Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 17 June 19 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Goudarzi[edit]

Hossein Goudarzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Commander Keen#Dopefish. I see a rough consensus that no independent article is warranted and the content should be merged somewhere, and less agreement on the merge target. If needed, the target can be further discussed on the talk page. T. Canens (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dopefish[edit]

Dopefish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It only had passing mentions as an industry meme in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and Google Books search. A brief mention at (and redirect to) Commander Keen#Legacy should suffice, based on what we have. czar 02:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails the WP:GNG. (Notability is not measured in the number of trivial cameos and allusions.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm open to a Merge if it helps with building a consensus, since there are passing mentions here and there. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tom Hall#Dopefish. As a video game easter egg, Pisces swimatus gets an impressive 37,700 hits in the Reliable Sources for Video Games custom search. There is a mention in the book Triadic Game Design: Balancing Reality, Meaning and Play. Mobygames has a list of games with dopefish. The dopefish makes an appearance at Know Your Meme and has an entire web site devoted to it. Engadet calls it the Bruce Campbell of gratuitous cameos. Unfortunately the book and the sources I perused in the RS/VG search are not quite in depth. A little history, then a list of games. Unless are in depth sources out there, the fish fails WP:GNG notability criteria. But there seems abundant information in RS to support a merge of verifiable facts to Commander Keen#Legacy or better yet, to Tom Hall#Dopefish, the designer of the character. --Mark viking (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There are sufficient reliable sources. I understand Mark's reservations about the strength of the sources, but I think the sheer plethora of sources talking about the dopefish, independently of talking about either Keen or Tom Hall, supports keeping it as its own article. Sure, the sources don't talk about it for very long, but they all think it's worth an independent mention. We should too. If consensus disagrees with me, at the very least merge, don't delete, but I still support keeping it. I might even support renaming it to "List of games containing Dopefish" or something similar, that then explains what dopefish is. Because honestly, this is a notable list (according to our sources), in addition to a notable meme. Absolutely don't delete. Fieari (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Tom Hall#Dopefish. With around 38K hits on the reliable sources for video games search it's definitely notable enough to not get rid of entirely. I'd prefer a keep because Dopefish is what I'd look for if I wanted to find out more about dopefish, but 'merge' if that isn't an option mh. (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do we even merge though? The entire article isn't encyclopedic. We've got some extremely pointless unsourced commentary by the creator (""I just drew this stupid little fish"), and a massive WP:TRIVIA list of every minor cameo the character is. Where's the sources covering it in detail? Where's the reception? Where's the meaningful creation content? This looks like something slapped together on an inactive wikia or geocities page, not an encyclopedia entry. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence between a weak keep and a merge, but adding my thoughts since input was requested at WT:VG. Regulars at WP:VG probably know by now that I tend to give fictional character articles the benefit of the doubt in notability disputes, and perhaps that is again the case here, yet the inclusionist in me thinks there's just enough RS coverage to scrape by the GNG, but only just. Some assertions of Dopefish's significance are made, from a few minutes of source hunting: PCGamesN's article on video game easter eggs has an entry for Dopefish, where they write "Like so many inexplicably popular means and in-jokes in videogames, Dopefish is truly eternal"; Engadget notes that "PC gamers of a certain age will have very fond memories of the Commander Keen series -- usually trying to pogo toward a hard-to-reach gem or frantically escaping a Dopefish"; VG24/7 calls Dopefish "one of those delightful little pieces of gaming arcana"; IGN mentions Dopefish in Commander Keen's entry into "Luke Reilly's Top 30 Games of All Time"; Stuff.tv's easter egg list again features Dopefish, calling it "Gaming’s most enduring egg". USA Today echoes this sentiment, labelling it a "hidden gem". Some foreign-language sources may also be usable. I will concede that these are mostly odd mentions here-and-there with no real depth to it, though. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 13:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 13:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google news search shows a brief mention in USA Today within the past week in an article primarily about Oculus Rift: [1]. If you're the kind of person that's inclined to say 'that's not significant coverage!' you're missing the point: the coverage of this fictional element is enduring, and has made it to one of the biggest newspapers in the world this week. Let that sink in for a bit. FWIW, I'd never heard of it before, but if I can find that with a 15-second Google News search, I strongly suspect WP:BEFORE was not adequately followed. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Enduring, but minor—a running gag with no in-depth coverage in any of the sources cited. The article is better suited for TV Tropes as currently compiled. (Also, re: your strong BEFORE suspicions, why don't you look at the article's history first?) czar 17:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"But it would be better covered in X" where X is usually Wikia, but TV Tropes works, is NOT a reason for deletion. There is plenty of overlap between Wikipedia and those other websites when a topic meets inclusion criteria for both, like this one does. Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with your argument if it was an explanation as to why a merge stance would be warranted, but I just don't see how we're going to write an article about the subject with all these passing mentions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty easy, actually. What we have is a decent start from which to improve. Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You consider a short, largely unsourced "overview" section and a massive unsourced list of every cameo its ever had, as a "decent start"? I would have called it one big violation of WP:V and WP:TRIVIA... Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no merge as there's nothing noticeably convincing for its own article despite it obviously simply being best connected to the series itself. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to Commander Keen § Dopefish (within the "Legacy" section). I also prefer this merge target over one to Tom Hall, because the former already has content about the significance about the topic to a greater extent than the latter article does. North America1000 19:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of consensus, I am fine with either of the merge targets above. It is important to preserve this bit of game developer culture, but any of these merge targets are good. --Mark viking (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 22:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being relisted twice suggests no consensus. Is it likely to be relisted again or is a decision going to be made? mh. (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being relisted a second time is fine, especially if comments keep coming in (which they have.) A third relist is unlikely though, next time we'll likely have someone make a call on this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NO evidence of notability .. no third party sources on significant coverage Samat lib (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm fine with the merge rationales, but you saying "NO evidence of notability, no third party sources" suggests you haven't actually bothered reading the discussion above. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The topic should definitely be mentioned somewhere, but it doesn't seem to have enough significance for a stand-alone article. TTN (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Almafeta (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect - I was really hoping to find enough to keep. This is in that same sort of persistent trivia/easter egg/joke/whatever as Wilhelm scream, Hidden Mickey, etc. (but apparently less well covered by mainsteam sources). There's enough to merit inclusion in Hall's article, though, and to maintain a redirect. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Works Records System[edit]

Works Records System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. This appears to be software which was developed by ICI for its own internal use. The article gives no indication that it was ever distributed outside of ICI. Software which a company develops for its own internal needs usually isn't notable, and usually isn't described in reliable sources-of course, there are exceptions to this general rule, but I cannot find any reliable sources for this article despite searching, so there is no evidence this software counts as one of those exceptions.

While a Google search will find some hits for this, it appears they are mostly dependent on this Wikipedia article (e.g. this blog post by Dan Bricklin criticising Wikipedia's topic on this content), the usual Wikipedia mirrors and reprints, or e.g. [2] which was created by Ken Dakin who (according to this very article) was one of the developers of this software. None of the sources found by Google appear to be independent reliable sources.

