Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 March	17 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Eckerson[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability guideline for people. I was unable to find any reliable, independent sources via Google, just passing mentions. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all content beyond the lead is based on primary sources or unreferenced. In parts the article is unduly promotional. I found no better sources via Google News or Google Books, making it impossible to improve the article. The subject doesn't meet WP:BIO or the general notability guideline. Huon (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Whenever I see Linkedin used as a source, I get a bad taste in my mouth. I would agree that notability is not being met here, as evident by the recursive sources (either to his company or his book, not anything external to himself) Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decibel Insight[edit]

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

Serious COI issues, promotional in tone. Has a couple of sources - CNBC interview with CEO and telegraph article. Supposedly won an adobe award. Not sure if this is enough to confer notability. In any instance, if the verdict is keep, this article will need serious tidying-up. Rayman60 (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete company has not yet attracted significant coverage.--Jahaza (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know if I accept a few corporate interest pieces and an industry-internal award as invoking notability. I couldn't recall the number of CEOs or businesses given a profile by whatever news source, and I've tried searching any info about that award and found none, as the reference is blocked. Regardless, a non-notable award wouldn't grant notability. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Brand Vision[edit]

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

Vanity page created by employee for non-notable company Rayman60 (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG --CNMall41 (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much more to add, though it appears to be related to Decibel Insight, which incidentally has also been nominated for deletion. And as that article failed WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG, I can't say that this one, containing barely two sentences of material not related to Decibel, fares any better. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FRU (Rapper)[edit]

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

Does not meet music specific notability criteria. XXN, 23:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's essentially just advertising.*Treker (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would not call it advertising per se, but it definitely falls well short of meeting notability guidelines. The only real source I would trust is Blog Talk Radio but that would be an interview and not lend weight towards notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For all its sources and external links, it sure has little to say about it's subject other than to list his releases. Additionally, if y'all will forgive my playing detective, it's awfully suspicious that the article was created by User:Rapperman1, whose only contributions are the creation and updating of the article. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for reference. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Useless article. no notability here. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - open and shut case of self-promotion of non-notable artist. Rayman60 (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as this is all still questionable for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 21 March 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. ‎(G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban)

C.k Morgan (Daflyboy)[edit]

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

Does not meet music specific notability criteria. XXN, 22:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastián Díaz[edit]

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

No evidence this footballer meets WP:GNG or has played in a fully pro league. C 679 22:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 22:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C 679 22:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY as Chilean 2nd league is not fully professional, and also fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Sourdive[edit]

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

Unable to find sources to demonstrate that either WP:BIO or WP:PROF are met. SmartSE (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability is not established in the article. A precis CV != notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable at best for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the looks of the primary sourcing, this could very well be an accomplished researcher, but we have no independent reliable sources which might go towards establishing notability for our purposes here. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:52, 23 March 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. czar 21:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MathLeap[edit]

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

Unable to find WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-sourced web site. Could be speedied under A7 (web content with no indication of significance) or G11 (unambiguously promotional). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DE. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too soon at best, not enough coverage. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 21 March 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 apparently (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Frederick Warmbier[edit]

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

He is a nonnotable college student. He got in the news for one event, getting convicted of stealing a propaganda banner in North Korea and getting sentenced to 15 years hard labor. Per WP:BLP1E. Edison (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't one off coverage of a single event, there's already three months' worth of ongoing and persistent coverage in numerous highly reliable sources. He's very likely to continue to be in the news for years to come as well. Page will develop just like Kenneth Bae, which is fairly lengthy. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides, this person has attracted media attention (and thus public interest) from all over the world. Cheers from Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Mcouzijn (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It isn't one event, it has been an ongoing story. Puffysphere (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many sources, useful info for other would-be "perpetrators". Zezen (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. We are a country of freedom of speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:37F0:6A70:5141:9D44:F700:7E96 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While "freedom of speech" doesn't exactly apply here on Wikipedia, I do note that we have similar articles for people like Merrill Newman, John Short, Matthew Todd Miller, Jeffrey Edward Fowle, Hyeon Soo Lim, and Kim Dong Chul, among others. This article, like the others, has had consistent coverage from sources around the world. 96.246.144.195 (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an ongoing event that will continue to develop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.44.208.83 (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "One event" doesn't mean something or someone is non-notable. This is international, high-profile news involving major political figures and entities. Nominating the subject for deletion is absurd.Adrigon (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only an arrest but also conviction. Very likely not to be a one off event in relation to this person. Mootros (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Adrigon, Mootros etc. JS (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin I moved the page from Otto Frederick Warmbier to Otto Warmbier per Wiki policy of WP:COMMONNAME (as I noted in the edit summary, the vast majority of sources do not use his middle name). FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While personally I believe people like Warmbier who are notable only for being imprisoned by North Korea should be compiled into one article like Foreign prisoners of North Korea, it seems the consensus is this article should be kept, so I vote to close this discussion per WP:SNOWBALL. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly a notable incident, worthy of inclusion on WP. - ^theWOLFchild 18:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment, since the incident is more notable, as opposed to the person, perhaps a rename is in order? Either way, the page should be kept. - ^theWOLFchild 18:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Parts 2 and 3 of BLP1E are not satisfied. Freed DPRK prisoners generally remain somewhat well known, if not household names. And through his choice to vacation in NK, Warmbier's role in what happened was significant -- Americans are warned all the time not to travel to NK, specifically because this might happen. Kid wanted North Korea, and he got North Korea. Townlake (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a classic example of victim blaming. The article itself mentions that several other Americans left the country without incident. Since he took the propaganda banner, he is partly responsible for what happened, but implying that he deserves this harsh punishment is rude. – Alensha ^talk 11:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My post is tied directly to the criteria listed in BLP1E. It's not my place to assign "blame." Townlake (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although it could practically be renamed to reflect the incident since it is a 1E scenario. B137 (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: individual alone isn't notable, but the event is. The article could be renamed like B137 suggested. -- ChamithN (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep It shows what North Korea is like. North Korea will sell him one day for some food or machines. -- Querstange (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is history in the making. Mcintosh3102 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like this event is going to continue for a long time. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most other cases have similar articles: cf. List of Americans detained by North Korea. (20040302 (talk) 12:38, 21 March 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. czar 21:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Klitschko Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable un-referenced foundation. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The suggested merge warrants maybe a single line in Klitschko brothers. I felt a deletion was the better path.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not seem to be anything worth merging, and there's no real point in a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, no better context and none of this satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 21 March 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 Software sampler#Software-based samplers. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 09:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soundplant[edit]

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

Several side-mentions in music mags and a compilation of every time a musician has mentioned the tool. The topic ultimately lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) and, at best, anything that needs to be said about the tool can be said in a one-sentence mention in Software_sampler#Software-based_samplers. czar 11:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar 11:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Software sampler#Software-based samplers per Czar with this edit and per nom. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 13:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Headline articles in CNET and MusicRadar hardly seem like mere "side mentions". Palefighter 06:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC) — Palefighter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

They're asides because they're barely more than a directory listing—we learn nothing about the product apart than that it exists. "Headlines" would imply more depth than exists in these articles: if there's no depth, we can't write an encyclopedia entry. czar 19:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reread the sources and your comments and I have trouble seeing any "lack of depth". Did you notice that the main content of the CNET source is not the text but rather a video on the subject illustrating the program's features and usage? And the Electronic Musician magazine article also details the program's features and offers a respected industry critic's opinion on its quality. These go significantly beyond a "directory listing". Combined with the multiple journal mentions, I'm not sure what further depth is warranted for a multiplatform app with a demonstrably significant user base. Palefighter 05:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ad was almost longer than the video. All the CNET article says, as is accurately sourced in the article, is that this program lets users play sounds with their keyboards (with a few other basic options like volume, etc.) I think the sources show that Soundplant is interesting as a tool—it's listed in these articles among other tools not as an entity on its own, and we should cover accordingly. Everything that is reliably sourced about this tool is already said at Software_sampler#Software-based_samplers. @Compassionate727 czar 15:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as recommended by Compassionate727. The Electronic Musician article is a reasonable start, but the cited sources go sharply downhill from there in quality and depth, and searches found nothing better. As nom notes, anything worth saying on the subject can be said in a sentence or two. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best for now as there are no serious needs for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -referring to it as a "popular digital audio application" as the article currently does is a bit of a stretch. If that was the case, the Google search should be turning up more headlines from early 2000s to now, but its really only showing less than a handful of articles that don't give much info on its history or anything. Significance and notability seem to not be met Burroughs'10 (talk) 21:08, 22 March 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. After three weeks there is certainly no consensus to delete and the arguments for keeping outweigh those for merging/redirecting. Michig (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fire needle acupuncture[edit]

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

Not notable. Of the three sources, two are by "Blue Poppy Enterprises", who offer classes on the technique (i.e., they are not independent). The Journal article is a primary study (with acupuncture as the control) in an obscure, low-impact journal (the article itself is zero impact, see WP:MEDRS). Recommend a redirect to Acupuncture. SummerPhD^v2.0 19:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An overabundance of sources exist covering this specific technique, Japanese Acupuncture: A Clinical Guide, China Medical Abstracts: Internal medicine, Volume 8 ("fire needle acupuncture was most effective with an effective rate of 93%"), Records of the Grand Historian: Han dynasty, Volume 1, A Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine, Chinese Acupuncture, source show that this technique is both historic and study by medical trials. Regardless, it is incorrect to apply WP:MEDRS to non-medical techniques. As per WP:FRINGE, this has been studied by secondary sources therefore notable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a fringe medical topic such as this, we need it to have been "referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers". Your suggestions:

Japanese Acupuncture: A Clinical Guide is from Paradigm Publications, "information about traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture, Japanese acupuncture and other complementary and alternative healing systems to English-speaking readers".[1] This would fall under "promulgators and popularizers".
Zhongshan Medical College mentions another author's report in one sentence, which you quote out of context. That is not extensive.
Records of the Grand Historian is roughly 2000 years old (and roughly as many pages long). I'm not sure what material you wish to include from it, I didn't dig. Certainly it cannot be a "reliable, third-party, published secondary (source) (and) reflect current knowledge."
A Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine also from Paradigm Publications: "promulgators and popularizers".
Chinese Acupuncture, also from Paradigm Publications: "promulgators and popularizers".

We need reputable journals saying something along the lines of "it has not been studied" or some such. Otherwise, we have something that's apparently been dismissed because sticking 500°C (above the melting point of lead) needles into skin might not pass the sniff test.

The sources you started with were no better:

This one says that fire needle acupuncture was tested on cases of "calvus" for a total of 49 "chicken's eyes" of which 38 were "stripped". Is that a biomedical claim? Google tells me a clavus is a kind of fish and chicken's eyes are exactly what you think they are.
This one apparently says it treats bi qi. Again, I have no idea what this is and google couldn't help.
Finally was the zero impact journal, which used acupuncture as the control over fire needle acupuncture. This is not "scientific studies".

