Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2 March 4 March >

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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yanet García[edit]

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

Refs are PR; persona is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as quite obviously gossipy-like News, all sources are simply for entertainment including NY Daily News and my searches found exactly this with others. Simply not convincing enough for WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER (the coverage suggests the second one is applicable, all of this is simply for entertainment). SwisterTwister talk 01:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable weatherperson, and Monterrey's Televisa station is not watched nationwide, unlike what Metro UK wants us to think. Nate • (chatter) 04:08, 4 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denice Frohman[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is her awards, and they're all fairly minor awards. Women of the World Poetry Slam is probably the most notable one, but it's still pretty borderline -- not enough to indicate notability on its own. All the other awards seem to be not particularly notable, minor/local things IagoQnsi (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just a cursory search has found several reliable source speaking about Denice Frohman in detail [1], [2], [3]. This is enough to meet the WP:GNG threshold. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per McMatter; and in addition, national awards like the NALAC grant are hugely competitive these days and cannot be dismissed as minor. There is much room to improve this page, but meanwhile it should be kept.Alafarge (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reliable sources discuss the subject in depth, making this meet WP:GNG. She also played on a professional basketball team in Puerto Rico. gobonobo + c 22:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as improved sources have been found and the number of awards won, I think WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:20, 10 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) 09:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True Dating Stories[edit]

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

Article about a web series, based solely on a single primary source with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown. A web series, even if it's on a national television network's online streaming platform, is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists; it must be the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Google results look social media and blogs, but most are completely unrelated to the web series. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:37, 4 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) 09:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Taylor[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is co-creating eBuddy, but notability is not inherited, and it doesn't seem like he's done anything else of note. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Certainly lacks any notability. 71.185.45.31 (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hello (talk), as it is explained in the articles I refer to as sources, Paulo Taylor did indeed co-found the company eBuddy, but the app eBuddy was solely developed by Paulo Taylor, as he was the programer, and the other two co-founders had other functions within the company that were not related to programming.

What do you mean by "notability is not inherited"? Paulo Taylor came from a humble family, do you mean I should remove his parents names? (because that fact doesn't add anything to his biography?

Many thanks, Josinemonalisa (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)josinemonalisa[reply]

By "notability is not inherited", I mean, just because Taylor was involved with something notable doesn't automatically make him notable. He may be the sole developer of eBuddy, but that doesn't mean that he himself is notable. Taylor must meet the notability guidelines by his own merits, not by merely being connected to another notable subject. See this section about arguments to avoid for more info. -IagoQnsi (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this established solid independent notability and there's nothing else convincing from the current article. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 5 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) 09:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corlyx[edit]

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

Article about a band with no strong or properly sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. Their entire recorded output at this point consists of one newly self-released independent EP, and the sourcing here (which is contextlessly linkfarmed at the bottom of the article rather than actually footnoting anything in the body) is entirely to blogs and their own EPK, with not a shred of reliable source coverage in real media. As always, a band is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because they can be verified as existing -- it takes reliable source coverage, supporting a claim of notability that passes NMUSIC, to earn one. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when their sourceability and notability can be shown better than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Expected coverage for a newly founded group nothing else convincing, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 4 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) 01:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Reguilón[edit]

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

Non-notable player, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG as they haven't played in a fully professional league Joseph2302 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY and GNG, definitely TOOSOON. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:12, 8 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. Could be notable in the future but is not now. Fenix down (talk) 10:00, 10 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional mountain bikers[edit]

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

Unsourced, largely unlinked, BLP listcruft Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has been tagged for the same problem since 2009. It isn't "a bit flakey" in places, it is totally unsourced. Half the entries here aren't even linked, or are simply redlinked. I accept that there are some entries here linking to articles on notable riders with at least some sourcing. But as an overall list, WP fails on it. It isn't of acceptable quality for an article involving BLP, and if it hasn't achieved one single source since 2009, I doubt if it can be made so. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs editing but I see no justification for deletion. --Michig (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are "professional" mountain bikers notable? We don't regard that as sufficient for other sports. So what is the level needed for inclusion here? Certainly the top tier would belong in such a list, but how far does it go? What is "professional"? A handful of sponsorship doesn't really cut it either. But this article neither defines its criteria, nor sources anything. That's just not good enough for BLPs and yes, AfD is cleanup, when it comes to unsourced BLP. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they're not all notable, but clearly many are, and a list of them seems a perfectly reasonable thing to have here. If all that needs doing is tightening the scope of the list then that's an editing issue. This isn't a BLP. --Michig (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that was added to the title to keep out any notable person who merely mountain biked as a hobby. That kind of threshold issue isn't unique to this subject, and I'd assume the list should ultimately have the same scope as the category. But as Michig says, that's all an issue for editing. postdlf (talk) 22:42, 5 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) 09:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Jensen[edit]