The only source the article gives is a document in the posession of The Computer History Museum in California. Now, no doubt this document exists and describes this software (the document itself is not online, but you can find in it in their catalog). However, this is clearly just an internal manual written within ICI. Many or most companies which develop software for their own use will write manuals. Those manuals are not independent reliable sources, they are essentially self-published sources, or to be more precise unpublished sources. Even if someone donates one of them to a museum collection, that does not magically turn it into an independent reliable source.

Although the edit history doesn't conclusively prove it (since it was created by an IP), I strongly suspect this article was created by Ken Dakin, who it appears has chosen to use Wikipedia to document the achievements of his career. We have recently deleted two articles which he created for a similar purpose; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SIMON (Batch Interactive test/debug). In the dicussion about those articles, it was suggested by some that there may be old offline (paper) reliable sources describing the software which cannot be found through Internet based searches, such as magazines from the 1970s which have not been digitised. That justification for keeping the article was not accepted. However, in any event, I don't think that justification applies here, because it is unlikely that this software was ever discussed in reliable sources at the time, since even today most software internally developed by a company for its own use is never discussed in RS, and there is no reason to believe that norm was not true in the 1970s as well. SJK (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kvng, Fieari, SwisterTwister, Uncle G, and CoffeeWithMarkets: Pinging editors who participated in previous related AFD. SJK (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches have found one link so far and that was Books, current article is still overall questionable and could be Drafted instead (as I mentioned at the other AfD) if needed. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SwisterTwister: would be interested to know what the Books link you found was. My own Books search for "works records system" finds (1) a bunch of books containing reprints of Wikipedia article (which are not independent reliable sources for WP:GNG purposes per WP:CIRC and Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources/Books that plagiarize Wikipedia), (2) a bunch of 1930s references to "public works records system" (obviously these references are talking about something other than the topic of this article). SJK (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The only Google Scholar hit I get is this preprint in French. It extensively discusses past controversies over whether this "Works Records System" should be discussed in English Wikipedia's Spreadsheet article. This source cannot be used to demonstrate the notability of WRS since it is primarily concerned with documenting on-Wikipedia controversies about WRS, rather than being interested in WRS in its own right. (In any event, preprints like this are borderline as reliable sources.) SJK (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This one is different from the other two recently deleted articles. Here is the claimed notability:
The Works records system, which went "live" in 1974 represented the first known use of: an interactive online spreadsheet, a three-dimensional spreadsheet and a shared public spreadsheet
If true, and reported in independant sources, this is a clear establishment of notability, regardless of whether or not it was originally and only ever used internally within a private company. (Note that this notability establishment should also be moved to the lead)
The Ken Dakin link is one such source. But also, the computer history museum record is another corroboration. Yes, from the catalog, all we can see online is that they have a copy of the manual, but we have to ask WHY they have a copy of the manual. It seems pretty clear that they are keeping the manual because of the notability claim above... being the first interactive 3D shared public spreadsheet. So this is not a case of having hypothetical contemporary sources, this is a case of a curated exclusive museum making an editorial choice about the significance of this topic. As such, we should keep it. Fieari (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fieari: You are making the assumption that being accepted by the Computer History Museum (CHM) is an indicator of notability, but we simply don't know whether that is true. While obviously the museum won't accept everything, we don't know how detailed an examination they make into an artifact before deciding to accept it, nor how well their own criteria line up with Wikipedia's criteria of notability. Looking at their published acceptance criteria, the main criteria for rejecting documents appears to be that they already possess them (such as in mass-produced journals or magazines, and also certain extremely common items of vendor documentation such as IBM mainframe reference cards). They explicitly mention they "are particularly interested in prototypes, personal papers... homemade items...". Given they are "particularly interested" in these items, we can reasonably infer that they won't be selective in accepting them; but since "personal papers" and "homemade items" are unlikely (except in exceptional cases) to be notable for Wikipedia's purposes, this is a sign that their own acceptance policy doesn't align well with Wikipedia's notability policy, and hence acceptance in their collection isn't a good indicator of notability for Wikipedia's purposes. We can't infer that, just because they accepted this document from Ken Dakin, they have evaluated and agree with his claims of its historical importance–they may have simply gone "computer-related internal corporate document from the 1970s, we don't have it, hence accept"–indeed, I think the later is the case. I get the impression from CHM's criteria that they'll accept just about anything that is computer-related, old enough, and they don't already have, and perform only a very cursory investigation of the historical significance of artifacts before agreeing to accept them–so acceptance by them tells us little or nothing about notability for Wikipedia's purposes. This is especially the case for documents, which unlike actual computers take up very little space.
The contents of museum collections are WP:PRIMARY sources. For WP:GNG, we want secondary sources. It is up to historians and others to go through museum collections and determine what is significant and what is not, and their results are published in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia shouldn't directly rely on Museum collections as a source because doing so is a form of WP:OR.
Regarding the "claimed notability" sentence, you say "If true, and reported in independant sources, this is a clear establishment of notability"–but it isn't reported in independent reliable sources, which is the problem.
WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The Ken Dakin link is not "independent of the subject" since he was one of the key developers of this software. It's also questionable whether it is a "reliable source" because it wasn't published in an established publication, a peer-reviewed journal, or a book by a mainstream publisher–it's a page on a museum's website. While a page on a museum website might in some cases be a reliable source, in this case we have no information on what process of review the museum took before posting that brief reminiscence by Ken Dakin. That page appears to be orphaned–I can't find a link to it from the page navigation structure of their website, and nor can I locate it through their search engine. SJK (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks really interesting, though it's got literally one reference. It made Hacker News today - I put a comment that there's an AFD, noting that what it really needs is Wikipedia-quality sources. Perhaps this will flush out more solid information - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article contains quite interesting information that is currently not found anywhere else online. To fix the major problems with the article (lack of reliable sources, hyperbole), I would like to offer a bonus assignment to students of my HCI course that would consist of analysing original sources (e.g., the report in the Computer History Museum or the Youtube video with Ken Dakin) and revising the article accordingly. (For the result of a similar assignment last year, compare GOMS (old version) to GOMS). I will know whether any students would like to pick up this task by mid-July. Raphman (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Raphman: the problem is that even if your students find the document in the Computing History Museum and read or copy it, there's still no evidence it's an independent reliable source (WP:RS). It appears to be an internal, unpublished document, created by employees of a corporation to describe one of its internal computer systems. Documents like that generally aren't considered reliable sources. (There are millions of such documents in existence, although they generally aren't publicly available–I've written some of them in my professional life, and many other people in IT have done the same–but we generally can't cite such documents in Wikipedia articles.) Likewise, if they review the YouTube video–Youtube videos generally speaking aren't considered a reliable source. (There may be exceptions to that general rule–such as YouTube videos created by academic experts or by professional journalists–but I don't believe this case falls into one of those exceptions.) This situation is very different from GOMS since appears to actually be covered in reliable sources (e.g. conference papers), unlike this. SJK (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SJK:, yes, I understand and agree in general. I feel not experienced enough to contribute to the discussion about (Wikipedian) notability. My argument was (or should have been) that there are further problems with this article besides *notability* which could and should be tackled. Do I understand WP:RS correctly?: I and/or my students could obtain the primary (unnotable) source (and other related resources), write a technical report about WRS based on this primary source, publish it on the university's ePub server, and then use it as a reliable secondary source? In my view, the reason why there are no secondary sources about WRS is not its general lack of notability or verifiability, but a lack of attention by the academic community. I feel a little bit uneasy for a topic that I have just learned about today to be completely purged from the web soon.-- Raphman (talk • contribs) 14:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Raphman: Writing a paper, or getting your students to write a paper, as you describe, and publishing it as a technical report, would of course be an improvement over the current situation. There'd still be two issues though (1) technical reports are kind of borderline as reliable sources – ideally, if you or they could get it published in a respected journal, there would be no doubts about that issue; (2) WP:GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected"–so if there was a single reliable secondary source on this, it would still be an issue. So obviously what you are suggesting would be an improvement in the situation, but would it be enough of an improvement to answer all the concerns about the existence of this Wikipedia article? Possibly not. SJK (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SJK:, thank you for the explanation. I would still prefer to keep this article for the reasons mentioned above. However, as this is my first AfD discussion, I'll have to concede that my vote is not necessarily well-informed. Is there a way to make full-history copy (i.e., not move) of the article in my User:raphman/ space? (I know about move but couldn't find anything about copying). I would like to have a full copy of this article in case it gets deleted. Raphman (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Raphman: It is possible to move the article to your user space instead of deleting it, see Wikipedia:Userfication. Personally, I have no objection to doing that since you have expressed an interest in trying to improve it to meet Wikipedia notability standards. Since the AFD is still in progress, we can't do that until the AFD closes, but if the closing admin wants to do that, I have no objection. SJK (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for computer science and technology. technical reports can be the most reliable sources. That's the way industry works. And the academic analysis of technical reports is certainly a RS, because even if you regard the reports to be primary sources, the academic study of history consists of the interpretation of primary sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: I doubt that the document in the CHM counts as a "technical report", in the sense that research labs and university computer science departments sometimes publish technical reports (none of us have seen the document, but the CHM catalog classes it as a "manual", which is a rather different category of document)–so I take it you are commenting on the technical report Raphman was talking about writing? In the later case, it's a bit hypothetical for this AFD since it hasn't been written yet. But, in any case, the status of technical reports as reliable sources depends a lot on factors like how respected the authors are and how widely cited it is. I don't think it can be disputed that conference proceedings and journals are higher quality reliable sources (which hence should be given more weight), because there is more review, and being more noticeable it is more likely than any questionable or controversial claims will be challenged by other researchers. A technical report which is issued by a well-known and respected researcher, at a respected institution, and which is widely cited, is obviously worth a lot more than one written by less qualified authors and which everyone ignores. This is why I said technical reports are "borderline"–whether they are RS, and their quality as RS, varies from technical report to technical report, and the quality/reliability variability is arguably greater for TRs than for conference proceedings and journals. And for GNG purposes, RS quality is a relevant consideration–if there is a smaller number of sources, it's more important that they be higher quality, whereas when there are many sources, the individual quality of any of those sources is less important. SJK (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 22:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while this is very interesting, this entire article is clearly an autobiography and original research. No evidence of outside coverage is provided, only internal manuals. Blythwood (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No objective secondary coverage, which is unsurprising for an internally-developed and internally-used system. Tech paper or not, a source that is written by the creator can't be considered reliable, because it isn't independent, and any sort of museum acquisition is always subjective. MSJapan (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova men's national ice hockey team[edit]

