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've updated Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 with the missing 2016 recognised candidates. Actually completing the table, particularly "Prior Positions", is left as an exercise for a neutral but patient editor. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: The article is about me. Although I am best known on the Internet for politics, in the real world I may be considered notable for my academic career. This may change the criteria for notability under WP:ACADEMIC, I am established as one of the foremost anesthesiologists for eye surgery in the U.S. and I am known internationally. I was a faculty member at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and Clinical Director of Anesthesiology at the Wilmer Eye Institute from 1989 to 1998. During this time, I was the lead anesthesiologist and Site Principal Investigator for the Study of Medical Testing for Cataract Surgery, one of the largest prospective clinical trials ever performed, where 19,000 cataract patients were randomized to receive EKG and blood tests or no EKG and blood tests prior to cataract surgery. The results were published in the New England Journal and became a highly cited paper. The results of this study led to a national change in practice. I have also authored the chapter on Anesthesia for Eye Surgery in the authoritative textbook Miller's anesthesia for the past three additions. I have been elected three times to as President of the national Ophthalmic Anesthesia Society, and I have been invited to conduct workshops on anesthesia for the eye at the American Society of Anesthesiologists meeting five times. However, whether the entire field of ophthalmic anesthesiology is considered academically notable is a question.Mfeldmanmd (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The description you provide here of your career can be characterized as the career of a highly successful physician. Being a successful and highly regarded clinician does not qualify as notability for Wikipedia purposes. As for the New England Journal article, it does not sound as though you were first author, but in all events, a single clinical trial - even one published in the New England Journal - would not pass WP:PROFESSOR, unless it was a hell of an article. Notability for an academic generally requires a body of significant published work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mfeldmanmd: Hypothetically, if it were agreed that requirements for WP:NACADEMICS were met with reliable sources, there's still the problem that your nascent political career is as yet non-notable. To avoid WP:COATRACK and other issues of weight, I believe that such an article would need to focus on your career as a opthalmic anaesthetist, the topic of notability. One sentence about your columns and another for your presidential candidacy might be ok, for instance, but much more wouldn't be. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Hydronium Hydroxide. The Delete !voters have made compelling policy-based arguments that the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG (or other relevant notability guidelines), as opposed to the Keep !voters who have offered only unsubstantiated assertions ("he seems to be" or "is clearly" notable) or arguments of the WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:CRYSTAL (..."seems like he'll be in politics for some 15 more years") type. That being the case, I cannot support keeping the article at this time. However, WP:GNG states "If a topic does not meet these criteria [for establishing notability] but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article" Given that there are verifiable facts and that the subject is already included in the Libertarian primaries article, redirecting to that page would be a fair and sensible move.--Rollins83 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the quotes you picked were from me. Not everything is a proper argument to be picked apart and wikilawyered. Where as you say Delete voters have made compelling arguments — by stating all of the sources are primary. For the record, any analysis of him is a secondary source: "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. Reason is that the only 2 RS Cleveland Magazine brief Q&A [14]; Modern Healthcare brief profile [15] both already on the Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. This is not sufficient to support an article, which is why it should be deleted. It can be recreated if sources someday exist to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now as it may be too soon for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by User:Fram meshach (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Abdur Raheem Kidwai[edit]

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

No context - empty page. Creator removed CSD tag. meshach (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have tagged it for speedy, this user has restarted this and yet has not learned how to better use WP. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect User:Professor Abdur Raheem Kidwai should probably be deleted as well. meshach (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is probably one for speedy. Not sure why there are two tags on the article, but I support getting rid of this in a hurry. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G7, as the page author has now blanked the page --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I nominated this for speedy per WP:A3 (no content). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:09, 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. The article's subject is found to be a neologism and to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toddlercon[edit]

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

I'd previously closed this back in 2014 as a hoax, with an additional rationale that at best this seemed like a WP:NEOLOGISM. I was asked to restore this on my talk page by Alsee with the rationale that this wasn't a hoax and since that was the main reason it was deleted, I figured that it would be reasonable to open this back up for a second AfD. His other rationale was "Google Scholar turns up a (very small) number of viable sources, Bing reports four hundred million results. The Scholar hits are very thin, and trying to find RS in the general hits would be a long ugly slog through mud, but with hundreds of millions of general hits it's implausible that there aren't more RS in there." I don't remember seeing the academic sources when I initially looked, so it's possible that these were uploaded at some point after the close, which is possible given that academia (especially foreign language sources) isn't exactly the greatest at uploading their stuff.