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

He arranges songs with Yoko Kanno of Cowboy Bebop fame, but does that mean he should keep his own article? Can't find him in Oricon or MADB. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's nothing to suggest independent notability, that is, unless some finds enough convincing coverage, but there's nothing else to suggest keeping at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails our notability guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 8 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) 09:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated shorts available on DVD[edit]

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

The list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. Koala15 (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject of this list is far to broad and indiscriminate; fails WP:LSC.-- danntm T C 01:52, 7 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  07:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regalia (Condominium)[edit]

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

Article about a condominium project with no discernible indication of notability under our inclusion standards for buildings. Although not blatant enough in tone to merit speedy, the intent here was clearly to advertise it rather than to write an encyclopedia article about it -- after asserting that the building exists, the entire rest of the article is a description of the base unit which sounds like an HGTV host trying to talk that unit's selling features up to me, and the only "source" is a press release from the building's owner about the selection of the architect (a self-published primary source that cannot support notability in a Wikipedia article.) As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which every condo building is entitled to an article just because it exists -- it's an encyclopedia, in which a condo building has to be reliably sourced as notable for something more than just existing. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:45, 3 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) 01:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sitki Baba[edit]

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

Possible hoax. Only reference reads through Google Translate as some kind of historical non-sporting legend. C679 18:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 18:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:13, 3 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) 07:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cishan Wude Martial Arts Center[edit]

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

Building built in 2000 with no claim of historical significance. Only references are a few sentences on the local government tourist website and an even briefer description on the website of a local travel agent. No indication of notability or meeting WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The dates given are certainly complicated in the references. The current building built in 2000 was apparently not modeled on what was originally there and never functioned as a martial arts center. Hard to understand where the notability is coming from - a site where martial arts were once practiced?? Peter Rehse (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability and lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails all of the notability guidelines that I'm familiar with, and there's no assertion of notability within the article. A cursory search for reliable sources I performed, as Papaursa already noted in the comment above, fails to turn up anything significant. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:51, 11 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) 01:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Crossed[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Fails WP:NBOX with just two fights. Only claim to fame appears to be appearing in a local TV commercial with Mike Tyson, but that's WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. Certainly not enough to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. 71.185.45.31 (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for boxers and lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. A local TV ad is insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:39, 9 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Nazre[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a businessman, written like a résumé and making no strong claim of notability under our inclusion rules for businesspeople. The referencing here, further, is parked almost entirely on primary sources, with the only two reliable sources being one article which namechecks his existence in the process of failing to be about him, and one deadlinked article whose content I can't verify at all. As usual, he's not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- a person earns one by being the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, but that hasn't been demonstrated here. Note that this is the same person as the first deletion discussion, though the article is written differently enough this time that I don't feel comfortable speedying it as a recreation of deleted content. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's barely anything here especially for any applicable notability, would've been imaginable G4. Notifying 1st AfDers DGG, Johnpacklambert and Thomas.W. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete researcher who lacks significant coverage. I know people with more than 7 patents who are no where near notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 4 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Tylleman[edit]