Moldova men's national ice hockey team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

They were an IIHF associate member, but it does not have a national team nor played in any international competition. The country did not registered at least one player. – AaronWikia (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've likewise found no evidence that Moldova's ever fielded a national team. It certainly has never appeared in an IIHF-sanctioned competition, let alone the worlds, and has never been ranked in the IIHF national rankings (which happens for teams that, well, play games). The national federation's website doesn't reference any such team, and indeed sponsors only two club teams. Ravenswing 00:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: They are not allowed to field a team in IIHF events yet, and there is no evidence they play friendly games against other sporting bodies (like Greece and Ireland do).18abruce (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - national team doesn't exist. Moldova's yet to play an official international game. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 00:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are two ice rinks, but no IIHF standard rink exists. – AaronWikia (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NSPORTS. Insufficient source provide significant coverage of this sports league organization. A search for other sources doesn't to come up with much, therefore fails WP:N. – AaronWikia (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Morris (manager)[edit]

Dave Morris (manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a talent manager and record producer, which is referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other people and shows no evidence that he's the subject of any reliable source coverage in his own right. As well, this is a dead cert WP:COI, since the creator's username is the name of the article topic's management company. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody is entitled to write an article about themselves just because they exist -- it's an encyclopedia, on which reliable source coverage that verifies passage of a notability criterion must be shown for an article to become earned. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable talent manager.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur with nom, no coverage. Most of the reference just confirm he exists. MB (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Cook (music producer)[edit]

Phil Cook (music producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a songwriter and record producer with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The referencing here is parked entirely on primary sources, with not even one piece of reliable source coverage in media shown at all. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; he must be the subject of media coverage which verifies that he passes a notability criterion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not notable, no independent coverage. MB (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asrary school riyadh[edit]

Asrary school riyadh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A practically non-existent blurb about an individual school Kaobear (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no claim to notability whatsoever. MB (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Know Thyself[edit]

Know Thyself (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that it passes WP:NBOOKS. Article about the book's author is currently tagged with a BLPPROD. PROD contested by article's creator. I have given them time to add additional WP:RS to the article but it looks as if none are forthcoming. shoy (reactions) 13:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only halfway decent source I can find is this review in Afternoon, a tabloid newspaper, and that's not even remotely enough to pass NBOOK. The only other things were a handful of WP:SPS like blogs and e-commerce sites selling the book. This is actually mildly promotional, but not so much that I'd say that it would be speedyable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel kenneth (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Adding a more targeted source search, since the title is very common. Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I am unable to find anything better than Tokyogirl79. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blancco Technology Group plc[edit]

Blancco Technology Group plc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is marketing, was created by a single-purpose account, and is on a non-notable subject. ChiveFungi (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve - I was tempted to nominate this speedy G11, as it is quite promotionally worded as noted by the nominator. But it doesn't need a complete rewrite, just a lot of pruning. And the company is notable: it was previously named Regenersis, and before that it was Fonebak, plenty of coverage of those online from WP:RS including the FT and Motley Fool. It's tricky for a company to be listed on the LSE and not have significant press coverage. OnionRing (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article needs a lot of work. Refs are a mess and the article has lots of puffery and unsourced material. Unless done before the AfD is closed I suggest moving it to draft space.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and No Draft for now, at least, as I have found only a few several press releases so far, and no solid news sources so far to suggest the currently unacceptable version can be better improved thus Delete entirely. SwisterTwister talk 00:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "Activist investor Hanvover lifts stake in Regenersis to 14%". The Scotsman. 2011-02-03. Archived from the original on 2016-06-17. Retrieved 2016-06-17.