My concern here is that while there are a few hits in Google Scholar, the term doesn't appear to be in frequent use and it seems to refer to lolicon. I think that at best, this could be merged into another article, either for lolicon or Glossary of anime and manga. However the question here is if this term is used enough to warrant even that. There are some hits on Google, but almost solely junk hits or places that wouldn't be considered reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can provide enough sourcing to show that this would merit its own article rather than it being deleted as a neologism or merged into another article, I'm open to withdrawing this. I just don't think that this is a really commonly used term or one that's actually been discussed as really separate from lolicon or shoutacon. Plus the article has some issues with original research, but that can be fixed if there are reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG since there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Added to this the exsamples given are all red links. For the article to merit a merge I would want to see some sourcing. MarnetteD|Talk 15:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I defend controversial stuff on principle, I couldn't see what the deleted article looked like, and the "hoax" close after two and a half hours seemed like a kneejerk response to the topic. Now that I see what's there, that's pretty dismal. Google Scholar gave European Scientific Journal[16], VII CONGRESS OF PORTUGUESE Sociology[17], a paper from a Mexican university[18], and possibly others, but they don't give much more than a dictionary definition. There have to be sources in the 400 million Bing hits, but I haven't really tried digging through it yet. In theory there's a topic here. I don't know that anything in the current article is really salvageable, but without an existing base article it will be hard to find anyone who dares create it from scratch. I dunno, I'll try to comment again in a day or two. Alsee (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If more usable sources don't turn up, ~~it should clearly redirect to Lolicon.~~ Alsee (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC) (revised below) Alsee (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The European Journal gives a half-line comment about it existing in the middle of a much broader article. It could be useful as a source on Lolicon or perhaps another article but using it as an notability example would be rather difficult.SephyTheThird (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without a redirect). Google shows even less hits than Bing: just 75 (if you exclude duplicate results). This is far from a term which is in common use, and while at least two papers have used the term, it's so obscure and so infrequently used (I've personally never used the term nor seen it used in anime websites, and I tend to visit a lot of them) that I doubt that it's even a plausible search term except for the very few. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (without a redirect) Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and the term is nothing more than a WP:NEOLOGISM. Given the hits on google this isn't likely to be a search term either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention of this in AnimsCons.com. [19] If it's a neologism like all those variants of -dere, is there a notabie article on JA Wikipedia? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, there's a misunderstanding here. No one is claiming there is an Anime Con. The topic is an existing subset of Manga, like our articles on Lolicon and Shotacon. "Con" in this case originates from the word "Complex", not "Convention". Alsee (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article for とっぇこん on JA Wikipedia. It is not listed among anime and manga glossaries such as Jason Thompson's one in Manga The Complete Guide. If someone's looking for such information they would just look under Pedophilia and be done with it. Read the definitions listed in the first paragraph, and you'll see terms "Nepiophilia" and "infantophilia" that are more specific and those don't even have separate articles. You're taking one of those terms, translating it into Japanese and giving it a newer slang. That doesn't make it any more notable than the existing psychological terms. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "-con" suffix can be put in the glossary for both those two definitions you mentioned, but this specific example would not be needed at all in favor of far more prominent terms such as brocon or siscon used in anime shows. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, the Scholarly RS definition, and the common English meaning at non-RS search results, is a genre of artwork. It is primarily Noted in those reliable sources in reference to the legislative dispute of whether fictional images can or should be made illegal. About half of the Lolicon article is devoted to the legislative controversy, I expect the percentage would be higher if this were ever an article rather than a redirect. The term is directly derived from Lolicon, and if this were theoretically developed into an article it should closely mirror that article. That is almost certainly what someone is looking for if they are searching for the term. Pedophilia/Nepiophilia/infantophilia would be an extremely poor redirect target. Someone searching for the term is almost certainly looking for Lolicon, a mirror image of that article, or a glossary entry linking to Manga&Lolicon&Shotacon with a sentence or two explaining the distinctions. Alsee (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that "とっぇこん" is what happens when someone tries to type "toddlercon" in a Japanese IME], ie. "とっぇこん" does not exist natively in Japanese. The closest Japanese equivalent is べビコン, bebicon, short for "baby complex", but even that is not common. _dk (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glossary of anime and manga, since "toddlercon" is not gender-specific unlike lolicon. Google turns up 77,000 hits for me (don't know how just 75 hits turned up above), but I suspect this number is too low due to the topic's controversial nature and Google's practice of hiding porn results. At least two papers have used the term, which makes the term notable enough for a redirect, discounting personal anecdotes of whether the term is common or not. _dk (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of anime and manga. I commented above, but I'm listing my !vote here. The Google Scholar Reliable Sources clearly support adding a listing there.