With a redirect to acupuncture, we might be able to mention it exists. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Acupuncture#Related_practices with an appropriate mention on the target page. While I could find a few passing mentions in reliable sources (e.g. the "literature search" section of [2]) it certainly falls short of notability criteria and is a honeypot for advertisers (just like the bulk of alt-med articles). Tigraan (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two more sources which mention this extensively Chinese Medical Psychiatry: A Textbook & Clinical Manual and Chinese Acupuncture. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 11:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While there is an abundance of sources, what we need is independent sources. WP:BOMBARDing with tons of citations from primary sources is pointless. Even one good source could be enough, but it needs to be simultaneously (1) covering the subject in detail, (2) reliable, and (3) independent. Tigraan (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two more passing mentions: The first is another from Blue Poppy, the second is another from Paradigm (both "promulgators and popularizers"). - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An independent study is any study not done by the creators or their associates. This technique is older than this generation. Even if the studies is performed by those in the field of acupuncture, studies can still by considered secondary if not done by the creators or promoters of the technique. The chiropractics, studies from within the field can be seen as secondary. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"An independent study is any study not done by the creators or their associates." Wrong. That is an approximate definition of "secondary", not "independent"; there is a difference, see Wikipedia:Party and person. Whether such a definition was accepted in chiropractics-related Wikipedia articles is irrelevant (WP:OTHERSTUFF).

Moreover, by that definition, all sources about (say) acupuncture would be secondary since the original creator has long been dead; I would say that any person that has monetary interest in direct relation with their practice of acupuncture (needle manufacturers and sellers, practicioners, book promoters, etc.) ought to be considered a primary source as they actively take part in the activity they write about (even though they did not invent it). But anyways, even if they are somehow "secondary", they have such an obvious WP:COI that they are not independent. Tigraan (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fringe medical topic. To be notable, we need it to have been "referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers". The obscure pseudo-journal and the two tiny publishers are clearly "promulgators and popularizers". - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability, which says:
For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.
A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season).
I will show below that fire needling has "receive[d] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
1. Chen, Anmin; Ma, Yingfu; Gao, Yuan; Gao, Zhemin (2013). Encyclopedic Reference of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Berlin: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 237. ISBN 366205177X. Retrieved 2016-03-12.
  The book notes:
  
  Fire Needling
  It is an acupuncture method.
  Effect. Expelling cold by warming the meridians and removing cold, clearing and activating meridians and collaterals.
  Method. Puncturing a point quickly with a red-hot needle.
  Indication. Carbuncle and furuncle with pus-pocket not ulcerate, scrofula, nevus verruca, polyp, etc.
2. Villareal, Ruben L. (2003). New Frontiers in Research for Sustainable Development: Lecture Series in Honor of UPLB Chancellor Ruben L. Villareal. Laguna, Philippines: University of the Philippines Los Baños. p. 128. ISBN 9715471846. Retrieved 2016-03-12.
  The book notes in the Google Snippet view:
  Fire needling
  Fire needling may be considered as a combination of conventional acupuncture and cauterization, producing longer lasting effects. It is known for its effects on rheumatism and chronic problems of the back and limbs (FAO, 1 990) ...
3. Yu, Chuan (1995). Traditional Chinese veterinary acupuncture and moxibustion. Beijing: China Agriculture Press (Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China). p. 14. ISBN 7109032809. OCLC 476704732. Retrieved 2016-03-12.
  The book has a section titled "3.3 Fire Needling". The section begins:
  "Fire needling may be considered as a combination of conventional acupuncture and cauterization. This traditional method has the advantage of combining the two methods in one, therefore, its effects are long lasting. Fire needling is known for its effects on rheumatism and chronic problems of the back and limbs. However, this treatment tends to traumatize the acupoints more.
  Technique: (1) Firing the needle. Use only fire needles. The needle is wrapped with ...
  ...
  This method is usually used to bleed acupoints which are difficult to reach (medial side of the limb) or risky to the operator (distal part of the limb). Remarks: (1) The tip of the three-edged needle is fragile; precautions should be taken to prevent its damage. (2) When using wide needles, the blade of the needle must be parallel to the long axis of the vessel in order to prevent severing of the vessel.
4. Liu, Tang-Yi; Leung, Ping-Chung (2012). Evidence-Based Acupuncture. Singapore: World Scientific. p. 131. ISBN 9814483850. Retrieved 2016-03-12.
  The book notes:
  
  10.5 "Fire Needling"
  
  The application of heated needles on ashi points, i.e. directly approaching the focci, as a treatment for RA, is also popular. A study on the puncture effects of ashi points between the neck and spine on 41 RA patients was done. The ashi points were matched with TE 14, LI 15, LI 14; and LI 12, LI 11 and LI 10. For those suffering from wrist pain, the matching acupoints included TE 4, LI 5 and SI 5. These suffering from lower limbs joint pain, the ashi points were matched with EX-LE 5, ST 34, ST 36 and GB 34. Those suffering from ankle joint pain were matched with ST 41 and GB 40. The control group used the same ashi puncture treatment together with oral administration of medication consisting of penicillamine, CTX and ibuprofen. The results showed a total effective rate of 91.11% in the treatment group while only 71.79% was recorded in the group. One-year follow-up also indicated that the risk of recurrence in the treatment group was also less than the control (Wu et al., 2002).
5. Chinese-English dictionary of acupuncture & moxibustion. Beijing: zh:华夏出版社. 1998. p. 40079342. ISBN 7508013778. Retrieved 2016-03-12.
  The book notes in the Google snippets view:
  Fire Needling An acupuncture method, also called red-hot needling, pyro-puncture, or heated needling. That is, to puncture a point quickly with a red-hot needle to treat diseases. It has the functions of warming the meridians and dispelling ...
  The Chinese Wikipedia article about the publisher, zh:华夏出版社, says:
  华夏出版社是中国的一家综合性出版社，位于北京市东直门外香河园北里4号，隶属于中国残疾人联合会，成立于1986年。
  华夏出版社以专业出版为特色，兼顾大众出版与教育出版，出版主题系列包括经济、管理、医学、传播学、西方哲学、社会学、人类学等方面。
  Here is the Google Translate:
  Huaxia Publishing House of China is a comprehensive publishing house, located in Beijing's Dongzhimen Xianghe Park North No. 4, under the China Disabled Persons' Federation, founded in 1986.
  Huaxia Publishing House in professional publishing features, both public and publishing educational publishing, publishing thematic series including economic, management, medicine, communication, Western philosophy, sociology, anthropology and so on.
6. Zhu, Bing; Wang, Hongcai (2011). Case Studies from the Medical Records of Leading Chinese Acupuncture Experts. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. p. 340. ISBN 0857010530. Retrieved 2016-03-12.
  The book notes:
  
  Fire needling. Push the ganglion away to one side, Head the needle on the alcohol burner to red, prick the ganglion deeply, avoiding blood vessels, and squeeze the jelly fluid out.
7. 原一祥 (1997). 汉英双解中医大辞典. Beijing: zh:人民卫生出版社. National Health and Family Planning Commission. p. 217. ISBN 7117023066. Retrieved 2016-03-12.
  The book notes:
  
  Fire Needling A treatment in TCM. It was called puncturing with a red-hot needle in the ancient times. It refers to the therapeutic method of stimulating the affected part with a heated red pyropuncture needle. Manipulation: While aiming it directly at the affected part, insert and then withdraw the needle as rapidly as possible. Indications: large carbuncle, scrofula, neurodermatitis, numbness and pain, etc.
  The Chinese Wikipedia article about the publisher, zh:人民卫生出版社, says:
  人民卫生出版社（简称人卫）是中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会直属的出版社，是中国规模最大的医学专业出版机构。已累计出版图书2万余种，主要有医学教材、参考书和医学科普读物等，涵盖现代医药学和中国传统医药学的所有领域。1995年起出版音像制品和电子出版物，2002年3月成立了下属企业人民卫生电子音像出版社。主办有三种医学期刊：《中国医刊》、《中国临床医生》、《生活与健康》。[1]
  Here is the Google Translate:
  People's Health Publishing (referred SATELLITE) is the National Health and Family Planning Commission People's Republic of China directly under the press, is China's largest medical publishers. It has accumulated more than 20,000 kinds of books published, mainly medical textbooks, reference books and popular medical books, covering all areas of modern medicine and Chinese traditional medicine. 1995 publishing audio and video products and electronic publications, in March 2002 set up a subsidiary company of electronic audiovisual People's Health Publishing House. There are three medical journals sponsored: "Chinese Medical Journal", "Chinese clinicians" and "Life and Health." [1]
8. McCann, Henry (2014). Pricking the Vessels: Bloodletting Therapy in Chinese Medicine. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. p. 72. ISBN 0857011391. Retrieved 2016-03-12.
  The book notes:
  
  For ah-shi point needling the Ling Shu specifically recommends the use of fire needling, although in modern practice warming needle therapy with moxibustion is also applicable for practitioners reticent to use fire needle.
9. Chen, Youbang; Deng, Liangyue (1989). Essentials of contemporary Chinese acupuncturists' clinical experiences. Translated by Chang, Kai. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. ISBN 0835122670. Retrieved 2016-03-12.
  This book discusses "fire needling".
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side note @Cunard: your refs are taking a lot of space in this non-Wiki format, I took the liberty of collapsing them, please revert if you feel I stepped on your toes.

Significant coverage in independent and reliable sources.

1, 5, 8 and 9 fail under "significant coverage", as they are mere passing mentions.
Independence: all refs except 2 and maybe 4 can be classified under "promoters and practicioners" as they are manuals and how-to guides. 1 and 5 are not manuals but describe symptoms and "treatments" implying a well-established medical link.
Reliable: well, I spoke my mind earlier, but for instance 4 (Evidence-based acupuncture) is pretty much as reliable as one could expect from the title.

The only potential candidate is 2, New Frontiers in Research for Sustainable Development (...), Villareal, Ruben L. (2003), and frankly from the snippet I am not impressed. I could not find the relevant publication from fao.org, and I seriously doubt that the FAO has published anything claiming acupuncture cures any kind of medical condition without a ton of caveats and warning around it. Tigraan (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not have the sources collapsed. I think the sources are all published by reliable publishers. I do not think any of the references can be classified as "promoters and practitioners" since the publishers and authors are not connected with the subject. For example, the first source, the Springer Science+Business Media encyclopedia, has an encyclopedia entry about "fire needling" that encyclopedically describes fire needling's effect, method, and indication.

The second source is published by the University of the Philippines Los Baños (WorldCat link). I do not know what it has to do with fao.org. It provides a section of discussion about "fire needling" but only the first two sentences are visible through the Google snippet view.

The third source, a book published by the China Agriculture Press of the Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China discusses fire needling in detail. It further notes:

Fire needling is known for its effects on rheumatism and chronic problems of the back and limbs. However, this treatment tends to traumatize the acupoints more.

I believe that "fire needling" "has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (quoting from Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability) so is notable enough for a dedicated article.

Cunard (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to FAO was about your source #2 ("It is known for its effects on rheumatism and chronic problems of the back and limbs (FAO, 1 990)...") - which tends to imply that there is out there an FAO study of 1990 which says something like "FNA has been demonstrated to help in cases of rheumatism, chronic problems of the back (etc.)". Well, either that source exists and says precisely that (unlikely), and then an FAO official report is certainly more reliable than a series of lectures by a single researcher and more detailed so we better quote it instead, or it does not exist or was misrepresented and then we should not quote the first source at all.

I do not see that you have adressed any of my points adequately. You just claimed your sources are reliable without providing any serious evidence for it: being published is not a guarantee of reliability unless the editor demonstrably exerts significant editorial oversight (and most university presses do not do so). Frankly, in my view, any source that says acupuncture works, or worse that acupuncture has been proven to work, has a huge suspicion of unreliability resting upon it, because it goes against scientific consensus. Let me preventively add that scientific consensus ≠ truth, and if WP existed in the 1400s it would present Heliocentrism as a fringe idea, or not present it at all. None can argue with a straight face that scientific consensus is that acupuncture works.