      The article notes:

      HANOVER Investors, the activist shareholder which orchestrated a boardroom coup at media group STV three years ago, has built up a significant stake in Scotland's second largest electronics employer.

      ...

      Oxford-based Regenersis bought Scottish tycoon Richard Emanuel's Inchinnan-based mobile phone repair business Total Repair Solutions (TRS) in 2009 in a 6.25m deal.

      Regenersis employs around 1,100 staff between its Inchinnan site and at Glenrothes, where it repairs laptops, set-top boxes, iPods and satellite navigation systems. TRS, which has been rebranded Regenersis Glasgow, employs 600 at its site close to Glasgow airport.

    2. "Hanover forces a revolution at Regenersis". The Scotsman. 2011-02-08. Archived from the original on 2016-06-17. Retrieved 2016-06-17.Mo<The article notes:

      Oxford-based Regenersis bought Scottish tycoon Richard Emanuel's Inchinnan-based mobile phone repair business Total Repair Solutions (TRS) in 2009 in a 6.25 million deal. The company employs some 1,100 staff between its Inchinnan site and at Glenrothes, where it repairs laptops, set-top boxes, iPods and satellite navigation systems.

      Shares in Regenersis closed up 3p at 71.5p yesterday, their highest level for more than 12 months, and valuing the company at 32m.

    3. "Share wather: Regenersis backers rewarded". The Scotsman. 2014-03-09. Archived from the original on 2016-06-17. Retrieved 2016-06-17.

      The article notes:

      INVESTORS who had faith in the turnaround plans announced at gadget repair firm Regenersis – one of Scotland’s largest electronics employers – just over three years ago have been rewarded handsomely.

      ...

      In an update last week, the company said it had secured a number of business wins including a deal with a global mobile network operator in Germany, where it will ­manage device trade-in programmes. Other customers which it has secured agreements with include several insurance clients in northern Europe and a major operator in South Africa. Together the contracts are expected to have an annualised revenue of at least £10 million once they reach their full speed.

    4. Gourley, Perry (2014-03-31). "Gadget repairer Regenersis raises £100m". The Scotsman. Archived from the original on 2016-06-17. Retrieved 2016-06-17.

      The article notes:

      Gadget repairer Regenersis – one of Scotland’s biggest employers – is raising £100 million and buying a Finnish software company as it looks to build its presence in the expanding market for data erasure services.

      ...

      Regenersis, which employs over 500 in Scotland, also said yesterday that the group’s trading since 31 December remains in line with market expectations.

    5. Wembridge, Mark (2012-09-28). "Small-cap week: Regenersis back in black". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2016-06-17. Retrieved 2016-06-17.

      The article notes:

      Aim-traded Regenersis, which repairs consumer electronics for companies including Acer, Nokia, Samsung, Orange, LG and Toshiba, was further boosted when it reported a 13 per cent jump in full-year revenues to £139.9m.

      ...

      Regenersis, which operates from 22 sites across 12 countries, has been looking to further expand into emerging markets, where margins are broader and customers are eager to take on extra services such as warranties and refurbishing.

    6. Davies, Sally; Pooler, Michael (2014-04-16). "Regenersis purchase of Blancco exploits data privacy push". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2016-06-17. Retrieved 2016-06-17.

      The article notes:

      Aim-quoted Regenersis was approving the €60m acquisition of Finland’s Blancco, whose clients include Nasa, the US army and Siemens.

      Think of it as the digital equivalent of a paper-recycler buying the world’s best back-office shredder, at a time when people are paranoid about ensuring that confidential documents are destroyed.

      It is a “stunning acquisition”, says Ben Thefaut, analyst at UK broker Arden Partners. At 14 times historic earnings, the purchase price – to be paid almost entirely in cash from the proceeds of a £100m placing at 345p a share – is a bargain that reflects the lack of a competitive tender process, he says.

    7. Gourley, Perry (2016-01-14). "Regenersis sparks interest from potential buyers". The Scotsman. Archived from the original on 2016-06-17. Retrieved 2016-06-17.

      The article notes:

      Gadget repairer Regenersis, a significant employer in Scotland, yesterday said it had received interest from a number of potential purchasers for part of its business following a strategic review.

    8. Agnihotri, Aastha (2014-03-31). "Regenersis buys data erasure firm; shares jump". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2016-06-17. Retrieved 2016-06-17.

      The article notes:

      IT outsourcing company Regenersis Plc RGS.L said it bought Blancco Oy Ltd, a Finnish data erasure company, for 60 million euros to win business from upcoming data security regulations in Europe.

      Shares in Regenersis jumped as much as 12 percent after it announced the purchase, of which 58.7 million euros ($80.7 million) will be paid in cash and the rest in stock.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Blancco Technology Group PLC to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: there is a huge possibility of improvement but the article is a mess Daniel kenneth (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel kenneth (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources provided by Cunard show the article subject is notable. Problems with article content can be solved by keeping and pruning rather than deleting. SJK (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special trig limits[edit]

Special trig limits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet wp:GNG, no relevant context. Almost all statements in lead are unsourced. Opening statement is incomplete or even wrong, as these limits can be easily calculated with Hopital's rule DVdm (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as essay (or possibly how-to guide of bad quality).
On a side note, the method used to find lim (1-cos x)/(sin x) requires (1) an non-trivial separation as a product of two terms (it only works because at least one of the two terms has a nonzero defined limit) and (2) former knowledge of two non-trivial limits, sin x / x and sin x / (1 - cos x). Not exactly impressive. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This page looks like what you'd find on note sheets given by teachers to their students. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and any content on this page should be put in, if not already in, existing math articles. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, except it would be a bad teacher. There is no valuable content as far as I can see. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Webbed Feet UK[edit]

Webbed Feet UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a web design company, which makes no strong claim to passing WP:CORP. The sourcing here is entirely to primary sources (a business directory, a list of members of its local chamber of commerce and one of its own websites), with the exception of a single local newspaper article which namechecks its existence while failing to be about it. This is not the type of sourcing it takes to get a company into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As the nomination says, an article sourced to a business listing and a local paper mention, and my searches are not locating better. A firm going about its business but not of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have several local newspaper articles about our company but they are not available online, we have the clippings here but don't know how to use them in regards to referencing. 81.149.15.65 (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is nothing against such articles being listed (either here or on the article Talk page), though obviously they are more awkward for others to verify. However please note WP:AUD. AllyD (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "breakfast club talk" article doesn't assist at all, because it's not coverage of the company — it's just a blurb announcing that the company founder is giving a speech about something. It takes more than simply being able to verify that a thing exists — we need coverage in which the company is the subject of substantive reporting, which isn't the same thing as simply being mentioned in articles about other things. I also need to advise you to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules — being a direct representative of the company does not mean you can't edit the article at all, I assure you, but it does mean you need to take extra caution to ensure that you're not crossing over the line into misusing Wikipedia as a public relations platform rather than a neutral encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP], WP is not a business directory. Not notable, one of tens of thousands of businesses. MB (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barihi Adetunji[edit]