The no-redirect !Votes saying it's not a plausible search term are clearly mistaken. We have several Google Scholar hits, 74k Google hits, almost a half Billion Bing hits (that's Billion with a B). Page-view stats shows 2585 page views over the last three years, and a constant log of views back to the earliest available data in 2007. Obviously there are many people typing in the title to directly load the page, or are entering it as a search term and still clicking the redlink. Is there any valid basis for the No-Redirect, other than the radioactive topic?

Note the over a 5000-to-1 disparity in Bing and Google stats here. According to a large number of Reliable Sources, Google is an utterly unreliable source for porn-related results.[20] A few years ago Google started aggressively de-ranking and massively excluding porn related hits. There is a popular meme that Bing is the best site for porn-related results because people only use it to search for porn.[21] Never never never use Google to evaluate porn-related stats. Alsee (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basing arguments around the number of search results has always been a misguided way of determining notability and other inclusion reasoning because it's just so unreliable. The fact that a word with a stem that is so extremely common in day to day life generates so many hits neither surprises me nor impacts my opinion here. Also pointing out that search results are manipulated is a really good way of debunking your argument by yourself. If it is so easy for search engines to manipulate their results (which they do constantly just as a matter of process when they remove and sort them before displaying) to hide articles, it can work in both directions and inflate them as well. You've found some search results, but are any of them demonstrating either notability or the likelihood of notability in the immediate future? We aren't Urban dictionary, it's not necessarily for us to list every related term - and that includes the possibility of removing other terms that are currently being used (which is subject to a fresh debate). Also, please don't keep suggesting that the response is due to it's "social problems" as a topic, if a neutral and objective article can be created and meet notability, then we are quite capable of accepting it just like we have an article on Lolicon. The responses have all been along those lines. Being a questionable subject matter in itself would justify it's inclusion BUT it still has to meet the same criteria as everything else. While you can "defend controversial material" as much as you want and are entitled to, please don't assume everyone is trying to delete it just because it's controversial. You won't do yourself any favours. SephyTheThird (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SephyTheThird you seem to have misinterpreted what I was saying. I didn't vote keep, and I didn't argue Notablility-for-keep. The current article is crap. We have Scholar reliable sources, but they are inadequate to support an article. Given almost a half billion search hits I think it's implausible that there are zero reliable sources in there, but we can't support an article unless someone actually locates some. My !vote was redirect. The Scholar sources clearly support an entry in Glossary of anime and manga. Your !vote is against a redirect on the basis that you don't think it is a likely search term - but even as a redlink this article-page has been getting thousands of page views. Your thought about likelyhood as a search term was mistaken. We know for a fact that thousands of people are searching for it on Wikipedia. Do you think it would be appropriate to revise your !vote to redirect on that basis?