Just in the interest of the discussion: could you point out to one source that you feel simultaneously (1) deals with FNA at a reasonable degree of detail, (2) is reliable, (3) is independent? Not multiple sources, just the best one. Per WP:MEDINDY: "If independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant for mentioned in other articles." Tigraan (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken this is not a medical subject, though it may have medical implications, this is a technique based on cultural tradition and Eastern medicine. Only coverage by independent sources are required. This clearly passes WP:GNG Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This "technique" is use to treat diseases, medical conditions and whatever "bi qi" is (still no hint on that, BTW). The article, as you wrote it, claims that it "sustains the efficacy especially on cervical headache without bony pathological changing" and discusses side effects. Wikipedia:Biomedical information includes "whether a treatment works ... side effects, benefits, and disadvantages" and "(w)hether human health is affected by a ... practice". Fire needle acupuncture is a fringe medical technique, though I'm sure we're o.k. with weaker sources for the claims about stripped chicken eyes. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I listed here comply with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) because they are "reliable, third-party secondary sources". They are not primary sources.

My reference to FAO was about your source #2 – the 1990 FAO report likely is not available online.

You just claimed your sources are reliable without providing any serious evidence for it: being published is not a guarantee of reliability unless the editor demonstrably exerts significant editorial oversight (and most university presses do not do so). – I assert that the sources are reliable because they are published by reputable publishers. It is impossible to determine how much editorial oversight has taken place without contacting the editors. But I do not have the editors' contact information and any information such editors provide to me through personal correspondence would be original research. And regarding university presses, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Books says: "Books published by university presses or the National Academy of Sciences, on the other hand, tend to be well-researched and useful for most purposes."

could you point out to one source that you feel simultaneously (1) deals with FNA at a reasonable degree of detail, (2) is reliable, (3) is independent? Not multiple sources, just the best one. – source #3. The source discusses fire needling in a section, is published by China Agriculture Press by the Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China, and notes that fire needling is "treatment [that] tends to traumatize the acupoints more".

Source #1, an encyclopedia entry about fire needling published by Springer Science+Business Media is more concise, but covers the subject directly and in detail. From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Books: "Specialized biomedical encyclopaedias published by these established publishers are often of good quality, but as a tertiary source, the information may be too terse for detailed articles." In the previous sentence, it lists Springer Verlag (which redirects to Springer Science+Business Media) as a "major academic publisher".

Cunard (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK well, source #3 it is then. I have no idea whether China agriculture press/the ministry of agriculture is a serious publisher or not when it comes to medical subjects. I would tend to trust official sources on non-political topics everywhere the administration is not in shambles (China is good on that point, Sudan is not). But for that precise topic and book, claiming FNA works ("...(FNA's) effects are long lasting. Fire needling is known for its effects on rheumatism and chronic problems of the back and limbs. " — emphasis added) must be a huge red flag when it comes to reliability.

And while I did not found the FAO 1990 report mentioned (there are reports in 1990 but none seems relevant), but I simply do not see why it "likely is not available online". FAO is a UN antenna and its reports are public, and their search engine turns up results back to 1947 (!) online (it is not even a lousy pdf scan, they ran an OCR program and give it in html). Tigraan (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very selectively and Redirect to Acupuncture#Fire needle acupuncture. All biomedical content (it doesn't matter if it's eastern/traditional medicine) needs sourcing that passes WP:MEDRS. Yes, there are sociological, historical, etc. topics that do not necessarily require medical sources, but anything to do with procedures, treatments, efficacy, etc. does. What the sprawling list of sources says to me is that this shouldn't be deleted, but rather included in the main acupuncture article, but I don't see a stand-alone article for this technique. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the sources contain enough information for a standalone article and that covering fire needling as a section in acupuncture might be undue weight, so I advise against a merge/redirect. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see your point. WP:UNDUE refers to dealing at length with a particular viewpoint, but FNA is a subtopic of acupuncture, so as long as it does not claim that FNA is much better we are in the clear. I suppose WP:SPLIT was what you had in mind (when a subsection of a main article becomes too large the article should be splitted when possible), but then it is a form guideline, not a content guideline; considering how short the article is right now, a merge (especially if not a full one) will not significantly imbalance the main article. If later edits do inflate the resulting section too much, it will be time to split but no need to do that preventively. Tigraan (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do intent to add those sources after AfD. The point is the multiple secondary sources have been brought to light and there is more than enough to work with there. If we are an encyclopedia we should cover topics which have significant coverage such as this. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very few, if any, reliable sources that I could find on Google Books or Google Scholar. There are a few passing mentions in some books, but that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. I would also be fine with a redirect to acupuncture. Everymorning (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge to Acupuncture#Fire needle acupuncture. Very plain case in my view. I also found it odd that the very subsection at the Acupuncture article was created by the same editor as who created this own article for it on the same day, February 23 2016. The short summary along with the forward link in Acupuncture#Fire needle acupuncture are 29 words together. The entire Fire needle acupuncture article is 65 words. ??? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, why wasn't Acupuncture#Fire needle acupuncture placed at Acupuncture#Related practices? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of clarity: are you suggesting the suitable target is a section (Acupuncture#Fire needle acupuncture) or a mention at Acupuncture#Related practices? Tigraan (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both, in a way. First a merger to Acupuncture#Fire needle acupuncture. A merger of massive 35 words. Then after that it can be discussed at the article's talk whether it belongs at Acupuncture#Related practices since that is a different matter and concerns the pre-existing Acupuncture#Fire needle acupuncture. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are enough sources to justify a separate article, and that's the main cnsideration. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Enough" is never the problem with that kind of topics, the problem is "good enough"... Tigraan (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as acceptable subject. SwisterTwister talk 02:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously passes WP:N per sources in current version as well as some above, which can be used to flesh it out beyond a stub. WP:MEDRS (3rd para in lede) says that only biomedical content must pass MEDRS and that non-medical content in medical articles is held to RS standards. That's even more true for traditional/alt-med articles, where by definition we're (in large part, at least) outside of biomedicine. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 23:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since WP:MEDRS is playing a prominent role in this discussion, and people are talking about it in contradictory ways, I've asked for clarification at WT:MED. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:35, 24 March 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 Exploitation film#Canuxploitation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canuxploitation[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a thing that's not really a thing. The backstory here is that in 1999, a Canadian magazine coined the term "Canuxploitation" as a neologistic term for the period in the 1970s when a lot of cheap B-movies were getting made in Canada because production companies could get crazy tax breaks. Reliable sources, however, did, and still do, call this era the "tax shelter" period, not "Canuxploitation" -- other than a single brief namecheck of the concept's existence on one single page of a film critic's book, the term "Canuxploitation" never actually caught on anywhere except one non-notable blog. And even that blog has a very muddled definition of what "Canuxploitation" is, even roping in rather distinguished non-genre non-B's like Goin' Down the Road and La Guerre des tuques and Project Grizzly (er, hello, NFB documentaries now?!?) -- and our article has also been diverging from it, eliding the blog's lapses into thesis-elasticity and instead substituting its own original research inclusion of almost any horror, science fiction, fantasy or sex comedy film that an individual editor personally decided they wanted to add regardless of whether the film was ever actually labelled as "Canuxploitation" by either the original magazine piece or the blog. There's also the problem that the basic definition given of what the term means involves films "about Canadian life and culture" — something which the vast majority of the films listed here quite deliberately and explicitly aren't (although at least that criterion actually does help to explain Goin' Down the Road and La Guerre des tuques.)

All of which means that what we have here is an article that (a) isn't based on reliably sourced evidence of the term's currency in the real world, and (b) isn't even staying faithful to its own isolated unreliable source. A film should not be listed here unless reliable sources explicitly call it "Canuxploitation", but that's not a term that any reliable source (besides the original magazine article) has ever used to label any film. And without the list of films, there's no content left. And the "Canuxploitation" section in exploitation film, from whence this was spun off, also has to go into the trash can for the same reasons. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Exploitation film#Canuxploitation. I think restoring the redirect is the best course right now, at least until there's more coverage of the genre itself. This article in Metro News goes into some detail, including canuxploitation.com. This article from The Toronto Star is a bit more independent and uses the term as an established genre. I can also source quite a few of those films, but then the article would just fill up with a whole lot of trivial mentions, and it would be a well-sourced example farm. We can have a nice, sourced paragraph that sums this up well enough in the parent article; no need for an independent article – yet. There isn't really anything to merge, since the target already includes the sourced parts of this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! Sounds to me like some trendies from the Great White North are (or is if there is only one) upset Canada can make trashy films that entertain international audiences. The "tax shelter" term would not be a known term for people outside Canada, nor would all the films produced during that period be considered "Canuxploitation". A random check on the internet shows the term is in frequent use, and for Wikipedia to remove it would be reallydiculous....Foofbun (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like somebody needs to drop his assumptions about other people's motivations. For one thing, I'm no sort of "trendy", and have no issue with the existence of "trashy" films. For two, most of the films listed here were decidedly unsuccessful with international audiences — with the exception of Porky's (a film which, while far from being Canadian cinema's finest hour in terms of quality, could absolutely have been made by a mainstream Hollywood studio and thus bears no resemblance to anything else listed here, and isn't named as "Canuxploitation" by the original source either), hundreds upon hundreds of higher-quality Canadian films were more successful with and entertaining to international audiences than anything else listed here ever was. So that argument has nothing to do with either the article itself or the deletion rationale. For three, the definition given in the introduction says nothing whatsoever about genre "trash"; rather, the term is "defined" as "films about Canadian life and culture", even though nearly every film listed here fails to fit that definition — films that fit the parameters of the list were nearly always designed to increase their marketability by either being set in the United States or in some unspecified "nowhere specific", and did not in any way correspond to the parameters of the introduction. And for four, you've failed to respond to my point about original research: a lot of the films listed here are not listed even on the "Canuxploitation" website, but were added because some Wikipedia editor personally decided that the term meant "any genre film ever made in Canada at all", even though that's not what either the definition given in the introduction, or even the website itself, says the term means. But OR is a thing we're not allowed to do on here: we have to stick to what reliable sources say, not what random people say in comment threads or user-generated discussion forums or self-published blogs, and we don't get to make up our own "hey, this sounds like it fits too!" decisions on anything that reliable sources haven't already named that way for us. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is certainly an interesting subject: I remember this period very well. What a weird time. I recall a lot of these films being shot here, and indeed, a whole business model. In addition to the news coverage that NinjaRobotPirate (who sounds like one of these movies), we do get book cites such as this one from Canada's Best Features: Critical Essays on 15 Canadian Films, which cites the Broken Pencil article in its introduction. Bearcat was quite right to call attention to some inaccuracies -- Project Grizzly was a full funded NFB doc that premiered at TIFF -- but if NinjaRobotPirate doesn't feel it's worth its retaining as a separate article, okay. But there's clearly something here -- a notable (and notably weird) period in Canadian film history that is now known by this moniker, it seems. I too would think of it more as the "tax shelter period," but Canucksploitation is clearly more colourful and less ambiguous. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW with his book, Mondo Canuck, Geoff Pevere is kind of the go-to critic for this sort of thing and fwiw he has not used the term, far as I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was to vote to keep it, but I just couldn't find enough sourcing to justify a standalone article. I think we're almost there but not quite. But we can certainly write about this in Cinema of Canada and Exploitation film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Exploitation film#Canuxploitation per NRP — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Exploitation film#Canuxploitation because of the fact that sources don't establish notability and per NRP. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:34, 25 March 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. czar 21:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Authorspress[edit]