Barihi Adetunji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

subject fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nomination. Not notable enough. Coderzombie (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worthy local scholar but notability not yet there. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adhitya Iyer[edit]

Adhitya Iyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, the person doesn't seem to have done/achieved much that could be worth writing about. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Yash! 15:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article lacks quality secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Could have been speedied G11, but this nomination focuses on notability. It's referenced only by an article written by the subject, and I can't find significant coverage online in WP:RS. I tried to add a reference I found on YourStory, but that URL has been blacklisted, which makes me doubt its suitability as a WP:RS. OnionRing (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Funimation voice actors[edit]

List of Funimation voice actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems a rather arbitary topic to base a list off of, with a completely arbitrary set of rules for what qualifies someone as a "Funimation voice actor." Have seen no evidence that such people are ever referred to in the press and wider world as "Funimation voice actors." Brustopher (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 15:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The lead basically gives it away as a complete WP:OR list.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (copied from my comments on the related CFD) Funimation does not have an in-house voice acting staff. Practically all of the voice actors are contractors, as with others in the voice acting community. In Japan, the voice actors can be categorized by their talent agency but they are not categorized with certain production companies. On the flip side, producers and staff could be grouped with their production companies. Voice directors and writers are a gray area as it's not clear whether they are full-fledged employees or contractors by project. This also raised a lot of problems with actors that were not based in Funimation creeping onto the list because of their mere association on less than a handful of licensed or acquired shows, even though their dub recording company was not Funimation. A lot of those actors would not qualify per WP:CATDEF which says it should be a defining characteristic of the subject. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list is misleading (per Angus) WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above, this is a rather arbitrary list. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arbitrary grouping of voice actors and having worked for Funimation is not a defining feature. Not to mention the inclusion criteria is original research. AngusWOOF sums it up really well. Opencooper (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Almafeta (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Requesting to keep without citing a valid reason is not helpful for the consensus Ajf773 (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We already have a category of this, and I have given my thoughts on that article there. Having it twice is redundant. Before we delete it however, we should probably make articles for some of the actors that meet our criteria, such as Joel McDonald, Jessica Cavanagh, Ed Blaylock, Elizabeth Maxwell, and Ricco Fajardo.Mumbai0618 (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Mumbai0618[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFANSITE. Entirely unsourced and most probably original research. Ajf773 (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Mogadiscio. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Somalia[edit]

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Somalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of one item is not a list. This was deprodded with no rationale other than "potentially controversial", although I seriously doubt this will be anything but a SNOW delete. Assuming it is, I'll mass-nominate the other one-diocese lists that were deprodded. ~ RobTalk 14:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close WP:NPASR  No argument for deletion.  No WP:BEFORE preparation.  STEM skills would help, too.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused with, well, everything you just said. How does WP:NPASR, which relates to discussions that have received no comments after seven days, have any bearing on this discussion? WP:BEFORE has been done for this nomination; no other dioceses exist to expand the list. And "a list that links to one article isn't useful" is certainly a valid deletion rationale. Consider potential lists such as List of teams called the Green Bay Packers and List of presidents with the last name Obama and consider whether we really want to set the precedent for creating an article which has the sole purpose of listing a set of one. How does that benefit our readers? And a vague personal attack on my STEM skills is perhaps not the most accurate way to attack someone who holds a degree in pure mathematics and is studying in a math-heavy PhD program. ~ RobTalk 15:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you've ever heard of an "empty list", then it follows that a list has zero or more elements.  [3] provides a reference.  The last time I was involved in such a discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airlines of Greenland, I found 1.3 Million GHits on the term "empty list".  The next link is to WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL, which is identified as an argument to avoid at deletion discussions.  "It is not useful" is not a policy-based argument for deletion, unless you invoke WP:IAR.  Sorry about the confusion with the link WP:NPASR, but NPASR means "No Prejudice Against Speedy Renomination".  The point remains that a speedy close or speedy keep remains in order.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your question, "do we want list articles with one entry", I posted in the Greenland-airline AfD that I'm fine with list articles that have zero entries.  The result of that AfD was "keep".  Unscintillating (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL says that saying "It's not useful" is an argument to avoid when you don't give a reason why it's not useful. I have given such a reason. An empty set is a set, but that doesn't mean we need to have empty sets on Wikipedia, given that they serve no encyclopedic purpose. The other AfD you linked was a rather poor reading of consensus, given that all arguments for inclusion were simply claims that other stuff exists, and such arguments are extremely weak. Further, it's from 2011, and consensus can change. When all is said and done, this is an encyclopedia. If no editors can articulate a single reason why an article benefits our readers, even a niche group of readers, then it should not be kept. Also, please note that WP:SAL, a guideline, states that lists are "series of items formatted into a list". Note the plural on items. Also, if this were newly created, it would be eligible for speedy deletion as WP:A10, since a list of one with nothing outside of a link to the one article duplicates the information of that article. ~ RobTalk 20:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Empty sets are not empty lists.  You've not established any technical reason to begin a discussion of empty sets.  If you know the difference, then the argument that "empty sets serve no encyclopedic purpose" is indistinguishable from a red herring.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Greyhawk deities. MBisanz talk 02:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olidammara[edit]

Olidammara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish notability, only relying on primary sources. TTN (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Greyhawk deities. I'll note that this was done to Hextor a little bit ago, and stipulate that most of these fictional deities are not likely to have independent RS'ing, and merging ALL of them in a consistent manner is likely a better use of our time than repeated AfD's. Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone wants to do it, I'll hold off on AfDs. If you can get a consensus I can refer to in the edit summaries, I'll do it myself. It's just that nobody ever actually follows through with doing it. TTN (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PageCarton[edit]

PageCarton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I placed a WP:PROD on a previous instance of this article, with a rationale of "No evidence that this newly-released software has attained notability." The article is sourced only to a primary site and Github, and my searches are identifying nothing better, so I am bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the previous Prod. AllyD (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete' Concur with nom. I could not find a single valid reference. MB (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's clear consensus to delete here. Of the two people arguing to keep, one is the article's creator, and the other provided no policy-based arguments or sources. And, while Peter Rehse didn't provide a bolded, one-word statement, his analysis speaks to deletion.