Regarding "people voting delete because it's controversial", please take look at Satellizer !vote below where they makes the false claim that there are no sources at all, and then look at their edit summary where they state the actual basis for their position: "wikipedia is no place for this twisted stuff". We will not remove Images of Muhammad. We will not remove Nazi Flags. We will not remove relevant explicit images from anatomical and sexual articles. WP:NOTCENSORED is policy. WP:CLOSE policy says that !votes cast in flat contradiction to policy should be completely discounted. I hope the closer throws that one out the window. Alsee (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NEOLOGISM. Glossary of anime and manga already has enough problems with terms that aren't associated with anime and manga on the list and there is no references that this term, if the definition can be sourced, is associated with anime or manga as well. The PDFs that Alsee linked to earlier all come up as blank pages and Google search in the scholar, news, and book sections don't come up with anything relevant. —Farix (t | c) 23:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The PDFs are not blank. The first one is in English, and gives a short definition, surely enough, but I can't speak for the quality and relevance for the other two since they are in Spanish or Portuguese and I can't read either. Even if the PDFs are blank, a bare offline citation is enough to establish notability for inclusion. _dk (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary definition (or set) isn't enough to make a subject notable. That would seem to fail WP:Notdic. Actually, it explicity tells us that "While published dictionaries may be useful sources for lexical information on a term, the presence of a term in a dictionary does not by itself establish notability". Now, that doesn't eliminate a journal article as that isn't a dictionary, but it seems reasonable that this would extend to other pure definitions. 02:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)SephyTheThird (talk)

I'm not arguing for toddlercon being its own article, it undoubtedly fails WP:N as a standalone article. But the mere fact that the term is defined in three scholarly articles may warrant an entry on the glossary. _dk (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to Nepiophilia then. Same term in English just with a nickname. Even more prominently used terms such as sister complex or brother complex would redirect to either Incest or Complex (psychology). This would be also like yamato nadeshiko, or NEET in that they are general Japanese terms, not specific to manga or anime. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied above. Suggested redirect is very unlikely to be the desired result for someone searching for this term. Alsee (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farix, I double checked the links, they all work. Your browser is probably choking on PDFs for some reason. They are all scholarly sources. Alsee (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We are not a dictionary. Furthermore, web search results, be they Google or not, are not a reliable indicator of anything and never will be. There is no context to them, impossible to check a substantial percentage of them and with such a common stem word will always include false results. I don't see any reason to have a redirect because I don't think it is a likely search term, and that justifying it based on google hits is flawed as above. The page should be based on the same merits we base other articles and deletion discussions around - do we have appropriate sources to merit the topic and show its actual notability. No, we don't. Lolicon however is well documented.SephyTheThird (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No redirect, as there are absolutely no results from reliable sources so it doesn't even warrant a mention in Glossary of anime and manga. A neologism at its finest. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 03:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with assessment that no reliable sources exist. The three academic papers cited do not offer pursuable sources in Japan, and the term is gibberish. Jun Kayama 02:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm seeing some comments saying "I don't think it is a likely search term", "I've personally never used the term nor seen it used in anime websites, and I tend to visit a lot of them", and even "Wikipedia is no place for this twisted stuff". These are all based on subjective opinion based on personal anecdotes. Unfortunately, extreme sexual deviancy is a part of this world, and Wikipedia has no moral responsibility to keep this stuff off the site (WP:NOTCENSORED). Alsee has provided at least three sources that shows the existence of the term and phenomenon, and I have seen no counterargument to discount them yet (except an erroneous claim that the PDFs are blank). _dk (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My "twisted stuff" edit summary was little more than light-hearted personal opinion and is not meant to be taken seriously. It's also not a part of my argument. Instead, the problem here is that Alsee's "sources" are little more than one-line dictionary definitions, and despite proving that the term WP:EXISTS they are nowhere in-depth enough to establish WP:SIGCOV. Thus, the article is a neologism. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV and various essays based on WP:N only determine if a topic should have its own article, not whether an article should mention something or not. ("The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.") So far nobody thinks toddlercon should have its own article, so those essays you linked don't really add to the debate. The point of contention so far is whether it should be redirected to the glossary where a brief blurb would be inserted. _dk (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in the glossary would still depend on whether or not the term is widely used enough. While Bing does show significantly more hits than Google, almost none of them are reliable coverage about the term. In fact, from what I've seen, the few "serious" uses of the term suggest it's actually a synonym for shotacon, which is a term which is more widely used. It's not really about search hits, but more if the term is in use enough to even warrant a redirect (as a separate article is already out of the picture due to lacking significant coverage), and right now it seems that the term is either too new or too obscure to warrant a redirect. A mention in Lolicon is possible, but again, only if the term is widely used (right now, I couldn't even find a reliable source which states that it's a synonym for lolicon, so if a mention is added to the article, that could be considered original research). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or..... you could try checking the Reliable Sources that were posted to this page. Alsee (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't really add to the debate"... I wasn't trying to start a debate, instead explaining why toddlercon shouldn't have a standalone article, since it currently does have one and the standard AfD positions are keep or delete. A redirect here wouldn't be necessary either, since listicles are free to impose their own notability requirements (for example, List of Marvel Comics characters doesn't list every single named character that's ever appeared) and in an article with such a broad scope like Glossary of anime and manga, each and every entry must demonstrate at least a minimum level of significance in the anime/manga community to warrant inclusion. I wouldn't say toddlercon, with it's three minor passing mentions in obscure university papers, is exactly significant. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Were it トドラコン and thus literally a fetish on sea lions I would vote Keep for this immediately. However such is not the case and after a few hours of thorough searching I can locate nothing in Japanese media on explicitly this term, in either the gibberish とっぇこん or anything distinct from ショタ・ロリ proper. I have no opinions from a moral perspective on the subject matter, but there is no WP:RS on the Japanese side to speak of and until academic papers originating in Japan (or even a Spa! article [22]) the academic papers presented to date from overseas are suspect. Jun Kayama 00:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet any material for a better article, nothing was convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Ulysses characters. As merging is an editorial decision, the other stubs don't need to go through AfD (though you probably knew that). (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milly Bloom[edit]