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

I do not see that the press is a significant publisher of any of the listed authors that are clearly notable, nor are the journals yet notable. .WP is not a publishers catalog. The references seem to be tributes from authors it does publish, and the usual PR. The present article in WP is part of a promotional campaign, and that would really be sufficient reason for deletion. Probably I should not have removed the G11. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see evidence that it exists, but no real evidence that it's a noteworthy publishing house. Most of the refs I've checked appear to be by people affiliated with the company, not neutral sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speedied this once, and would have done so again if another admin hadn't declined. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The same editor who created this article has created several related articles, which currently are all at AfD (Phenomenal Literature, VerbalArt, and Vivekanand Jha). --Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches unable to find reliable sources to demonstrate it's a notable publishing company. Elaenia (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment reworked on the drawbacks shown by the above mentioned editors. Added notability as much this article deserves. Removed promotional and advertising elements. Prinshukr (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow assessment of changes made after the last "delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all they have done is moved their listing of authors into the text of the article. For almost none of them are they the major publisher, so it remains a catalog. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last changes to the article mentioned by Sandstein were made 5 days ago, but clearly this didn't motivate anybody to modify their "delete" !vote and DGG gives a god explanation for that. Given the unanimous discussion above, with the article creator being the lone dissenter, I don't think this should have been relisted/can be closed now. --Randykitty (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added more than fifteen third party citations from newspapers and journals after the last "delete" to strengthen this article.Prinshukr (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps you should also note that since then, both DGG and I have indicated that this is not indicating any notability of the company. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reworking on the article, adding citations for notability and removing promotional and advertising elements i do believe article should be there. we can make this article stronger and stronger by adding further reviews and news on this press as and when comes out. For example i have added one more citations today from the journal (http://www.museindia.com/newsview.asp?id=134).Prinshukr (talk) 02:15, 23 March 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. czar 21:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elena R. Iarskaia-Smirnova[edit]

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

Doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. She is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Social Policy Studies, but I can't find any information about that journal to indicate that it is a "major, well-established academic journal" (as WP:ACADEMIC's 8th criterion requires). Can't find anything about "Sociology of public sphere" either. IagoQnsi (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Delete. No evidence here that she is even on the editorial board. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC).[][reply]

Comment. She is stated as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Social Policy Studies,[3] which is associated with National Research University – Higher School of Economics -- which our article describes as "one of the leading and largest universities in Russia" -- where she is also a professor. On the other hand, Google Scholar isn't showing many citations for her research (highest 33) [4], though that might be a feature of her writing predominantly in Russian. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find her name on the list. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is clearly a CV. GS indicates a grand citation total that barely makes double-digits. Agricola44 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The journal seems too obscure to make a convincing case for notability by itself and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe that there is room in Wikipedia for an entry on Elena Iarskaia-Smirnova. Together with her late husband, Pavel Romanov, with whom she published extensively, she is an authoritative figure in the present-day Russian sociological landscape. She has made significant contributions to fields like disability and gender studies in Russia - at a time when these topics were not particularly fashionable there, and in a political climate that has not always been favorable to the work of sociologists (to put it mildly). A further reason for keeping this article is that Russian sociology and sociologists are not well known outside Russia, which is unfortunate. I believe that Wikipedia can help to make more easily available knowledge about this topic, thus contributing to the internationalisation of Russian sociology (and to the enrichment of the global sociological community). Disclaimer: As an assistant professor of sociology at the Higher School of Economics (Moscow), I am a colleague of Elena Iarskaia-Smirnova. I am therefore familiar with her work and can attest to its notability, though of course I also have a positive bias in this regard. This entry was originally a group project in one of my undergraduate courses ("Sociological Reasoning: the philosophy, history, sociology and practice of social research"). The idea of the project was to help students reflect upon the sociological field in Russia, while also offering the chance to contribute to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floresrd (talk • contribs) — Floresrd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete as none of this seems to satisfy any applicable notability, her school position is not anything imaginably acceptable for notability. If she was a University School Chair, that would be different. Questionable for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 21 March 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard James Montagu[edit]

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

Non notable member of the resistance. Fails WP:SOLDIER and GNG - although his name is quite common so I may have missed an article somewhere relevant Gbawden (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep. On the contrary, if he received the DSO twice he clearly passes WP:SOLDIER ("2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times"). The DSO was the second-highest gallantry and leadership decoration for officers. For a captain to win it twice was most unusual, since it was usually only awarded to officers of the rank of major or above (awards to a lower-ranking officer were much less common and were invariably for gallantry). However, my keep vote is provisional on further evidence being found and it proved not to be a hoax, as I can't find his DSOs gazetted in the London Gazette anywhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything either. Not of the award, the person or the book listed as a source. Checked the Royal Navy list. Calling this one a hoax. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More likely to have been in the Army List I should have thought? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is rare for an Army captain to earn the DSO. Usually, if one does, it usually means that he just missed out on the VC. You have to be mentioned in despatches first. But for a peacetime award? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Highly unlikely an RN captain would have been involved in the Channel Islands resistance. It's actually a fallacy that it was that rare for junior officers to win the DSO (I thought this too until I started researching honours); it was less common than senior officers, certainly, but not uncommon (for example, every surviving officer pilot in the Dambusters raid was awarded the DSO). And the DSO wouldn't be awarded in peace anyway, so if the article is true (and I have a suspicion it's a hoax) then both his DSOs would have been won during the war, not in peacetime Germany. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep -- It is difficult to tell with such a miniscule stub: what did he do in Germany after the war? Peterkingiron (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find the single source given, can't even find the author. Moving beyond unverifiable into improbable. That makes claim highly suspicious. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a hoax to me. This seems telling, along with the fact that the supposed book cited does not seem to exist, as Graeme pointed out above. Parsecboy (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as barely any context and there's simply nothing to suggest a convincingly acceptable and better article. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find sufficient coverage in reliable sources, and there is nothing to suggest inherent notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:40, 24 March 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. Sandstein 12:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sumire Satō[edit]

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

No notable solo career or prominence beyond AKB48 and SKE48. Oricon lists no ranked singles [5]or albums [6]. Has a supporting voice role in AKB0048 anime, but no extensive voice acting career or film/television career beyond what typical members of the group would experience. Recommend redirect to AKB48-related article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This might not mean much if they are unreliable but there are 42 different sources present at ja:wiki [7]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good chunk of those are her own blog posts, and mostly cover that she is listed among the AKB48 single/concert participants. If among there there is some detailed interview or coverage of her on non-48 group projects, showing notability then that would help. Very little of her calendar section is sourced. The section that many of the references come from isn't impressive either. 人物 (Personal life) talks about her height, her dogs, and her family, and that she likes romance novels and the band Garnet Crow. AKB48・SKE48関連 covers her relationships with her fellow members. That's nice but it isn't what makes her notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's good stuff for BLPs in general, but WP:ENT needs to be met first. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see no notability to be found per Angus' findings. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of the information found below I am switching my opinion to Keep, I have not seen anyone dispute the sources presented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1. She passes WP:GNG, just do a Google News search. 2. the latest news articles that have her in the title are about her starring in the title role in the live action movie "燐寸少女マッチショウジョ" (example); 3. She had been a member of multiple notable bands (AKB48 and SKE48), therefore she passes WP:MUSICBIO #6. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Match Girl references are promising but the film itself hasn't been shown to be notable yet. If this were worked into the article as well as other lead non-AKB48-related roles, then that would suffice for WP:ENT. Same with if she starts a solo career, which is what qualifies most other AKB48 members for individual articles. Musicbio#6 does not apply as the AKB48 and SKE48 are related groups and fall into the "chorus" ensembles per the footnote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate independent notability. --DAJF (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at some news articles: she placed 49th in the elections [8], she plays Wendy in Peter Pan [9] [10] [11], she acted in a TV commercial [12], she acted in the movie "放課後ロスト" [13] [14], she acted in a music video for "Listen to Me" by 197666 [15]. And an article related to her Google+ post: [16].
  @DAJF:. Even if you think the "depth of coverage" is unsufficient, could you please change your vote to "Redirect". When her movie The Little March Girl [17] comes out, she will be 100% notable. Who will recreate the page then? It will take several hours to do from scratch, I won't be able to do it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's still WP:TOOSOON as the release date is May 26. If the film is that notable then that needs an article and the appropriate amount of secondary source press. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's covered in enough credible outlets like Nikkan Sports [18] and Asahi Shimbun [19] as far as I am concerned. A blanket Google News name search often equals dumpster diving for blog posts and other failures of WP:RS but she has just enough coverage to ensure a foothold on WP:N. Jun Kayama 20:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think, Sato Sumire is a borderline case, but her previous career and her status as Horipro-member almost guarantee notability on her own. Also, please don't treat japanese idols as musicians or even artists. They just do not fit into this category, even if they happen to "sing" on CDs. That said, the article in question is aweful. It does not contain any information on things she has done independent on her status as a member of the AKB48 group, outside of tables. Rka001 (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep perhaps even if reluctant because although this is still questionable for its own article, I would hope this can be improved if need be. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A10 of Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant Jac16888 ^Talk 17:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those who are going to die salute you ave[edit]

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

Article is nonsensical. Ethanlu121 (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant, which similar phrases already point to (c.f. Those who are about to die salute you). Crow^Caw 20:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slay it without saluting. Nobody is going to type it this way. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: very clearly nonsensical and with no context. Fails under A1, possibly A7. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 23:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as it also falls under A10 as a duplicate of the existing topic. As a redirect it is an implausible search term. Would it be wrong to go ahead and tag the article? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:45, 17 March 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. czar 21:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Churchill Cup[edit]

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

This article represents an event that has not yet taken place. Ethanlu121 (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: According to Churchill Cup, this was discontinued in 2011. Certainly, there are no other articles for 201x Churchill Cup where x>1. ubiquity (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found this link [20] which actually say that it would not run with Canada and the United States now being in the WR calendar. After that there is no links to next year Cup as they say on here. Matt294069 is coming 01:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 09:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Foskett (academic)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Insufficient evidence of significant coverage of this individual in independent sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet notability for academics standard. Published works authored/coauthored by Professor Foskett can be found in a gScholar search, but nothing comes up in the various news and books searches (other than the Wikipedia article in question). The awards listed do not rise to the level of Criterion 2 (in the discussion of the standards for academic notability). There is nothing available to indicate he meets any of the other criteria for notability in his field. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly enough national and international level awards to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The adequately-documented awards, and Telegraph story centered on him, look like a pass of general notability to me, regardless of whether he also has academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 19 March 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. czar 21:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Room Tucson[edit]

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

Not notable Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article primarily references the escape room challenge. The citations are as valid as they can be for this topic. I see two videos from a news station and another from a news paper independent from the news station.TravelLover333 (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable local curio. Quis separabit? 02:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this satisfies the applicable notability, simply too soon. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 16 March 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. czar 22:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gobeshok[edit]

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

No substantial, independent coverage that I could find online. GAB^Hello! 20:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any coverage. The domain itself is also less than a year old and is on shared hosting, so it's unlikely to be a professional website either. Elaenia (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and basically nearly even speedy material aside from the "World's First" claim and I would've considered PRODing first as this was an obvious Delete. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. ~~.... and before some loon one suggests it I'm not a member of the "Christian music project" either!.,~~ Consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sintax the Terrific[edit]

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

This artist fails to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). The artist has not recorded with a major record label or a notable independent label. The sources provided either are not independent of the subject or do not provide in depth coverage of the subject. While the Houston Chronicle is a good source, the coverage is from the local lifestyle section and can not be considered significant coverage. This article should be deleted. 4meter4 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First off, I don't understand how a local lifestyle section of the Houston Chronicle would be unreliable (note that this piece was written for the main section, not the journalist's blog for the paper). But leaving that aside, you have the article on CMusicWeb.com, and The Rap Up and Holy Culture articles (I will lump these together since they are written by the same journalist, but in different publications). Then you have the five different reviews by four different reliable sources, all of which discuss the artist himself, not just the album.