@Australianblackbelt:, if you like, I'll be happy to undelete this and move it back into your user space (or, even better, into draft space). Just drop me a note at User talk:RoySmith. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Lim[edit]

Terry Lim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable martial artist lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep  No need to look for sources or review WP:BEFORE as the article already shows that the topic has been attracting the attention of the world at large for a long time (nutshell WP:N).  Unscintillating (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos on the hyperbole - but the sources don't demonstrate long-term, international recognition.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lim is also an actor, known for Macbeth (2006) as the Chinese Businessman, It's Him... Terry Lim! as himself (2011) and Metal Warrior (2011) as The Secret Weapon. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2397814/ (Australianblackbelt (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Minor roles, such as "Chinese businessman" do not help anyone pass notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's him... Terry Lim, is a documentary about him played by himself directed by a notable Australian director this the point of focus in my comment not that minor role u mentioned (Australianblackbelt (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment As it stands the subject does not meet either WP:NACTOR or WP:MANOTE. I also don't think he meets WP:GNG but perhaps there is more out there. I'll hold off voting for a bit - the AfD was started a bit too quick.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as an actor or martial artist. Don't know if the online paper the Latin Australian Times is a reliable source or not, but most of the article appears to be about his student. The only way WP:GNG is met is if the documentary is considered enough to meet it. I don't think so (and even then it's just one source). These days anyone can make a movie and enter a film festival, so it's not the big deal it used to be. I don't think GNG is met.Mdtemp (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mdtemp First of all The Latin Australian times is not an online paper it is a national paper available in every state hard copy See front cover=>>> http://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/LAT-front-715x1024.jpg Second of all the documentary is notmade by 'just anybody it was directed by Angus Ampson=>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Sampson Lastly Terry Lim has everything stated in the article in print on the newspaper (Australianblackbelt (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Hold off on deleting... as it says in his documentary he has 19 clubs and 3000 members in the martial art he created, population in Melbourne is 3.5 million. More source items will come up soon. (Australianblackbelt (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
You can ask that the article is userfyed - and work on it there if the decision is to delete.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peter Rehse What's going on here??? This article was nominated for deletion on the same day it was created... Can you read Spanish reddogsix?? The Latin Australian Times is a National newspaper in Spanish, I had a lot of help from Dragonfly6-7 writing this article (Australianblackbelt (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Of course, why would you even ask? BTW - the first two references will have to removed since they refer to items that per Wikipedia violate copyright laws. If you wish to use these articles, you will need to refer to the original location of the article created by the copyright owner. reddogsix (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for the heads up reddogsix, The references are of a hard copy newspaper not online, forgive my ignorance but how would they be used in this case? (Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
My pleasure, you would have to remove the reference to the current page and if the pages are not available online you can change the reference to the print version of the article. reddogsix (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip reddogsix it is now done set as print edition (Australianblackbelt (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Based on the references given at the article and my own search, I do not see the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. He does not meet any of the notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE. Creating his own martial art is not an indicator of notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious spam by COI editor, nothing to discuss Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Westleigh Gardens[edit]

Westleigh Gardens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spam, advertising Lukasz - Discussion 11:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merged to Anthony Bailey (campaigner). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Marie-Therese of Hohenberg[edit]

Princess Marie-Therese of Hohenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet a single one of the criteria for WP notability under WP:N. Only 'independent' source of information (not connected with her husband) is a gossip interview in a local newspaper. No evidence of any achievements or activities. 'Distinctions' are awards also given to her husband, according to the sources given, which offer no reason why she was 'awarded' them. None of these awards appear notable to the standards of WP:NCNOB and most have no WP articles relating to them. In other words, pure WP:PROMOTION.--Smerus (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Smerus states, does not meet any notability guidelines. In my opinion this page was created as part of a sockpuppet farm controlled by or closely connected to her husband. CaribbeanTruth (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Anthony Bailey (campaigner), where she and their son are currently only mentioned in the infobox. A brief mention of her Habsburg connections and perhaps of the son would probably be enough (I would be inclined to something like, "His wife, Marie-Therese, is a great-granddaughter of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. They have one son, Maximilian." These two facts would not be undue in her husband's article and, while somewhat inadequately sourced at the moment, look as if they could probably be reliably sourced from passing remarks in news stories.) PWilkinson (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree this could be an appropriate solution, and will carry it out subject to any other comments.--Smerus (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per PWilkinson. Excellent solution. Merge leaves bluelink, thus avoids recreating article, plus, should her accomplishments later meet GNG, no problem just expanding the article as needed. Montanabw(talk) 05:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now carried out merge as suggested above. Can someone now close this please?--Smerus (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arsenal F.C. individual awards[edit]

List of Arsenal F.C. individual awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination; I've just declined a WP:PROD on this on the grounds that whatever decision is made regarding the viability of this list is likely to set a significant precedent for the coverage of other sports teams, so deserves a full discussion. Procedural nomination, so I abstain.  ‑ Iridescent 10:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Leicester City F.C. individual awards by JMHamo.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a list too far. Wikipedia is not a football almanac. 77.130.194.95 (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And also delete List of Leicester City F.C. individual awards. 77.130.194.95 (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply not needed, far too much, WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 11:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a list for the sake of it; depending on the outcome of this AfD, I suggest we put the other similar articles up for AfD too. Spiderone 11:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not really needed. There's not really enough information that warrants an individual article rather than just being added to the actual player/manager articles. Kosack (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination. Not really needed. Coderzombie (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not needed. TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Instead, add a *heavily* shortened version on the main page of only the important awards. As long as a link to the Arsenal.com winner history is present then. DJBay123 (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is interesting the sort of articles we would find a consensus to keep based on a trivial reference to a stats website (for instance one-time appearances in the Albanian second tier), whilst on the other hand there is an overwhelming consensus for deleting lists like this. A bit of a double standard methinks.

    However, I have to agree with deleting here, because such awards can be covered not only in the individual's articles, but also in the clubs' season articles. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete These can be covered in individuals' and club season articles. This and many similar lists exist for the sake of existing, and I would !vote to delete all such lists that are not truly encyclopedic. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the kind of nerds who are interested in this kind of thing will happily dig through all the player articles and season articles to find them and probably have nothing better to do with their time. Siuenti (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Gaither (artist)[edit]

David Gaither (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable artist, does what artists do (paint pictures, show work etc) but does not meet WP:ARTIST. One show at the Tubman Museum does not confer notability. Appears to have started out as an autobiography. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meisam Tabatabaei[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Meisam Tabatabaei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NACADEMICS: The government award he received was only awarded twice (2010 and 2015) and is not a well-known and significant award or honor by any means (WP:ANYBIO). The person is an editor-in-chief of Biofuel Research Journal but this certainly is not any major, well-established academic journal as required by NACADEMICS - see deletion discussion. No other claims to notability or significance are there in the article.