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

A minor character in James Joyce's novel "who does not actually appear in Ulysses". There are about 30-40 more minor characters listed in the template Ulysses that look like they should also go away. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Along with all the other minor character pages. Meatsgains (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Delete, or potentially redirect to the article about the novel (if there is a good reason for the article about the novel to mention her). Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge along with other minor characters to List_of_Ulysses_characters. There is an exhaustive body of commentary on the novel, you could probably pull together a pretty reasonable collection of sources to salvage the article, if you wanted to See this Google Scholar search, but it seems much more reasonable to merge the materials. Sadads (talk) 06:40, 21 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) 04:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Ulysses characters. All the other minor stub character articles should be given the same treatment. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simply Redirect as there's hardly any context to merge and this is quite unlikely better improvable. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Other stubs should be merged as well. I will be happy to do that after the closure of this discussion. Ya sh ! 13:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yash!:It looks like we are trending that way, a bold merge with removal of OR from those pages would help wrap this up, and provide us a good idea of what a merged list would look like. If you do the merge, I can come in behind and help you do some more referencing around the characters and/or a further reading section. I took a Ulysses class about 3-4 years ago, and have a pretty good handle on finding/working with the scholarship, to add something substantial about each of the characters. Sadads (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. To quote User:superβεεcat "Obvious COI... no assertion of notability, no refs. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tolo toys[edit]

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

Potentially fails WP:NCOMPANY Ueutyi (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious COI (see author username), no assertion of notability, no refs. GSearch turns up dubious sources. - superβεεcat 04:06, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 10:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saskia Fischer[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Notability not derived from mother Nicole Heesters and/or (in)famous grandfather Johannes Heesters. Quis separabit? 03:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Fischer has played major roles on major stages in Germany. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actress has played quite a few (prominent) roles in German media. Notability is easily established. Article is short, and not very up-to-date however. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although not entirely motivated because the German Wiki has some further content and this may need familiar attention for better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shakes and Fidget[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search were [23][24] (not enough to substantiate an article). There are no worthwhile redirect targets as I don't believe we have a WoW culture article. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 02:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with only one in-depth independent reliable source. May be covered in German sources, but I can't really locate any that look reliable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Hellknowz. -- ferret (talk) 15:22, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Mayo[edit]