I am pinging other editors who would be interested in this discussion: The Cross Bearer (the article creator), Ilovechristianmusic, Walter Görlitz, Royalbroil, and Amberrock.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add this review from a now defunct, but reliable, website (this Wordpress version seems to be an alternate, archive version of the site). It doesn't discuss Sintax the Terrific much, but it is a critique of his work.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as noted by The Cross Bearer below, Sintax was featured in HM in the 2007 January/February issue. Looking through archive.org, it looks like that feature was print-only. It does exist, though, which is what is required for notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Ted talk is enough for notability, where they don't just let anyone get up and speak for them, using their branding in order to publicize the event. You have to earn the right to do a Ted talk.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure - this was a TEDx talk, and that's not hard to arrange. Those are student-led efforts that aren't the same as TED talks.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: I remember watching a 60 Minutes piece about them, but I could have forgotten it by now. I will provide another rationale. This article should be Kept because his music has been reviewed by such publications as Cross Rhythms magazine and a Metacritic based source in RapReviews.com.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: See if you can get the HM Magazine article, mentioning him on CMnexus.The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's only in print. I have no idea who might have the print edition of that issue. There's probably some other print magazines with features on him, but I don't know what they would be or how to access them.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. All attempts at discounting local interest have failed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this still seems convincing enough and I would've closed it as such myself. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Walter's rationale. Royal broil 13:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Released two albums on the indie label illect, which has been in operation more than a decade. Write-up in the Houston Chronicle. Meets Wikipedia:Notability (music). — Maile (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a little concerned that everyone pinged to this article seem to be members of the Christian music project EDIT TO ADD: or have a particular interest in Christian music, have Christian userboxes, have usernames indicating an interest in Christian music, etc. END OF EDIT I mean, I totally understand that these would be people particularly interested in articles about Christian musicians, but it almost looks like stacking the deck. I'd like to see some opinions from people who are experienced at assessing notability for musicians but don't have any particular rooting interest in seeing a specific type of music thoroughly covered. valereee (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a member of that project. As far as I can tell, not all the above are either. — Maile (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maile,~~ and you weren't pinged here. I think you're the only one not pinged here who has so far ivoted. You're in agreement with the rest of the ivoters, and I assume you're familiar with the rules for notability for musicians, so it's reassuring that you agree with those who were pinged here. I want to emphasize that I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything intentionally; of course anyone would assume people who had an interest in Christian music would be interested in this AfD. I just want to make sure we get input from people who are familiar with musician notability and don't have any particular interest in Christian music more than any other kind of music. valereee (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Shoot, sorry, Maile66 valereee (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: You are wrong. I also pinged Amberrock, who was the first editor to express doubts about this article's notability. I did this expressly in order to avoid canvassing. Why Amberrock has not commented here I don't know, but I wanted them to know that this discussion is taking place. Also, if you go through past AfDs, you will see that Walter, myself, and The Cross Bearer have disagreed with each other at times.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I tried to think of some more editors that I've encountered in AfDs, but couldn't think of any others on the spot. I also figured that some of the regular patrollers of AfDs will have a balanced perspective. For instance, SwisterTwister also commented above, and they weren't pinged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3family6, sorry, I want to reiterate that I'm not suggesting you did anything sly. valereee (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand, I just wanted to make it clear that I did foresee a possible imbalance and took efforts to help avoid that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Quadros[edit]

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

No coverage by reliable secondary sources. The ones linked are either spam blogs, citing Wikipedia itself, or passing mentions. A separate Google search fails to turn up anything to suggest the subject is notable. Elaenia (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:BIO yet, maybe someday in future. The couple of newspaper mentions cited in the article are of local significance. Unable to find evidence of significant non-trivial coverage that meets WP:GNG criteria. utcursch | talk 20:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gold of prague[edit]

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

This is a promotional article for a non-notable brewery that hasn't even started brewing yet. The article has no independent sources to establish notability. A previous proposed deletion was removed by the article's creator. Deli nk (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. No credible claim of significance. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -IagoQnsi (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I declined the speedy as a news search brought up this Korea Times piece that talks a bit about the brewery. There are quite a few Polish and Korean news pieces as well that somebody should check. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] The article needs work with somebody who can speak one (or ideally both) of those languages but the potential to improve the article to acceptable standards is there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every source has merely a mention, just as the Korea Times does. It's usually in context of other investments by Czech firms, or other businesses in the center. (Even the Korean one has enough word in Roman alphabet brand names to show that it istalkingabout multiple brandsof beer, not this one). DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon at best, there's some coverage but none of this is convincing enough notability and that the company will have considerable time history (I.e. plans may not actually blossom). SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (of course, I am the author) As for the previous proposed deletion, I contacted the editor that proposed for deletion with the following: "Hi, thanks for your feedback on my article about the brewery in Korea. I went through all of the linked pages with rules and still have to ask for clarifiation of your opinion. My article is not a guess, it is (as the WP:CRYSTAL requests) about an event that is already in preparation. So, maybe you would take back your proposal, if I inserted more info about what is going on right now? Thanks for letting me know." I got no reply, so I deleted the proposal. Here I provide some more news references - in english this time: [26] [27], even the arhitecture of the building is notable: [28]. Czech Beer with over 1000 years of tradition being introduced in Korea. I will enrich the article with more references or external links. Martinluhan (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, and reinstate in the future. As others have already mentioned, this article violates WP:CRYSTAL, as the company involved is hardly a "company" at all at this point. If they're not going to produce beer until 2017, then they shouldn't have an article until 2017. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice, due to lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yamaguchi.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess of Kent House Trust[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. There are no secondary references in the article and I'm unable to find any coverage outside of official government registrations and yellow pages. Elaenia (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There's probably a stronger case for having an article for the Duchess of Kent House itself, but there is no such article. (Maybe the house, too, is not notable.) Korny O'Near (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If I understand the sources correctly, Duchess of Kent House is a charity that provides hospice services at a hospital in Reading, Berkshire, and it is now affiliated with Sue Ryder. [29][30][31] These services are unmistakably admirable but seem to be very local. If the House (or the funding trust that is the subject of this article) has broader operations than that, I would reconsider. Otherwise I don't think they meet our requirements under WP:GNG or WP:ORG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pollfish[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of importance: the reference is a mere notice of initial funding. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found links at News, browsers and Highbeam but noting better convincing for better notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without prejudice to future recreation) a relatively young company with only a few mentions in not particularly high quality sources (VentureBeat and TechCrunch are not particularly prestigious), and a passing references in a somewhat more respected source (i.e. one Washington Post blogpost mentions using them to run a poll – it is WaPo, but it's only a blog, not an actual article). Maybe with time, better sources will appear – in which case the article can always be recreated. SJK (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This close is without prejudice against a speedy renomination (although the preferred time would be after the actual release of the film). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coco (2016 film)[edit]

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

Aside from some rapper in the main role, I can't find the relevancy of this film. No release date (or someone confirming is indeed coming), or useful information of the plot there. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think that principal photography has begun. This source from back in January says that the film is supposed to release in 9 days but I don't think I see anything about it filming. At the very least I'd recommend that this AfD stay open until release day. So far I'm leaning towards a merge and redirect to RZA#Filmmaking. It has a fairly notable cast and while that doesn't give notability, it does make me hopeful that if/when this releases it'd gain notability, enough hope to recommend that we leave the article history intact. I'm going to hold off on an official position until closer to the release date, although offhand I don't think it's going to release any time soon. This is usually when the marketing would hit a fever pitch and its absence is fairly telling that the film is likely still in the pre-planning phase, which happens with movies. It's why films rarely get articles prior to confirmation of filming. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this mentions that there was filming in July of last year, so that's promising. It's possible that this may release soon after all. We'd need something a bit more about the filming to really suggest a keep per NFF, though my position on keeping the article history is still the same. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Filming has concluded. It has a notable director, a notable cast (all of the main cast have articles) and a major company, Lionsgate, is distributing it. JDDJS (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now -I agree with JDDJS, only reason Im skeptical is that there are sources that say it was supposed to hit theaters on March 11, 2016. Since there hasnt been any press on why that didn't happen or the current status, I think it's too early to say a film with a notable cast and director should be deleted.Burroughs'10 (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's been almost 2 weeks since the movie should've been released, and according to some searches I did, it is "post production" but I think it's just maybe WP:TOOSOON. Maybe userfy/drafterfy? MrWooHoo (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ådalen (Denmark)[edit]

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

What a puzzle.

From what I can see from a quick google search, this appears to be a nickname for a location in Odense, Denmark.

There is a community childcare centre called "Ådalen Børnehus" (ie: "Ådalen bairn-house" - hooray for cognates!)
It's near where Odense Boldklub train, according to the article, but that doesn't verify things.
There's a "fri grundskole" ( a "independent elementary school", presumably - hooray for cognates, etc) called da:Ådalskolen around that area.

Only businesses seem to be mentioned in an internal search on the http://www.odense.dk/ website.
Attention www.odense.dk website maintainers! The English version pops up this message: "Websitet anvender cookies til statistik. Denne information deles med tredjepart. Læs mere..." I'm hooray for cognates, but Randy in Boise might not be.

There is also no corresponding article on the Danish language Wikipedia. da:Ådalen is about the place in Sweden.

What do you think? Shirt58 (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – nothing verifiable per WP:NFT. C 679 13:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks any valid sources. No community named Ådalen nor Aadalen is found to exist on Fyn or in Odense. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Abigail Fillmore[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable. Would likely never have had an article had she not been the daughter of a POTUS. Notability not inherited. Quis separabit? 01:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Millard Fillmore, which, surprisingly, does not contain a section on his family at present. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage from multiple different reliable sources, at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her unusual role as the "first lady" for her father, noted and described in multiple sources, warrants the separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She played an unusual role as mentioned above and there are enough sources for GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:39, 21 March 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. czar 20:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XCubeLabs[edit]

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

No indication of notability: absolutely no indication of "significant coverage in secondary sources". The sources provided are either published by the company, press releases by the company or passing mentions of the company, which are not considered for establishing notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. As if that wasn't enough, the article also reads like an advertisement and would probably qualify for speedy deletion as "Unambiguous advertising" if it hadn't been up for more than a year now. No longer a penguin (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly does not meet WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage is not in-depth, and their award does not seem significant enough to carry the article. Too much of the coverage is trivial mentions ("According to XCubeLabs, this is a popular trend" or whatever). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the Google search I found paid listings and press releases but nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 09:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour Road[edit]