Cedric Tylleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-created (or at least self-expanded) bio article about non-notable performer in non-notable roles. Notwithstanding the fact that he keeps restoring an IMDb link as a citation (IMDb is of course an unreliable source, as it is user-updated), but the other citations are his casting resume links and some mentions of his name as a cast member by some dubious websites. There is only one film with more reasonable citations (though still perhaps blogs), Loveshhuda, and his role appears minor. — TAnthonyTalk 16:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the IPs 193.63.25.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 193.63.25.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are presumably Cedric Tylleman himself, or a friend.— TAnthonyTalk 16:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches found nothing and none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 02:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup rather then AfD selection, personally considering an article not worthy is insufficient. 22:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
Changed stance Keep after reviewing the extensive TV and film credits, although this article should be considered Cleanup poorly structured. 22:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
Keep – search of coverage in sources. coverage to meet notability requirements. Article needs a tidy up. 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
As I noted above, the three citations in this search look acceptable to establish Tylleman's role as "Gaurav's Stag Friend" in Loveshhuda (and are used in the article). But they do not establish notability for Tylleman to the extent that he requires a Wikipedia article.— TAnthonyTalk 21:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup – sufficient notability, article doesn't do a decent job of representing this. 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
Comment – Sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11], 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
I have commented on each of these sources within the ref templates themselves, see below.— TAnthonyTalk 22:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, all of the above was added here by the IP whom I presume is Cedric himself, it was unsigned and structured to give the appearance of multiple editors, but I will assume in good faith that this was an error of presentation and not an attempt to mislead.— TAnthonyTalk 20:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cedric, there is no amount of "tidying up" that can be done here to make you notable as the topic of an article. I will comment on each of the citations if you like, but even the valid ones do not make a case for your being a notable performer in notable roles at this time. Plus it's silly for you to pretend you have "reviewed the extensive credits" and "changed your stance" when you added them to the article in the first place.— TAnthonyTalk 17:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that your credits are fabricated, I'm suggesting that they do not meet the threshold of notability required for an article. I'm pointing out the inclusion of unreliable citations because they cannot and should not be considered in the assessment of you as a topic.— TAnthonyTalk 18:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lacking significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The sources in my searches, presented here, and presented in the article do not establish the subject's notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Verified FB, def notable". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    No one is disputing FB as an acceptable External link, but per WP:SELFSOURCE it should not be used as a source if it is unduly self-serving. I don't see this currently used as a source in the article.— TAnthonyTalk
  2. ^ "ccp requires 4 speaking roles, featured". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    Casting website designed to promote actors, who pay a fee to be featured and access audition information. This is perhaps acceptable as an External link resource, but is not a neutral source for credits. That said, even though I am not necessarily disputing the credits therein, I see none asserting the need for a Wikipedia article for this performer, which is corroborated by the lack of any other sources mentioning these roles.— TAnthonyTalk
  3. ^ "footage tv credit". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    Links to YouTube are unacceptable in cases where the content is a copyright violation, per WP:YOUTUBE. Cedric has himself uploaded a copyrighted clip to YouTube with no copyright notice or assertion of permission granted from the copyright holder. Even if the link itself was acceptable, all it does is show the subject in a nonspeaking role. This is non-notable and original research, as a reliable source has not mentioned the performer or the role.— TAnthonyTalk
  4. ^ "bio imdb, unreliable, still valuable regards to the subject". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    IMDb is fine as an External link resource, but per WP:USERGENERATED it is unacceptable as a source/citation. The IP editor disputing this deletion has used IMDb twice in this inappropriate manner (to cite a birthdate and a film credit), restoring it despite my removals.— TAnthonyTalk
  5. ^ "genealogy checks out, reliable". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    I'm not even disputing the subject's familial connections, but as above, a user-updated website/database is not acceptable as a source.— TAnthonyTalk
  6. ^ "notable music platform, proof music maker". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    I uploaded a recording of my cat crying for people food to Soundcloud, doesn't make him a music artist and doesn't make him worthy of a Wikipedia article.— TAnthonyTalk
  7. ^ "twq role". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    As with the Youtube citation above, this is a still photo of the performer in a scene from the series. Great, no one is disputing that he was in the show as "Noble Servant" but no reliable source has deemed this role notable enough for mention. This is also a link to copyrighted material posted on the web without apparent permission, and even if OK on that count, is original research.— TAnthonyTalk
  8. ^ "found this, the subject w/ chris martin,coldplay. not sufficient for proof, still makes sense". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. — TAnthonyTalk
  9. ^ "subject featured in major signed artist video". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    As above, still of unspecified music video posted without apparent permission on Tylleman's instagram. Copyright concerns and original research aside, appearing in a music video does not necessarily equate to notability, especially if no journalist source has mentioned the appearance. — TAnthonyTalk
  10. ^ "this is thin, still provides proof location and prof modeling website". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    As above, self-promotional casting resume site does not assert notability, acceptable only as an External link resource.— TAnthonyTalk
  11. ^ "idem ccp, cn prof. casting database". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    As above, self-promotional casting resume site does not assert notability, acceptable only as an External link resource.— TAnthonyTalk
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  07:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrilege (NWOBHM)[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced and very advertorially-toned articles about a band and two of its members. The band could potentially pass WP:NMUSIC if this were written and sourced properly, but they're not entitled to keep something that's written and sourced like this just because they exist — NMUSIC cannot be passed just by asserting that it's passed, but rather requires reliable sourcing which verifies the accuracy of the assertions. And the individual guitarists' WP:BLPs don't even make any notability claim at all that would entitle either of them to standalone articles as separate topics from the band, rather than just redirects. If the band article sees sufficient sourcing and tone cleanup before close, then I'm willing to withdraw this, but it has to be deleted if it stays looking like this — and the guitarists' articles need to be either redirected to the band article if that one's kept, or deleted as well if the band gets deleted. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Creator has started adding some "references" to the band, but they're primary sources and blogs rather than reliable source coverage in real media, so they don't improve the case at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best for now and restart later as WP:TNT or draft and userfy if needed, nothing else convincing with no solid signs of applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:07, 11 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deedar Gill[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV I think. I failed to find any independent sources that confirm notability. JTtheOG (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER and there's nothing else to suggest independent notability from those listed films. SwisterTwister talk 18:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough. Cindlevet (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:12, 11 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) Yash! 16:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moritz Wagner (basketball)[edit]

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

Played a few minutes in the German league, and is now playing college basketball. Not really notable, can't find too many sources going in deep. JTtheOG (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:36, 3 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) 09:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Stracke[edit]