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

Seems to have been covered in a couple of local newspaper articles - both appear in the article, one is a dead link now. Appears to have written a couple of books, but I can't find anything that meets the general notability guideline or the fairly lenient standard of WP:AUTHOR. Has some advertising on the web, has entered some photography contests, has a blog - but I'm not finding anything significant. All of the significant coverage leads to other Brooke Mayos, such as an MMA fighter and a soccer player. A search for Brooke Mayo Wright is also unhelpful. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails N, AUTHOR, and GNG. Quis separabit? 13:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 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 speedy delete. Incoherent, maybe a test Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inhales[edit]

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

Move to Wikitionary. 333 -blue 01:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's almost incoherent, a simple speedy delete tag would have probably been more appropriate. HalfShadow 01:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:IAR, as it would never belong in a dictionary or encyclopedia. Dictionary definition; proper definition already exists on Wiktionary, delete. Esquivalience ^t 01:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G6 as unambiguously created in error. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:25, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-jamiatul Arabia Lil Baneena Wal Banaat Haildhar Anwara[edit]

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

The article claims the institution is the first and largest Qawmi Madrasah in Bangladesh, which means sources have to be out there. I didn't find anything searching. So, unless we have some Bengali speakers who can bring sources, the article is quite failing ... Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources can be found. Large tertiary educational institution. Obvious keep if sources can be found to prove its existence, although I agree they're not obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current state. I'll reconsider if someone finds sources, because I am unable to find anything either (also tried Haildhar Madrasah, which is supposed to be its popular name). - HyperGaruda (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have located the school at 22°11′47″N 91°56′04″E / 22.1964°N 91.9345°E. It is at least consistent with a search for "Haildhar" in the Chittagong area and with the image of a long building next to a small body of water/pond. Considering its location, I doubt it is such a "large tertiary educational institution". More like a primary school, as "li'l-Banīna wa'l-Banāt" translates to "for Boys and Girls". - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and no visible sign of notability. There are also no citation to the claims in the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Draftify or delete. The original author is still adding content, but so far hasn't named a single independent reliable source. The closest thing I could find, using several variations on the name, was a Daily Azadi news blurb (in Bengali) about a motorcycle accident in Anwara Upazila near the gate of Haildhar Madrasah. That doesn't confirm that it's an institution of at least secondary education (the usual threshold to avoid redirection, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES), and is mighty thin evidence on which to base a 3.5 Kb article. The Ministry of Education map shows a madrasa at roughly the position identified by HyperGaruda, but calls it Malghar Ahamadia Taibia Sunnia Dakhil Madrasha. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:51, 26 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 // 01:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this chart of the Bangladeshi educational system, a dakhil madrasah is a form of secondary education. If Al-jamiatul Arabia and Malghar Ahamadia Taibia Sunnia Dakhil Madrasha are indeed the same, then we are dealing with a secondary institution. However, school notability is covered by WP:NORG#Primary criteria, which is basically an applied version of WP:GNG and thus good sourcing is the most important. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The author has created three articles on this topic before. In February 2015, RHaworth deleted Al-jameatul Arabiah lil baneena wal banaat Hailder anwara and Al-Jameatul Arabiah Lil-Baneena Wal Banaat as duplicates, and Materialscientist deleted Al-Jameatul Arabiah Lil-Baneena Wal-Banaat, Haildhar, Anwara after this deletion discussion. I'm changing my recommendation to outright delete because the five participants in the previous discussion found no sources and because although the author has had another year to look for sources, they haven't identified any. Worldbruce (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Non-notable school and obvious promotion. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best until a better convincing article is available. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.starnow.com.au/edwardJeffries

[2] Http://film-makers.com/cgi-bin/links/search.cgi?query=edward+jeffries

[1]

[2]