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

Re-creation of previously deleted page. Any evidence of notability at all? Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This does appear to be a major and important road in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Arts Centre, Central Plaza (Hong Kong), Sun Hung Kai Centre, Shui On Centre, Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts, Wanchai Tower, China Resources Building and Australian Consulate-General, Hong Kong and Macau are all located on this road. Article was deleted due to an ignored tag, not AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created the page--the article is definitely notable. Numerous skyscrapers, if not landmarks are located along its sides. See also the article for the road in the Chinese Wikipedia and Cantonese Wikipedia. Wishds (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Chances are, the road is notable for not just its landmarks, but the road itself. The sources haven't been found yet.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:16, 21 March 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. czar 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incedo[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. All references come from the company or company-related sources. No independent deeper coverage was found. Looks like a typical PR. Note: proposed deletion by another user and speedy deletion by me were unsuccessful for uncertain reasons. (GNews used to remove PROD include only in passim mentions of the company, not even basic info.) WikiHannibal (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better at all. Notifying tagger IagoQnsi. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My searches find nothing better except more passing mentions, definitely doesn't meet notability criteria. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject appears to fail the relevant notability criterion. @WikiHannibal: the "unknown reason" for the contested A7 was because it was a crappy A7 nomination that shouldn't have happened. Pretty simple, really. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: Thanks for your thorough and civil explanation of the reasons behind an edit you did not make. Keep up the good work. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the company was previously known as "IB Technology" (until some time last year). There are plenty of hits for that name, mostly "in passing", but at least one more substantial treatment. Thparkth (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Cardington[edit]

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

Housing estate that doesn't appear to be notable. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I know this place. It is just a name given for a new development that is part of Shortstown, despite the name it is not actually part of Cardington. The estate is also mentioned in passing in the RAF Cardington article. Shritwod (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an adjunct not a notable place Icarusgeek (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe redirect to RAF Cardington. Not enough sources at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly Janner (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 March 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 Cedar Crest College. All Merges get redirected after so "Redirect" is redundant at this point.... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Crestiad[edit]

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

This newspaper isn't notable, so it should be deleted. Ethanlu121 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A source from their own website isn't enough.*Treker (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Cedar Crest College. I agree that there's insufficient material to support a separate article, but info about this 90+ year old school newspaper should be included in the school's article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as seems to fail WP:ORG for a standalone article (although I'm willing to be persuaded) but certainly could be fitted into article per above. Blythwood (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect The college article is a good place for this, and it is a plausible search term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:12, 17 March 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. as this is not ready for the mainspace; a copy already exists at User:Crews73/sandbox and it is agreed that that is the best place to develop this. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Widespread Effects of Land Loss in Natural Areas[edit]

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

Sounds like this is an essay by a student, however I think we may be able to clean it up? (sorry if this might be the wrong place, still kind of new to WP:NPP) Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 15:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move - back to editor's sandbox where it began. There is no content, , no sources, just sect1ons. This is a new editor who could use some guidance, but this really belongs back in the editor's sandbox. I've left a message on the editor's talk page about this. — Maile (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move per User:Maile66. No content at present. If someone is willing to provide guidance to the new user that would be great as well. — Amakuru (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Please see Crews73#Concern over Essay Likeness. This new user now agrees that this would best be developed in his sandbox. It is being developed as a group project for a college course. The user already has User:Crews73/sandbox/The widespread effects of land loss in natural areas where nothing exists but the title. Could an admin please move this article that is up for deletion, to a sandbox subpage for this user? Delete the current one where the title is not capitalized. And let the user know you did it? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Attack Dog If all this is agreeable with you, once the page is moved, could you formally withdraw this request? If not, please say so. — Maile (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thakkallapally Dayakar rao[edit]

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

Not notable Greek Legend (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would suggest WP:CSD A7. Nordic Dragon 15:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Modified link - my mistake Nordic Dragon 12:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. University administrator who has not achieved notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I would have tried a BLPPROD first, as there are no sources listed, but at this point that doesn't matter as there is also no evidence of academic (WP:PROF) or other (WP:GNG) notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I think there's enough assertion of notability (via the titles) here to avoid CSD A7, but not enough for WP:PROF. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:59, 23 March 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 draftify. Godspeed. czar 00:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Michael Kodoati[edit]

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

The notability of this article was extensively discussed on an editor's talk page, and consensus was essentially reached by those involved that the article does not meet the notability guidelines and should be deleted. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 14:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One reference to one minor award. The second paragraph is non-neutral non-encyclopedic language: "Carlos likes to read books and write. Note that is now being written is Mozeta an article about the psycho-social that will reveal a variety of stories behind the walls and behind the figure of up to family life, school to work place industrial life." If this individual is notable, the article can be saved in seven days. If not, not. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. The English Wiki article is far worse than the Indonesian Wiki article, and even that article doesn't contain enough reliable, neutral sources to determine that the subject merits an article. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 14:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace so that the author has a chance to improve the article. However, I think we ought to get the author's opinion, if at all possible, and see if he even wants the responsibility. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 05:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear notable even taking web sources into consideration - obviously Indonesian Wikipedia standards are different than English Wikipedia notability standards, so it'd make sense that there could be a discrepancy.

Draftify or whatever the term is to give author time to improve the article and submit as an Articles for Creation submission. Notability concerns seem to be the biggest worry so it'd make sense to draft it and allow the author to demonstrate notability (presumably the author has some understanding of both Indonesian and English and therefore has some expertise and motivation to look for sources). Appable (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: H.dryad may have an opinion on this based on his edit summary when removing the PROD, so pinging him for comment regarding deletion. Appable (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The individual does not look excessively notable, but I did think the speedy and prods were a bit aggressive and that some more time should be given to develop the article. He is a journalist apparently and he does seem to have got some recognition from the Indonesian Climate Change Trust Fund, but at the moment I am not seeing that much else. H.dryad (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that it had significant time to develop, but that may have been my mistake altogether. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 14:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You write: "I was under the impression that it [the article] had significant time to develop, but that may have been my mistake altogether." If you thought that there is significant, as in days or months, to develop an article after it is in article space, that was your good-faith mistake. There is significant time to develop an article with reviews while the article is in user space or draft space. If the intent is to improve the article gradually, over days or months, my advice is to move it into user space or draft space, which will moot the AFD, and to work on it, and then submit it for review via AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do see a few references in Indonesian media (not many, I admit) but just based on that it is a bit hard for me to judge precisely how notable this individual actually is. Also, I am not clear just yet on the degree of prestige of the award that he was given. Is this a big deal in Indonesia or not? The writing in the article was admittedly a bit weak, but was this because of poor English or because he really had nothing to say? I think these items should be taken into consideration but due to my lack of knowledge of the language, it may be better if we could find a few people who now the language to assess the merits a bit better.H.dryad (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tell you what, could we maybe postpone this discussion and sent this article into draft space? If nothing happens there, then I have no objections to deletion, but I am finding a few things about this fellow. He has produced some documentaries it seems, which may or may not be notable, and he has a number of other awards to his credit. I'll try to add what I can and hopefully the author will be able to add some more information. As it stands now, it is not really an article, but it may be possible to fix this up into something worthwhile. If not, then it will be removed anyway and no harm done. My $0.02 anyway. Thanks for the attention. Cheers. H.dryad (talk) 17:32, 16 March 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.

No action needed. This has been a long-time redirect as is typical for franchise films. As it's been recently announced, the redirect target is the best location before filming begins, as it's been for some time. The nominator had retargeted it to a newly created, redundant article that has also been redirected to the franchise article by the creator himself. (non-admin closure) oknazevad (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones 5[edit]

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

too early Winterysteppe (talk) 13:44, 16 March 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.

No action needed. The article was nominated by the creator, who properly changed it to a redirect as is standard for franchise films that have been announced but not yet begun filming. (non-admin closure) oknazevad (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones 5 (film)[edit]

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

Too early Winterysteppe (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humans of Switzerland[edit]

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

Nonexistent website, not notable. CheeseCrisps (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The website now seems to be located here. But I don't find sufficient evidence that the website, or its photographer Alexander Beck, meet Wikipedia's notability standards. The one cited article from tink.ch may qualify as substantial coverage, and for these purposes I will assume tink.ch is a reliable source, see de:tink.ch and fr:tink.ch, but that's not enough by itself, and I didn't find anything else. The other cited source is not actually about the subject of this article, but rather about Brandon Stanton's unrelated Humans of New York site. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. May be in future this project can achieve some notability, but not now Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Bobick[edit]

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

Vanity article. Another article by sock farmer who promos sports subjects that fail notability. In this case, subject fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Also notability is not conferred because of a notable sibling. X4n6 (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. X4n6 (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBOX. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a boxer and the only coverage is a link to his fight record. Notability isn't inherited from his brother.Mdtemp (talk) 07:37, 18 March 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 Ultima Online. Sandstein 12:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowclan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The references listed are not notable (and for a large part of them, inaccessible). Looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I get one result by Engadget, but the page links to an interview on the World of Warcraft website... Which can't be found. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to a section at Ultima Online's history. The article achieved notability when created, and notability is not temporary. Several of its references, such as the interview, can be found at archive.org, and several of them are published books as listed in previous AfD nominations (an thus can't disappear nor become invalid references). Diego (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Berog's argument at the second nomination is particularly persuasive. The fact that his article has been repeatedly nominated and survived is a strong indicator that it should never be deleted on notability terms, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Diego (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The previous discussion was over nine years ago. Consensus can change. I think merging into Ultima Online would be a good idea though. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - What has changed in those nine years with respect to this topic? Diego (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or just redirect to Ultima Online, per above agreement. Not impressed by the previous discussions—where are the sources? There should be a section in the parent article about its Community, which would certainly be a notable aspect of the game currently neglected in its article. I don't see how Shadowclan deserves more than a sentence or two in such a section as it is, but it can be more useful as a redirect/merge in that case. czar 20:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Plenty of sources cited, but lots of honest disagreement about the quality of the sources. I could relist this for another week, but I don't expect any consensus either way would emerge out of that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Smith (Nova Scotia politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician with no strong claim to passing WP:NPOL: he's been the mayor of a small rural municipality not large enough to give him an automatic presumption of notability just for being a mayor, and a non-winning candidate for election to provincial office -- and the volume of reliable sourcing here is not strong enough to claim WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails our notability guideline for politicians. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough references out there for him to squeak by WP:GNG. Here's a sampling:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mike-smith-launches-liberal-leadership-bid-1.643383
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mcneil-new-n-s-liberal-leader-1.689242
http://www.trurodaily.com/Living/Education/2008-02-02/article-342253/SMITH-SAYS-SO-LONG-TO-POLITICS/1
http://www.ctvnews.ca/one-hopeful-so-far-for-n-s-liberal-leadership-1.224210
http://www.dailyxtra.com/canada/news-and-ideas/news/truro-rallies-council-rejects-rainbow-flag-53618 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchaliburton (talk • contribs) 12:41, 6 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fits criteria #2 of WP:NPOL, as a local politician who has received significant media coverage. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a tough case, and I can see the arguments against keeping the article. In particular, he is not apparently notable for his time a mayor. However, he received broad provincial coverage as part of his leadership run, and to me he is still notable enough within Nova Scotia to warrant an article, and barely meets the npol and GNG criteria. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to ~~delete~~ - while WP:ROUTINE is meant for events, not people, I think it makes quite a bit of sense in this case. The subject was only mentioned as part of a campaign, and there is nothing notable in the article other than details about him. That, combined with the lack of notability specifically about his local career, indicates to me that deletion is more appropriate in this case. This has been an interesting thought experiment surrounding this kind of notability, if nothing else. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncing around all over the place here :). Thanks @Geo Swan: for finding the extra sources; sounds to me like the subject now meets both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and the article should be kept as such. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that the article's subject is notable by criteria #2 of wp:npol.--John Cline (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - Disagree John Cline & Ajraddatz. Standalone biography should be deleted. No claim for notability as a 'major' local political figure and media coverage above is not significant. As 1st mayor, his name could be added to Colchester County, Nova Scotia and that is all that is needed. Canuckle (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN small-town politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as he's questionable for the applicable notability, nothing else currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the regional coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage of a political campaign. Other than that, doesn't meet WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, he's not notable purely by virtue of being a county mayor, but I think the media coverage of his leadership bid might be just enough to squeak him over the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs)