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

Non-notable model. Ridernyc (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm not sure if we have specific notability criteria for fashion models, but I can't see how she meets the WP:GNG. Press mentions are either not independent, or are just casual mentions that she was at a particular show. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:20, 11 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester Beats[edit]

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

No sign of meeting WP:MUSICBIO - no gnews hits, google hits are all self-generated or database listings, article is sourced solely to a paid-for interview ad. This article was a rejected AFC submission that was placed into article space anyway. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the nominator summed it up pretty well. One advertorial interview hosted by "one of the leading platforms for music artist [sic] to promote their music" plainly doesn't meet the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" of WP:NMUSIC, and there is zero indication any of the other criteria are met. - Biruitorul Talk 01:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of this applies any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sections of the article exactly match the lead to that interview, so we could use copyvio as an excuse to speedy this. I'd rather not, though, as it's overwhelmingly likely that it and the Wikipedia article have the same author. User:KeyzJay/sandbox should be deleted along with this, in any case. —Cryptic 12:06, 5 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) Yash! 15:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harilal Upadhyay[edit]

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

Seemingly NN author. Only claim of notability that might pass WP:AUTHOR are the 2 non notable awards that are asserted as winning. Claims of authoring Mahabharata appear to be patently false. Toddst1 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the greatest Gujarati writers of the 20th century, author of more than 100 books. Biwom (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And this author meets WP:GNG how? Toddst1 (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This book mentions him as one of the "important figures" of the 20th century Gujarati literature. This magazine lists him among the "eminent personalities" of Gujarat. utcursch | talk 18:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly appears to meet notability guidelines. Can you imagine an American author being nominated in similar circumstances? What searches has the nom undertaken in Gujarati? AusLondonder (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable author, as stated by sources given in discussion. I think WP: GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:28, 10 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 & redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). Three approaches were presented here. Some supported that the article be kept on the basis that there are a number of sources discussing this name, and that this very Wikipedia article has been the subject of sources. However, justification for this position was often based on subjective notions of importance or popularity. Others argued it should be deleted, noting that not all newsworthy subjects require Wikipedia articles. Some also expressed concern that the article could be susceptible to policy violations and should be deleted and protected from recreation. However, the name clearly has coverage, and we have methods to address policy violations. Consensus favored merging and redirecting to an article describing how the name was surfaced and the aftermath. Support for this position contended that the majority of coverage about the name is in the context of this particular episode. Some individuals also changed their position to supporting merge midway through this discussion.

Before redirecting the article, I will take care of merging any relevant material to the target shortly. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald J Drumpf[edit]

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

Marginally notable character, which is notable only as part of the Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episode "Donald Trump." This does not merit general notability on its own.