Additionally, worth noting that the article has already been deleted once as a result of AfD, with a few "keep" !votes added then by a number of single-purpose accounts. The current creator, User:Meisam tab, was recently investigated for COI [4] where he claimed not to be Meisam Tabatabaei, and requested user rename. All this gives an impression of attempts to game the system. — kashmiri TALK 09:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC) — kashmiri TALK 09:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The earlier AfD was nearly 7 years ago, and the deleted article didn't include the claims in the present one of being editor in chief of a journal and president of a society, which (if either is significant, something I haven't ascertained) could be enough to pass WP:PROF. So I think we should hold a full AfD rather than going for a G4 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (provisional). A GS h-index of 20 is borderline for a well-cited field. I am suspicious about the GS citation pattern, which looks like a walled-garden of group self-citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Doctor Strange. The only exclusive keep argument did not cite any policy-based reasons (plus one other argument which simply cited the first one). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book of the Vishanti[edit]

Book of the Vishanti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a minor facet of Doctor Strange that does not have sources to establish independent notability. It does not require coverage outside of the parent article. TTN (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, it's a very large facet of Doc Strange, please read the accurate page to see its importance in the storyline. Quite notable. In need of cites, but the leap from no cites on a notable topic to delete is huge indeed, and should be taken rarely. Randy Kryn 00:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument has nothing to do with satisfying the notability guideline. That's your own personal interpretation of some vague scale of notability. That's an attitude more suited to Wikia where this kind of information is freely welcome. It's certainly not impossible for a topic like this to establish notability, but sources need to be put forth to actually show that. As it stands, this deserves all of two sentences in the main article. TTN (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saket Suman[edit]

Saket Suman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, no coverage in sources other than his own published articles. Possible WP:COI, repeatedly recreated. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I second that "salt" proposal. However, are you sure his/her strategy to sway this AfD (with socks) isn't working? :>) --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - no RS found to demonstrate notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zero coverage in RS as far as I can ascertain. SmartSE (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and salt fails N, under promotional pressure. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Creator of the page blanked the contents of the article (not including the template) Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have undone that. Better to let the AfD run its course. I'm sure this will be recreated soon after it gets deleted and this way we can then speedy it as G4. If we G7 it now, we cannot really salt it either. --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Walton[edit]

Thomas J. Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this in RC after an IP added blatant attack content (some of which stood for days). I did not see coverage indicating this gentleman would pass WP:NACTOR or WP:DIRECTOR, or WP:GNG for that matter. He had many uncredited roles or bit parts in major studio films, and is apparently making independent films, but I could not find reviews or coverage aside from the article here linked in the article. Please correct me on this if I am wrong and this is enough coverage. MisterRandomized (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur with nom. Other than the one local Philadelphia article, I found no coverage. MB (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Rock Radio[edit]

Energy Rock Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Internet radio station which lacks coverage in reliable sources. Other than a single press release, Google News has no hits, while a regular Google search results mostly in profiles in unreliable websites (i.e. Facebook). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject has no coverage in any news sources, neither are any of the shows mentioned. Only one of the sources listed has more than a single passing mention of the subject; some never mention the subject at all and therefore should not be cited. —Prhartcom♥ 13:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Internet radio services are not granted an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA. An internet radio stream can get into Wikipedia if it's the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, but it is not entitled to an inclusion freebie just because it exists. And the sourcing here is not good enough to satisfy GNG; about half of it, in fact, is of the primary sourcing variety that contributes nothing toward demonstrating a topic's notability, and most of what's left is unreliable sourcing like Blogspot blogs — the closest thing to a reliable source here (which is not to say that it's all that close, because it isn't, but it's six inches closer to one than anything else here is) is an article about a person who hosts a show on the service, but which fails to mention that fact at all. None of this, neither the sourcing nor the substance, clears the bar at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anti-consumerism. MBisanz talk 02:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enoughism[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Enoughism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term does not appear to extend beyond the ideas of anti-consumerism and simple living. A mention of this neologism in anti-consumerism would be sufficient, where it could be better explained in the context of the bigger concept of anti-consumerism. The article was deleted in the last AFD on the grounds of notability in 2011, and I can find no evidence online from WP:RS that this neologism has become any more notable. OnionRing (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No argument advanced that the subject meets our notability criteria. Note: I'll be happy to provide copies of the deleted material to folks who'd like to move this information to Wikia. Cheers, --joe deckertalk 13:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest characters in Charmed[edit]

List of guest characters in Charmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I appreciate all of the work put into creating these articles, they fail WP:PLOT, WP:WAF and WP:FICT. They only use primary sources and I do not believe there is not secondary, reliable sources to support articles on guest stars from specific seasons of a show. Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest characters in Charmed (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of guest characters in Charmed (season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of guest characters in Charmed (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of guest characters in Charmed (season 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of guest characters in Charmed (season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Yeah, someone(s) put a lot of work into these. And, yeah – this kind of thing seems much at home at a Wikia rather than Wikipedia. I agree that this is likely not appropriate level of detail for Wikipedia, and am leaning in the direction that deletion of the suite of these articles is the appropriate course of action here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comment. I agree with you; this is much more appropriate for a Wikia than on here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Indiscriminate wikia material, just to support the one-episode listing on actor pages to make them even more "notable". Also fancruft. — Wyliepedia 16:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Guest characters in a notable TV series generally aren't in general notable. Encyclopedia articles on a TV series should concentrate on its major elements (which guest characters generally aren't), and even moreso on critical reception and cultural impact. A handful of guest characters might be notable (especially if played by a notable actor) but listing every guest character is too much detail for an encyclopedia. It's more the role of Wikia or IMDB or something like that. SJK (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this would only need to include notable and acceptable people, this is vulnerable to being blown away by multiple and multiple names listed, not all notable....The basis is basically there's nothing to suggest a separate list like this is needed as we are not IMDb. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of Elijah[edit]

The Order of Elijah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Speedy Delete. Unable to find independent reliable coverage of this band. Most sources provided are primary and/or self-promotional. Non-notable band. Lots of sources in the article, but there are either primary sources, places to buy their music, or one story regurgitated that was repeated on numerous sites sourced more than once. The only source that I thought might be promising is spirit-of-metal.com but in taking a closer look - that site accepts self-submissions. Some links are also dead, no longer linking, or fan based forum type reviews. The only other coverage pertains to the singers change in religious position, that does not necessarily stand as a good source per Wikipedia standards of notability, and that does not qualify as significant coverage of the bands music, or catalog. Sources are blogs or self promotional, and all information available via google search pertain to singers change in religious standing, not the band or its music. Cannot find any passing criteria for this band at WP:Music. Other sources fail to pass WP:RS. Makk3232 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 18. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE-simple case of not notable band added by some fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.116.210 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is a non-notable internet related article. Non-Notable Band. Fails WP:Music. The Tomoe (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There were some assertions here that sources existed, but none were actually presented. Saying, there are regional news sources (...) that, as a quick search of articles on their website and on Google News will reveal is not as strong an argument (by a long shot) as actually presenting some specific sources, and explaining why they meet WP:RS and WP:N. If somebody can write a properly sourced article on this topic, I don't see any reason they couldn't write a new version (which would really just be a round-about way of implementing NickW557's idea of WP:TNT). But, the sources have to be there, in the article, and sources outside of local coverage would be stronger than just from the Fresno Bee. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno County Sheriff's Office[edit]