Keep @Ajraddatz: changed to "delete" asserting "The subject was only mentioned as part of a campaign". I spent some time, and added two new paragraphs, and ~~three~~four new references, that cover two other events, unconnected with his run for leadership of the Province's Liberal Party. There has been a sea-change in attitudes towards Gay Rights. Nine years ago his support was brave -- consider neighbouring Truro City Council voted the other way at 6 to 1. I was struck by how vehement Smith was in denouncing floor crosser Karen Casey. His language may not shock American readers, but it is pretty strong for Canada. Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. I count independent, verifiable sources from at least three different publications.--TM 17:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic Biophysics[edit]

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

This particular WP:POV fork of chiropractic seems to be a particular technique championed by two chiropractors, the Harrison father and son pair. Per WP:FRINGE we need independent sources that acknowledge this particular technique is notable. Aside from showing up in venues where the technique has been promoted by the Harrisons, there is no outside indication that this technique is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and without those independent sources it is impossible for Wikipedia to have a proper article on the subject. jps (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per reason stated by jps, furthermore the article has 0 secondary sources per MEDRS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete agree not enough independent secondary sources to justify its own article, might be worth a sentence of two in the chiropractic article Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost all sources are non-independent sources that cannot be used to determine notability. The page is littered with MEDRS violations, including sources written by the trade. I found one dated review which was added to the main chiropractic page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a distinct notable topic. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' this nonsense. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that, on the basis of Google searches and analyzing the content of this article, there don't seem to be enough independent or secondary sources to satisfy the WP:GNG for this topic.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Geogene (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons listed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanlu121 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 March 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 21 March 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) 08:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aspies For Freedom[edit]

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

There is only one reliable source covering this organization in-depth. Ylevental (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently this is the 5th nomination. The article doesn't seem to have improved... yes, there are some cites to scholarly journals but as far as I can tell, none of these actually reference the organization described in the article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did the editors above look at the sources? The article is well cited. Aspies For Freedom was profiled by the BBC and a quick Google search even shows multiple sources of information. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few of the sources I found, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy at best for now unless better coverage can also be added soon because this would be acceptable but further coverage would be beneficial. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The current sources are a little thin (a lot of brief mentions), but IMHO they're enough. Also, some of them require a subscription to view, so I couldn't see those. I wonder how many of the !voters took those into consideration. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 03:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources aren't amazing but notability certainly looks to be there. –Davey2010^Talk 22:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - mainly following what User:Megalibrarygirl said. Plus, bad sourcing means you put a bar on top asking for more sources not delete; delete is about notability not the quality of the article as User:Davey2010 notes. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 23:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Md p Nazim[edit]

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

Non notable (yet possibly) entrepeneur. Has started his own company but doesn't meet GNG and lacks RS Gbawden (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed the "largest" claim for his company as it isn't supported in the given reference. In a Newswire PR piece the firm claims to be "leading" and "among the most used" but that is less specific as a claim. There have been multiple A7 deletions of articles on that company, both under Presskr and Presskr.com. AllyD (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am finding nothing via Highbeam or an Indian Newspaper search. Google shows multiple instances of a brief Wordpress paragraph captioned "The young entrepreneur Md P Nazim Said about Presskr ClassifiedsDaily News Kolkata" but that is extremely dubious as a reliable 3rd party source. In the absence of anything better, attained biographical notability remains undemonstrated. AllyD (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as far as I am concern the article is worth by being encyclopaedia due to the inter entrepreneur Md p Nazim is the is first classified founder in Kolkata West Bengal, i saw several article on newspaper about him for their very own Bengali languages news paper.Ringroad777 (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC) — Ringroad777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: If there are these Bengali sources about the subject, please add them as references to the article? AllyD (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. The keep vote above is from an SPA. utcursch | talk 04:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some non-English sources can be found to support notability. Currently this has a taste of promotional authorship to me. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:04, 22 March 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. Michig (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VQ WeCoupon[edit]

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

Non-notable mobile app concept. Probably made-up by kids—but not so clearly so as to be speedied under A11. The only thing I can find about it on the internet is juvenile drawings at http://vq-wecoupon.com/. —teb728 t c 06:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unreferenced, this should've been speedied. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~- A7~~ - Tagged as such as this obviously fails A7, This didn't need a AFD either. –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "this obviously fails A7" The irony is that you're right; that means it doesn't meet it. Adam9007 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah dude you tagged it under A11 which was still incorrect so get off your high horse, I hadn't realized A7 didn't apply to apps etc. –Davey2010^Talk 01:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did say (in my edit summary) this is not under any A7 category did I not? Adam9007 (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes.... that doesn't mean you're correct tho, I've had plenty of people remove my criterion and add one that is incorrect altogether and the article's been deleted per my criterion, Anyway we all make mistakes and I admit my CSD handywork was a mistake. –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete speedy delete is not appropriate as A7 does not apply, and the text is not very promotional. However there is no claim of importance and no references. News shows nothing, and a web search only finds social media. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew this wasn't an A7 due to its scope. Adam9007 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG at least. Adam9007 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 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. Michig (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Migliorato[edit]

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

Vanity article. Another article by sock farmer who promos sports subjects that fail notability. In this case, subject fails WP:NBOX, WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. X4n6 (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. X4n6 (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBOX. By the way this article, like most of the others this sock farm has created, is just a copypaste of BoxRec.com: [32], [33]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, fails WP:NBOX, and being a minor league umpire does not automatically show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:41, 18 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Younes Abaaoud[edit]

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

No content, irrelevant and lack of notability, unknown person (other than to be the brother of a terrorist). Beside that, this article is also badly researched and poorly sourced. This boy is still a minor and has as far as we know done nothing, other than to leave home to go to a war zone. Everything that needs to be said about him is already mentioned in the main article: Abdelhamid Abaaoud. I think all these apply: WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Frieeedaaa (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability on his own, and WP:NOTINHERITED covers the way the article is currently written. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it wasn't for his brother's actions, Younes Abaaoud would have no coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This guy didn't even do much of anything to warrant notability and therefore an article. And no, having a brother who planned terrorist attacks and leaving home to go to a war zone doesn't count. We need better than that. Parsley Man (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Niu[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Not yet a prof and no refs for notability. Probably too early in her career Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Some high GS cites with a large author list in a very high cited field. Not clear how much contribution the subject made. WP:Too Soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. Looking at the papers in Google scholar listing "Wei Niu" as first author, "Benzene-Free Synthesis of Adipic Acid" (174 citations) and "Microbial synthesis of the energetic material precursor 1, 2, 4-butanetriol" (88 citations) seem to be hers but some others don't. There's also a geneticist at Yale and a computer scientist at UCSB with the same name, at least. Given this, although she seems on a promising career track, the case for WP:PROF#C1 looks tenuous, and there seems nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 19 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Composr[edit]

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

Article about a CMS. Fails WP:GNG for lack of independent reliable sources. - Mr X 14:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. CMS Matrix, the only ref not from the developers, asks developers to submit their own listings and has no written editorial policy. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly useful for potential users, having many valuable features. OlavN (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness is not an established criteria for keeping articles. The issue here is notability, WP:N, and the lack of reliable sources WP:RS.Dialectric (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant independent coverage, it fails WP:GNG. No claim to notability is made. --Bejnar (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this meets our notability requirements for products. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find sources to meet WP:GNG. 22:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC) signed with too many tildas by Walter Görlitz.

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. Michig (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja davidii 'Lyme Bay'[edit]

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

Delete as promotional article in re obscure "cultivar" or, in the alternative, redirect to South Molton. Quis separabit? 15:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are plenty of stubs and small articles about cultivars, but this one is basically free of information and appears purely promotional. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES peters out somewhere in the area between subspecies and cultivar... -- Elmidae (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's clearly nothing of importance here.*Treker (talk) 14:37, 16 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why we need elective courses in education[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Not Essay Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it's titled like an essay and written like an essay (and sourced primarily to an education advice blog) therefore I agree it falls under WP:NOT. If there's something of any interest in the NYT news article maybe it could be added to Course (education)#Elective and required courses. Sionk (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Sionk. It should be noted that this article was created as part of a class assignment as indicated at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Cal State San Marcos/Sociology of Education (Spring), and it is possible that other articles may be created for that course which require scrutiny. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic case of WP:ESSAY without semblance of a real, encyclopedic subject matter. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to post a message to the student's talk page about this. Offhand I do think that there's potential merit in having an article about electives independent from the main article Course (education), but it'd have to be more neutral and better sourced of course. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and best restarted as another name, if ever, as none of this is acceptable for a better encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 21 March 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. misguided attempt at humour Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Law's Law[edit]

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

Non-notable tradition (and likely hoax). I can find no Google hits under this meaning. —teb728 t c 00:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is clearly a hoax. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well I'm British & yet I've never even heard of the law....., I'm also inclined to say it's a hoax.... Fails GNG either way. –Davey2010^Talk 03:12, 16 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little Linguists International Preschool[edit]

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

Non-notable private school. This article serves little purpose but to promote this institution. No evidence to be found of any significant coverage of this institution. The single case of actual published coverage (in Mundo Hispanica) has the feel of an advertorial (providing contact information for the school) and has to be considered local coverage anyway, as MH specifically addresses the Hispanic community of the Atlanta area. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Normally schools below the high school level are redirected to the appropriate school district or locality article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. In this case I don't see the point of a redirect, but if such is the outcome, Fulton County School System would be appropriate. Jacona (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, with no redirect. Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not acceptable for the schools notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 21 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Education to Theatricality[edit]

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

This article was written by one of a small number of people associated with the subject, and virtually all the cited sources are by one of his colleagues. I removed some publications in predatory journals, which turned out to be all the English-language sources that were not self-published. That is one massive red flag right there. It looks to me as if this is an attempt to promulgate yet another form of ideological pedagogy, of minimal demonstrable significance, but perhaps the Italian sources are less self-evidently self-swerving than the removed English ones. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure I understand what the subject actually is, but delete as promotional, fringe, and non-notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: gives little idea as to the subject, and seems to be an advertisement for whatever it's about. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 00:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reasons in order of importance: (1) Egregious copyright violations. Some sections are whole quotes, which is inappropriate but not a copyvio. Other sections are quotes and do not cite the source. (some Google searches based on random quotes [34] [35] [36] [37]). (2) Pervasive essay and promotional WP:TONE issues. (3) WP:N. This is last because the other issues are so problematic that I didn't get around to doing a thorough search for sources to see if it's notable, but at a glance, it seems like a few people involved have written extensively, but secondary sources are lacking. Again, this is not the primary reason. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no context for a better formatted article and this is best restarted when better is available. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 23 March 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. czar 04:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was created by me long ago, when I still didn't grasp knowledge about Wikipedia. Now, I am here to nominate it for deletion. I can't seem to find any sources whatsoever on this school. A search on Google turned up nothing but parent reviews and a few mentions of Challenger students in competitions. FiendYT ★ 07:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From experience, most, if not all secondary (or Senior) schools generally are notable. However, I will leave it for other editors to comment and discuss. Nordic Dragon 09:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - does it provide 9-12 (i.e., secondary) education? If so, we keep it per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 10:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No. It only provides grades 1 through 8. FiendYT ★ 00:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for the applicable schools notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady Orchids[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this topic has received enough coverage in independent reliable sources to be regarded as notable. The subject is a group of orchid varieties marketed by a company called "Chadwick Orchids", founded by a father and son pair named Art (short for Arthur) E. Chadwick and Art A. Chadwick. The article was created by an editor with the username "Art chadwick62", who has gvien his name on Wikipedia as "Arthur Everett Chadwick". The only source cited in the article is a book by Arthur Chadwick.