Also, most of the text is copied verbatim, or paraphrased, from the page "Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)," so this article is totally redundant. epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep: This is not a duplicate article, the subject matters are different though there are similarities between the two articles. This article's text is not copied, most of it is my original summary of the content of the show and related citations. This parody character is not marginal, although many conservatives would prefer it was. The parody character is more "popular" than Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, two humans running for the office of President of the United States. The parody character has tweeted more than 2,000 times and the parody character has a following of almost 27,000 people on Twitter alone. This parody character cannot be considered marginal by any measure. Note: Additional comments, this article has now been picked up by major media and removing it could prevent millions of people from finding out more about this important parody character. See these articles [1][2] --Potguru (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-drumpf-wikipedia-now-exists-after-john-olivers-trump-takedown-w166114
  2. ^ http://www.bustle.com/articles/144811-john-oliver-takes-on-donald-drumpf-as-only-the-last-week-tonight-host-can-it
@Potguru: Would you mind changing your "oppose deletion" !vote to "keep," per WP:AFDFORMAT? Thanks. I know you want to keep the article, so this modification will help administrators more easily see your "keep" !vote. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
note - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DataflowBot/output/Top_20_enwiki_articles_by_edits_and_editors_in_past_7_days_(id-1) one of the top edited article. I don't know how I feel at the moment. I guess, if forced, right now I'd say keep... but it really depends what the article looks like at any given time --Potguru (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Clearly the article you wrote is far superior (since you copied all my hard work). Please please please just delete the gd page. --Potguru (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – More and more articles from reliable sources continue to be published online about this topic; I may change (have changed) my !vote to a keep later on. North America1000 23:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I have modified my !vote above to "keep with an option to merge". Also modified my comment, and have added more sources there. North America1000 13:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) - as I am in the UK (and wasn't paying attention) I found this Drumpf article very helpful in getting me up to speed on why / what the Drumpf hashtag is on Twitter. However having read the article and the relate DT-LWTonight one I think the info from this page would be better placed there (this article has a lot of information that's absent from the DT-LWTonight one). Beyond that I've no vested interest in the outcome. JoBrodie (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) as per the reasons mentioned above given that the character concept is a derivation of the epsiode and it's campaign. There's direct precedent in terms of Jeff the Diseased Lung in a Cowboy Hat. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Merge / Redirect Duplicative of Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). If there is anything worth merging, we can do that, but I don't know that there is. Maybe the LWT article doesn't yet mention any trademarks that Oliver filed. Need to look into that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Donald J. Drumpf currently redirects to the LWT episode. Is that a better redirect target than Donald Trump? I'm ambivalent about that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Potguru redirected the redirect to Donald J Drumpf, which looks likes it will soon be a double redirect. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the LWT article is the correct redirect. There's little chance someone would search for "Drumpf" intending to end up at "Trump". Redirecting to Trump would likely only cause frustration. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with this line of thinking. "Donald Drumpf", "Donald J. Drumpf", etc. should redirect to the LWT epsiode. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: no reason not to keep it at this point TeeVeeed (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of reasons have been presented that you're not arguing against. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either merge to the Last Week Tonight episode, or merge the Last Week Tonight episode to this: The two have significant overlap, and neither are or can be particularly long. pbp 19:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2#Donald Drumpf. The way things look right now, it's poised to point to a different place than this article, which doesn't seem to serve readers' interests. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are too many related discussions going on simultaneously. There are discussions about redirects and redirecting, and merge/deletion discussions. I don't think notability is a question here. The segment is clearly notable. So we should be having a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
– North America1000 19:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this diff says a lot. Can we please just redirect this article to the LWT segment article and stop these run-around discussions? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All that diff says is I uploaded an image and that in that image was a caption. What are you suggesting the diff says other than that? --Potguru (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: I agree, please, I hate begging :P Mlpearc (open channel) 20:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge / Redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight).--Frmorrison (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This article is an insightful and informative source of information about a public figure who might be president. It is therefore too important to be removed.Theoptimizers (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of Theoptimizers edits are to this page. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Are you seriously saying that? The article is about a parody of a presidential candidate, not about the candidate himself. epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect - There's no reason to have an independent article about this parody character. Delete it, or redirect it to the LWT article... Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The article in question has been mentioned by Bustle.com, here. epicgenius (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article holds no relevance beyond the Late Night Tonight segment (though I debate the significance of a segment of an episode of a TV show as well). heat_fan1 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This page is about the nexus of genealogy, politics, and American pop culture. As such it has a unique and justifiable place right here. GibsonTaylor (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that GibsonTaylor (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Note - This AfD is generating some discussion on social media. Expect some SPAs to start showing up soon. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a meme that is big for now; it would be crazy for Wikipedia to delete it, proving how awful and bureaucratic and petty wikipedia insiders are. And actually the article being separate from the article on the John Oliver episode seems proper. After some time (a year or more), if/when the meme is no longer big, the article could perhaps be merged into the episode article (especially if there's a catastrophic loss of electrons in the universe, requiring economy). I came from the Wikipedia newsletter page, not from social media. --doncram 23:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to LWT article - given media coverage too large to be ignored and too large for section on the main DJT article. -- Tawker (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Media outlets are now quoting the Wikipedia page for information about this meme. It might be valid to delete or redirect the article when it is no longer topical but I think it should exist as a separate article during the campaign. Wikipedia has Binders full of women and a full Category:Political internet memes. I think Donald J. Drumpf is as valid as any others in that category. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: "It might be valid to delete or redirect the article when it is no longer topical"... Notability is not temporary. Either the "character" is notable now and forever or it isn't. In this case, it isn't. It's a parody tweeter. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have to point out, because I realize that it's not yet mentioned in this AfD, that the parody Twitter account "https://twitter.com/RealDonalDrumpf", being cited as a reason to keep this article, joined Twitter in May 2013. Surely there has been a spike in interest in the account since the episode aired, but the account and the episode are otherwise not related. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I count five times you've interjected your opinion Moboshu as I just pointed out on the talk page. Per policy could you please stop harassing the posters? Thanks! --Potguru (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to see how that note could be seen as harassment. - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not harassing anyone. I'm bringing good points into this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the note at the top of the page about canvassing covers the issue. Editors should confine their comments to a single section, out of respect for the community. This particular editor has posted, I think 6 separate times in this thread now. --Potguru (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the note at the top of the page calls this a discussion. That's what I'm doing, I'm discussing. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's worth keeping. If you search the internet for this topic, the wikipedia article is a reasonable representation. Pez098 (talk) 3:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Pez098 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete / Merge / Redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). Clearly so related to the episode that it should not be separated. If you actually read the content of this page, there is very little on the "parody character". Most content is talking about the impact of Oliver's show! starship.paint ~ KO 05:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a major social event. It is a moment in a political campaign, and it has enough references to be considered notable. Parody characters are allowed on Wikipedia. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Outside of this, there is no notability to the article, and it should be redirected to the relevant episode, and then fully-protected to prevent recreation in the future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktr101: A clarification about what you mean by "outside of this" in your !vote above would be helpful. Do you mean that outside of this AfD discussion there's no notability? Also, note that articles are not inherently notable or non-notable, topics are. Notability for such topics is typically assessed based upon the level and depth of coverage a topic has received in reliable sources. Is your !vote based upon personal opinion, or an evaluation of available source coverage about the topic? North America1000 14:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: My apologies, as I should have stated that "outside of this" referred to a lack of notability outside of the initial show, and more of a one event kind of situation. I hope that makes a bit more sense, so let me know if you need more clarification. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its one of those meme which has the potential to be around a very long time and Wikipedia has become its biggest hub ...deleting it would probably gain it more 'notoriety' which would mean it would have to be undeleted anyways..--Stemoc 06:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stemoc: but what about the overlap? This article is virtually a subset of Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). Just compare the content, couldn't it be merged? starship.paint ~ KO 13:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even now, there is a huge overlap between the two pages. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean "yuuuuge"? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). This is not a character, this is a comedy bit. The other article more accurately described the subject and the content of this article can be worked into that one. HighInBC 17:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge(edit: after reading comments in this discussion the meme seems not to be a character but a satire referencing Donald Trump himself based on a family name from several centuries ago. That satire comes from the John Oliver show, so should be merged there), since as a stand-alone meme this "character" is bound to get more events and references in addition to the Last Week Tonight episode. The character was created there, but that doesn't mean it's the totality of its possible place in popular culture. Randy Kryn 17:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment... seems to me that the consensus is to merge it with the LWT article (all single-purpose accounts aside.) Individuals on Twitter are encouraging people to come here and vote Keep. This is probably the reason for all the Keep votes with the "it's a good meme" justification. IMO this pretty clearly should be merged into the LWT segment. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Merge / Redirect  : Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) explains the situation and the impact of the episode. There is no separate "parody character" as the article claims, simply criticism and mocking of the man himself --MattMauler (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnusertop: See WP:NTEMP, "notability is not temporary". North America1000 18:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: By "ending in" I don't mean that the phenomenon is over. I mean the phenomenon has only resulted in developments within the show. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) (though to be fair, I'm not sure if that one is needed either). The lead really misrepresents the idea. It describes this as "a parody character", if anything it's a concept where Donald Trump is the "character" and Donald Drumpf represents Trump as he actually is. The way the segment is presented, there is no Donald J Drumpf character. Either way, it's way too similar to the other article and isn't needed. -- Scorpion0422 20:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect / Merge with Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). i don't think this article as it stands establishes Donald Drumpf as a "character" on its own; its popularity is tied directly to its progenitor television episode. Nucas (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge, clearly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and suggest rename to simply Drumpf or Drumpf (meme). This article is an interesting example of a topic taking a life of its own with the aid of Wikipedia and the media. Merging it to the Last Week Tonight episode would imply that the episode itself is more notable, which is not the case at all by this time.--MarshalN20 Talk 06:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). As MattMauler points out, the show did not create a character named "Donald Drumpf"; rather, it was making fun of/attacking Donald Trump himself. Non-existent characters shouldn't have articles. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a fictional character, nor a work of art or fiction. These kind of articles are about things that have a lasting impact. This is simply an Internet meme and a very recent one at that. This strikes me as a case of Wikipedia:Recentism, paying attention to current events more than historical ones and lacking in perspective. I doubt that there are serious, published sources on the subject that could establish its long-term notability. I also fail to see what is the point of this article. The article states that the family name "Drumpf" changed to "Trump" during the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648). Potentially fascinating information for genealogists, but what this has to do with 21st politics and culture is beyond me. Some of the sources of this article simply restate that John Oliver devoted time to ridiculing the name "Drumpf" and describing how poorly it sounds to him. That is about it for the relevance of the name "Drumpf" in this meme. Everything else in the article is devoted to Oliver's verbal attacks on Donald Trump and what publicity the term is getting on Twitter. That does not particularly strike me as seriously affecting politics, culture, or popular culture. Are we expected to write a new article everytime a comedian targets Donald Trump? Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The television program that featured the topic aired on February 28, 2016, so of course there won't be any sources that "...could establish its long-term notability..." at this time. The show aired only six days ago! The topic has received coverage in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, among others, which are reliable sources that are certainly "serious" and objective in their overall editorial and journalistic makeup. North America1000 14:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the segment is very notable. Why do we need two practically identical articles on it? This one should be merged into the main segment page or vice versa. Especially since this article misses the point of the whole segment (Donald Drumpf isn't meant to be a "character", it's meant to symbolize the separation of Trump the human being and Trump the reality show star). -- Scorpion0422 15:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect I can't believe this was put by itself it's not worthy of keeping, and not good for the Encyclopedia.Timpicerilo (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more. I already merged the articles together but a Trump loving editor made the new page disappear. Someone should end this nonsense. --Potguru (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). It is a searchable term, so a redirect is clearly important. But the character concept only exists in the bounds of the LWT episode, for now. Merging it there strengthens both Drumpf and the episode's notability itself. Also, there's the slightest hint of possible BLP issues involved by treating the character out of context of the original work. If in the future the character clearly becomes more important than the episode, then we can split off, but right now, it should stay in context of the episode. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - please dear god.. .I am the original author... please delete this. Clearly it has just cause problems. IT is not worthy of name space. It has been duplicated and merged multiple times. Please, lets all give in the the Trump supporters and please please please dear god kill this page! 1 --Potguru (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate !votes above, only one is allowed. Unlimited comments are allowed, but copying and pasting the same comments over and over again is disruptive. North America1000 19:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potguru has been removing reliable sources in the process of editing the article, which they have been doing constantly (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). I have asked them to refrain from doing so on their talk page (diff). The user's constant editing of the article, which they have been doing for days now, comes across as potentially trying to dumb it down to further qualify their delete !vote here. North America1000 16:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This being the internet and all, this topic is out of date... and if you want to attack me join the pile on here or here. --Potguru (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. As the original author of the article I think the subject is notable. But given the national press coverage that the article has received combined with battle that's been going on over the last few days I am perfectly willing ot merge this article with the other (about the episode of the show) and make the perfect merged page at the correctly named space here Donald J. Drumpf (Last Week Tonight) Which I did only to find out that IO cannot make a derivative article while this one is still open so let's end this silly discussion and get onto merging the articles into the correct namespace (I already did all the work... but it was blanked, redirect and then deleted as I think you already know. Just merge the articles already. (Some of your personal attack against my edits comes from this time when I cut large sections from this article and pasted them into the other attempting to end this silliness... let's just one on one article, not five yea?). --Potguru (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AfD discussions typically stay open for seven days. I have stated no personal attacks toward you anywhere. Please read WP:NPA regarding what actually constitutes such content. Stop casting false WP:ASPERSIONS. North America1000 17:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note a search of only the term drumpf in google news which does not include any wikipedia mentions reaches "About 669,000 results". The term is even trademarked. --Potguru (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A) "Drumpf" is a surname that goes back more than half a millennia, so it's not surprising it returns a lot of results. B) The term is not trademarked, an application has simply been made (by the very same party with whom the joke originates, before the broadcast that brought the term to public attention was ever made). C) Even were the term covered under full trademark protection at this time, that would have absolutely no bearing on how our WP:Notability guidelines apply here. D) Aren't you presently supporting that the articles be merged so that you can move some of the content of Donald J Drumpf into Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)?
There's no point in nitpicking the comments of other editors here about content issues that won't be decided in this space. And the more times you post/repost !votes and responses to others here, the more problematic your behaviour seems and the more of an uphill task you are going to have when this AfD closes and you want to move that content (part and parcel) into another article. That seems unlikely to happen as is, but the extent of your ability to convince your fellow editors on that article to adopt at least some of that content is going to depend in part on how neutral they perceive your perspective to be. The result of this discussion is probably a forgone conclusion at this point, so I suggest you reserve your energy for preparing your WP:NPOV and WP:RS for the talk page discussion, so your arguments there on the mergable content have more traction. Snow let's rap 21:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree with above. If not merge, keep it around like april fool's articles, for the sole purpose of being funny.layla 22:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The reason is that it looks more like a defamation page than anything, if one wants to refer to Donald Trump's family name origin it would be better to use sources other than John Oliver who is staunch opponent and critic of Trump thus failing to comply with WP:ORS and to include them in the historical section of articles on Trump's family. The changes in the family name is a common thing for many immigrants who came to America and I do not think it deserves to have its own page. Ralphw (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has received tremendous attention and I have no doubt that it meets the notability criterion. However, I do agree that there's considerable overlap with Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). However, I might want to point out that even though the this originated in the show, it seems to have spread pretty widely (way beyond the show's viewership), and name of the article Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) may not adequately indicative for a lot of people. Wrt merging, I would in fact recommend merging the latter article into this one. Prashant Serai (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure I would have kept it on Mar 3, but the continuing attention shows that it is more than transient. And it has indeed spread much more widely than the show -- it is often mentioned without the show in mind, just the candidate. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into separate pages for now - Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be about only 1 subject (per article), and their notable works or stuff may be mentioned. The problem here is that this article, as it is, talks about multiple subjects and is not a disambiguation page. In the first paragraph of the lead it says that it refers to a joke nickname given to Donald Trump in some TV show and in the second it says it refers to a company. Not to mention the sub-sections that all mention what "Drumpf" can refer to, and the name of the article which, at first glance, implies that the article may be a WP:BLP. --TL22 (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    After re-reading the article, I realized the things are actually related to the subject (except maybe the Drumpf company), so I've struck my vote. --TL22 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge into Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) Yes, I like John Oliver too. However, not every joke gets an article, and everything in the article can be handled in the article about the episode its based on.-- danntm T C 02:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not every joke needs an article.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:01, 7 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Wimp[edit]