Fresno County Sheriff's Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A sheriff's office isn't automatically notable, and this one certainly is isn't (typo!). It used to look like this, when it basically explained what a sheriff's office was; now, recent edits have turned it into what probably looks like a copy of the office's website, including ranks and fallen officers (but not pay scales...). There are no citations from secondary sources, though they could probably be found for the dead officers, but what this needs is reliable sources discussing the office itself--and not this kind of stuff. In-depth discussion please. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify (either delete and recreate as a stub, or just blank 90% of it) - The subject is notable, but the article is WP:TNT. Drmies is right about this resembling the organization's own website, rather than an encyclopedia article. I think we should cut it down to the bare essentials and allow it to be expanded with appropriate content. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 05:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK Nick, but tell me why it's notable. Drmies (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Drmies: Well, to be honest, I read your first sentence "A sheriff's office isn't automatically notable, and this one certainly is." (emphasis mine) and took it to mean that you aren't disputing this organization's notability, but rather the article content. If you are questioning the notability and I read that wrong, then I'm sorry. However, as Unscintillating points out below, there are regional news sources such as the Frenso Bee that, as a quick search of articles on their website and on Google News will reveal, have covered this organization extensively enough to satisfy WP:ORG. Sure, there are some passing mentions, but there are also articles about activities carried out by the FSO that, when considered together, to me satisfy notability. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 03:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and refer to talk page as per WP:DP  This discussion will not result in censoring the topic "Fresno County Sheriff's Office" or the older "Fresno County Sheriff's Department" from our encyclopedia.  The Fresno Bee is a regional newspaper, and the nomination shows no evidence of an attempt to determine the notability of this topic, instead throwing the idea of non-notability out like fish bait, and then claiming in advance that the resulting odor deserves serious discussion.  A notability deletion discussion is clearly a red herring when the topic will remain in the encyclopedia.  The type of notability being discussed here is a content decision, not a deletion decision.  WP:DP states,
Unscintillating (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahem. Unscintillating--WP:Speedy keep? Fo shizzle? Why, pray tell? Vandalism? Am I banned? Yes, the Bee is a reliable source. I sure hope no one finds it surprising that the term "Sheriff's Office" pops up in a Google search of their articles. Does it have anything interesting to say about this office, anything that makes it notable? Do you have any evidence at all that this office is noteworthy? Fish bait? Odor? Please cite evidence of notability or of vandalism (or whatever you wish to claim). Drmies (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't cite anything relevant. You need to cite secondary sources (I'll do it in bold, secondary sources) that prove the subject is notable. You can wikilawyer and cite policy ad nauseam, which you are clearly fond of, but you can't prove that this topic is notable. Drmies (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally agree that content issues aren't a reason for deletion, but I'd point out that WP:TNT is a thing. Sure, it's not policy or even a guideline, but it's an accepted practice to delete content that isn't salvageable and start fresh. Is this at that level? Maybe. Article history shows that this article has never been based on reliable sources. Hence my !vote above to make it a stub one way or another (via deletion/recreation or blanking). I'd oppose a speedy closure of this, though. There's enough to entertain a discussion. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 03:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the talk page of the article before I made my !vote, and there is no indication of problems with the article there such as you are now finding.  WP:BEFORE advocates trying to resolve problems on the talk page of the article before trying to get the article deleted at AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reliable sources?  Since when is a government website not reliable about itself?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since always, Unscintillating--unless you believe everything that every government says about itself. Since police departments aren't inherently notable, you need secondary sources to prove the topic passes GNG. User:NickW557, do not be led astray by this user's verbosity: it's all hot air. They have as yet produced nothing to suggest the subject is notable. Drmies (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for WP:Deletion policy doesn't mean ending content discussion.  Rather it specifically says, as I've quoted above, that the discussion should be referred to the talk page or an appropriate forum.  As quoted above, WP:DP also explicitly mentions WP:RFC as a possible forum for resolving content disputes.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the general case, I don't think individual departments of local governments (counties or cities or districts or whatnot) are notable enough for their own article (of course they could be mentioned on the article of the city/county/etc to which they belong). This implies that county sherriff's offices aren't in general notable. The US has over 3000 counties, almost all of which will either have a sheriff's department (or something with a different name but equivalent function), but that doesn't mean all those ~3000 sheriff's departments are individually notable. Now, for a very large metropolis (e.g. Los Angeles, New York City, London, Tokyo, etc.), individual city/county/etc government departments might actually be notable due to their size. But I don't think that exception applies in this case, since Fresno County, California is under a million people, so an order of magnitude smaller than the cities I mentioned. SJK (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add to my comment, news stories about a county sheriff's office arresting criminals, etc, isn't really good evidence for the notability of that office, since such news stories are generally WP:ROUTINE and primarily about the crime/arrest as opposed to the county sheriff's office itself. Now, if you have media articles where the sheriff's office itself is more the subject – e.g. allegations of corruption, mismanagement, brutality, racial profiling, etc; political conflicts within the sheriff's office or between it and the county government; lawsuits; etc – that kind of stuff could be enough to justify notability of the sheriff's office in its own right. But simply doing its job of arresting criminals etc isn't enough to make it notable, even when that gets reported regularly in the local media. Likewise, local media reports of personnel changes, involvement in charity functions, fluff pieces, etc, again are just routine coverage which doesn't by itself indicate notability. SJK (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG; Sheriff office is not notable law enforcement agency. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as there's simply nothing actually convincing for its own article and that's not surprising, any necessary information would be best mentioned at the locality's article. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waman Kumbhar[edit]

Waman Kumbhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Subject appears to fail relevant guidelines for inclusion due to a lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Best efforts were made WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said sources through online archives and search engines, but were not successful. That said, there may be coverage in another language that are failing to appear otherwise. Please do not hesitate to contact me should evidence of such reporting be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious place to start is the books used as references in the article Sai Baba of Shirdi. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches have found nothing particularly better yet and this is of course a subject with expected non-English no-Internet sources thus is not easily improvable. SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Drapeau[edit]

Scott Drapeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NCOLLATH and GNG. John from Idegon (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Drapeau was the America East Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year, a major award. Also, this source is apparently no longer online, but it was when the article was created and was an entire article on Drapeau in a regional newspaper. It is reference #2 on the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - actually does meet WP:NCOLLATH awards criteria. Conference POY are major awards and listed on Template:Men's college basketball award navbox. I do think the article needs more sources. Rikster2 (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment new ref added. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NCOLLATH. Rlendog (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCOLLATH per Jrcla2 and Rikster2. A men's basketball conference POY award is a major award. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dina (musician)[edit]

Dina (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable musician. Puerile and juvenile fancruft. Quis separabit? 00:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From the equivalent Norwegian article, it appears that the subject, after her initial music career and appearing on some TV programmes, now has a govt. desk job. However, doesn't her no.1 single on her home country chart (now referenced) mean that WP:MUSICBIO #2 is met? AllyD (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unless this is a hoax which I don't believe, topping her native country's charts makes her notable. Blythwood (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Blythwood. Montanabw(talk) 08:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, deletion reason not corroborated. Geschichte (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable. Several hit singles, still semi-active as a music artist. Manxruler (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_June_18&oldid=1142622065"