An earlier version of the article consisted almost entirley of promotional content copied word-for word from the website www.chadwickorchids.com, which I have removed, both as copyright infringement and as promotional. It is clear that the article is an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote the products of the business Chadwick Orchids.

I have searched for information about "First Lady Orchids". I found various pages which mention some of the orchids in question, and mention that they are included in a group that Chadwick Orchids markets under that name, but I failed to find any independent source which gives substantial coverage to the group as a whole, such as is needed to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

A PROD was removed by the creator of the article, without comment. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article on a subject which does not satisfy the notability guidelines, with every sign of being written to promote the business concerned. The king of the sun (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and best restarted when a better article with better information and sources is available. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 21 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helix Magazine[edit]

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

A local university magazine, with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Publications-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You know how for biography articles, Wikipedia is not permissive of articles that are basically just unsourced, original autobiographies? I think we can apply a similar standard to publication articles like this as well. This is also most likely promotionalism. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at all. The king of the sun (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and best restarted when better is available, not yet obviously notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (A7) by Ritchie333. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 20:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Everitt[edit]

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

BLP fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG for lack of available sources. - Mr X 13:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nearly imaginable for A7 and also PROD, nothing suggests satisfying any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apparently a completely non-notable person, almost fails A7 even. Chrisw80 (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Chikly[edit]

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

Puffed up bio with no real claims to notability, despite the misleadingly large list of references. Article contains a list of articles/book chapters, all in minor journals/books (some in predatory journals) and none of them cited with anything approaching what is needed to establish notability (highest citation count = 38, h-index = 4). Awards are very minor/trivial, the most significant one being included in the "millennium edition of Marquis Who's Who in the World". Most references are to works by the subject himself, no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF nor any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon at best, still questionable for a solidly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 21 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CAMP 13[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Lacking in basic detail - such as where is it? Not known to Google. Rathfelder (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coundn't find anything either. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything about it on Google.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanlu121 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 16 March 2016‎

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asha (band)[edit]

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

Most sources are from social network. Co-nominating band members Moon Ji-Young, Byun Na-rae and Ahn Hyun-Ah created by the same user. Lee Na-ra deleted two times is a band member. Captain Spark (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This group and its members are not notable per WP:BAND. Random86 (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon at best, nothing else convincing for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Lounsbery[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON only one starring role in a recent show (High School Star Musical). No notable coverage in secondary independent sources. ANN articles only list him among cast announcement. Not listed in GamePlaza Haruka Voice Acting Database. No equivalent JA Wikipedia article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is listed in Game Plaza Haruka Voice Acting Database. He has an equivalent Japanese Wikipedia article. His roles in Buddy Complex and Haikyū!! are also notable credits. He also hosted his own radio show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisTruehart (talk • contribs) 15:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the right GPH article and linking JA Wikipedia article too. But, Haikyū role is a minor character and Buddy Complex is among ten other crew members that are pretty much supporting characters. Is there another show where he has a lead role? WP:ENT says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article follows every basic rule for an biographical article about a Japanese voice actor or actress. May I suggest the option for this article to be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in Japanese, like fellow recently debuted voice actor Yuuma Uchida's page. I'll translate and update it regularly from the currently existed equivalent Japanese Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisTruehart (talk • contribs) 12:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uchida has two lead roles in two different anime series so she meets WP:ENT. Can you find that second major role for Lounsbery? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He starred as Sho Capital in Iji Moto Gattai Moji Bakeru Z, as Mars in Chō Jigen Henkei FrameRobo, as Rem in Kimi no Oudou. Those are all lead roles. He's also an actor and TV personality. He's among the main cast for the film Kami☆Voice as Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisTruehart (talk • contribs) 07:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought most of the content from the equivalent Japanese Wikipedia article over here and added various independent sources. WP:ENT also says “Has a large fan base or a significant ‘cult’ following” and he has almost 30.000 followers on his Twitter account alone. Every reliable voice actor database has his entry and after a quick Google seach, you will see he’s well sought after, even more so in Japanese sites and articles. He has done multiple interviews, appeared in various popular voice actor magazines such as Voice Newtype and Seiyuu Junon. He's well recognisable in Japan as a voice actor and narrator. He may not be 'slam-dunk notable' to western community but I think there is certainly enough out there to warrant an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisTruehart (talk • contribs) 03:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you rewrite the lead paragraph to summarize his most important roles? Also remove the notable_works from the infobox for now. The infobox roles are only for ones where he is strongly synonymous with his role as with Ikue Otani and Pikachu. Also please remove trivia such as favorite food, pets, disliking bugs, glasses. And that stuff in the biography section needs to be sourced. If it is made clear that he has been involved in more than two starring roles in anime then I can pass this as notable. Inazuma Eleven role is not starring. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The biography section is directly translated from the equivalent Japanese Wikipedia article, I did not make any of that up. I sourced it back to that section in the Japanese Wikipedia article but it got removed because another said Wikipedia is not a source for itself. And to source more directly, they are collected from various interview articles from famous Japanese voice actor magazines such as Voice Newtype and Seiyuu Junon. WP:ENT says 'Has had significant roles in other productions', 'significant' implies the importance of that role to the whole production, you can't discredit his role in Inazuma Eleven GO because he's a regular there as one of the main antagonists and appeared in 23/43 episodes. Also because significant roles in other productions count, I have already listed his other roles as Sho Capital in Iji Moto Gattai Moji Bakeru Z, as Mars in Chō Jigen Henkei FrameRobo, as Rem in Kimi no Oudou. And these are all lead roles. And I have also addressed the fact that WP:ENT also says “Has a large fan base or a significant ‘cult’ following” in the premise above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisTruehart (talk • contribs) 17:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my point. All that verbiage needs to be listed up front in the lead paragraph so readers can instantly identify why this person should have an article, not relegated to the filmography list where you're not supposed to bold major roles anyway and where it just gets buried. If he's a regular in Inazuma Eleven GO then describe that up front. Same with those other Japanese-only titles. If he's got a huge fan base, then describe that up front and cite the appropriate articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for Sho Capital in Iji Moto Gattai Moji Bakeru Z, as Mars in Chō Jigen Henkei FrameRobo, as Rem in Kimi no Oudou, please link each of those productions to the JA Wikipedia article to show notability. I cannot find an EN Wikipedia article for those three titles, so readers need to have a clue they are significant productions. They could be some random amateur web series on youtube or local direct-to-videos for all I know. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will sum it up: First, WP:ENT says “Has a large fan base or a significant ‘cult’ following”, this is the evidence. Second, WP:ENT says 'Has had significant roles in other productions', he's in Inazuma Eleven GO Galaxy as Ryugel Baran; Kimi no Oudou as Rem (1st coverage, 2nd coverage, 3rd coverage), Iji Moto Gattai Moji Bakeru Z as Sho Capital, Chō Jigen Henkei FrameRobo as Mars (these are web series made by Bandai, posted on their official youtube channel, targeting towards younger audience does not mean 'random amateur' as you call it). About not suppose to bold major roles, that's because I follow the example set by the Japanese Wikipedia article, if that's not allowed for English article, then I'll correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisTruehart (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in the article itself not this AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the lead paragraph for his biography and fixed the page’s presentation as per standard rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisTruehart (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and Draft and Userfy at best because although AlexisTruehart mentions above that his works are notable enough, this article has not yet been better improved since the current article is quite certainly of concern, with none of it seeming like an actual Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best and brought as much content from the equivalent Japanese Wikipedia article over as possible. I notice the majority of articles about a Japanese voice actor or actress are considered sufficient with their list of roles. That's what this article was originally about. But since AngusWOOF demanded more information about him, I translated most of the content from the original Japanese Wikipedia article, and left a note about it for credit and accuracy purpose. I did not make any of that up. If as you said I have proved his notability, I will remove anything that's not considered proper for a Wikipedia article. I'm sure his filmography is detailed enough, as other famous voice actor or actress's articles only list them as such, like Tomoaki Maeno,Kazuyuki Okitsu, Wataru Hatano. Nobuhiko Okamoto's article does have trivia about his personal life. Recently debuted voice actors Yuuma Uchida and Kōtarō Nishiyama's articles are about as detailed as this article. Again, If my proofs are considered sufficient for his notability, I will remove anything that's not considered proper for a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisTruehart (talk • contribs) 07:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually most of the articles you have mentioned are stub level and still require a lead paragraph at the top of the article (not just the biography section) to show notability. Please see Mamoru Miyano and Aki Toyosaki for examples that show a lead paragraph. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable voice artist, references seem to have been improved and he seems to have had an extensive career.Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see that references have been added, my opinion would be to keep this for now. A post AfD iscussion can always be held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga regarding the matter as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N and WP:GNG and after references were added in, article should be kept. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:59, 25 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Malian Foundation[edit]

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

I highly question the notability of this non-profit. The citations all lead to junk references. The exact activities of this organization never even become clear in the article. Duivelwaan (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's mentioned here and there around the web, and in a couple of books, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Amakuru (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete can't believe this has survived over 10 years. The references are almost all primary. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 18 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Home Phonics World[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP & WP:GNG, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, sorry school districts, but there's plenty of editors on Wikipedia that know a WP:CORPSPAM article when they see it. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, we can see that generally kindergartens and elementary schools don't get kept. This article cites no sources, and I can't see any online that assert much in the way of notability. — Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a complete article and there's nothing suggesting applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 21 March 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, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Therriault‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Devin Therriault

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

No indication of notability Jax 0677 (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose these aren't muppet sources, the artist was widely covered by mainstream sources and has a notable production team:

Sydney Morning Herald: Straight out of the iGarage May 11, 2012 Devin Therriault got his rock education from YouTube but he graduated on stage, writes Michael Dwyer.
The Guardian: Devin (No 1,195) This 23-year-old Brooklyn boy's fast and frantic sound suggests he has studied everyone from the Stones to the Strokes
New Musical Express: Devin Romancing
Rolling Stone (magazine): Album Premiere: Devin's 'Romancing' Is A Gleeful Romp Preview the debut album by the New York City rocker April 5, 2012
BBC Leonie Cooper 2012: BBC Review Pop sensibilities run deep on this scintillating debut LP.
And more.. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The burden of proof lies in proving that the individual is notable, not the other way around. WRT notability, all the article itself says, is that "His debut album Romancing, produced by Chris Zane was released 21 May, 2012 on the No Evil label". IMO, this is not sufficient to prove such notability. The information visible above also does not prove depth of coverage. That being said, I will agree to a redirect to Chris_Zane#2012. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and a rather SNOWy one at that, I should think. That's a pretty strong list of WP:RS above and he would seem to easily meet WP:GNG, on the basis of those reviews and stories alone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Clearly passes GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - There seems to be no indication of WHY Therriault is notable, nor evidence of depth of coverage in the five sources given. The article is two sentences long, and per WP:IDEALSTUB, does not seem to even contain "enough information for other editors to expand upon it" nor "adequate context". --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and Userfy at best since this is questionably enough for a solid article. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 21 March 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.