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

I don't find sources sufficient to support a finding of notability, and the closest thing to significance indicated in the article is that he did tour management for EW&F. I don't know that most bands' tour managers are notable. The sources given in the article, while numerous, are mostly his own material or alumni stories from the college he went to rather than independent reliable sources —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Autobiographical (reverse the letters in Depmiw (talk · contribs), the article creator's user name) and promotional article with citations that are mostly from self-published and college newsletter sources. While being EW&F's tour manager does sound exciting to your college buddies, it's not that notable in real life. Interestingly enough, identical birth date to this user (Edwimp (talk · contribs)) who had different accomplishments to promote back in 2011. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also - Only an Admin knows for sure, but it looks Musicfan911 (talk · contribs) also created an Ed Wimp article back in 2008 that was speedy deleted twice in one day. This may need to be salted. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply none of this, despite the apparent information and sources, is actually enough because close analysis shows nothing solidly convincing for notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't believe that band's tour managers are notable enough to be the subject of an article, unless they've specifically done something themselves which would be considered widely notable. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:42, 11 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) Yash! 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford House Stables[edit]

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

A unremarkable place. 333-blue 13:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage to be found. In addition, if anyone is willing to bother, look at the creator's edit history. As it happens it's filled with similar articles (with a few edits on big articles inbetween). Many of these other articles have been created by highly similar editor accounts dealing with articles concerning the horse hobby in the specific region. I'll give it the benefit of doubt and think the person's just been forgetting his or her password. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a British Listed building. I've added sourcing and some text. Needs to be expanded, but is fine as a stub. As a registered historic place, it satisfies notability. There's a fair amount of coverage on the web about this property's place in British horse racing history, and anyone in the U.K. should be able to find more than I did. — Maile (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So it is. A Grade II listed building in the UK. The relevant criteria is WP:GEOFEAT: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable. Perhaps User:333-blue and Mr. Magoo would like to reconsider and withdraw their arguments. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Malcomx15 and Maile66. An editor subjectively considering this an unremarkable place isn't in itself a reason to delete. It is a listed building and there is coverage. I trust the opinions of Historic England than us editors, including myself. --Oakshade (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a listed building per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated by Historic England, this is a notable listed building and I think passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 04:43, 10 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) 09:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

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

The article title itself is a clear sign of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and the content is pure statistical information that holds no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ Mr. Magoo, I fail to see how List of Junior Eurovision Song Contest winners is a "pointless duplicate" and should be tagged with a merge, when we have a a similar list for the adult contest at List of Eurovision Song Contest winners, which I might add is a featured list and appears on the Wikipedia main page every year. These winners list articles go into more depth about the history of the winners for both Senior and Junior Eurovision's, including winners per country, per language, etc, all of which are sourced. Wes Mouse ✒ 12:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah you got a point there about possibly more information and ever-increasing amount over the years. I rescinded the proposal. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:35, 5 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) 09:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totem (2016 film)[edit]

Totem (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, I could not find coverage for this film, even in Flemish. It does not help that the film's name is rather common, or that the director does not have a Wikipedia page. If someone finds sources that I may have missed, ping me, but given that I search the film's name together with its director and failed to find relevant hits, I'm not confident of this film's notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like mentioned, no coverage to be found. And adding to your "director doesn't have a Wikipedia page", I searched for every single person mentioned in the infobox. None of them are even mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zero indication of notability. I probably would have just speedied it. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:45, 6 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no dissenting opinions (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Gilbey (designer)[edit]

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

Not notable. Some coverage but insufficient to satisfy the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see it has just been substantially expanded by the creator with new sources and now appears to satisfy the GNG. I withdraw my nomination. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/comment - Having his work selected as representative of an entire year in fashion by one of the world's leading fashion museums is no small potatoes. The article is very expandable and the designer has been active since the 1960s, with his work featured in the Victoria and Albert Museum's Sixties Fashion exhibition as an example of the 60s menswear revolution (see here.) Thirty years later, one of his suits was chosen as THE look of 1995 by Bath. He definitely counts. Mabalu (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination has already been withdrawn. It just needs someone uninvolved to close it. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:18, 4 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) 01:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NovoGamer[edit]

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

Not notable. There is no available result in WP:VG's source engine and the article fails WP:GNG. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable website. As the nom says, there are no hits in a WP:VG/RS Google custom search, and I don't see anything usable on a standard Google query. Medium is a blog host. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a somewhat newly founded company with not enough coverage to suggest satisfying the applicable media notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find suitable coverage as others have mentioned above. Elaenia (talk) 01:08, 10 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas. (non-admin closure) Yash! 14:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Catholic School Dallas, TX[edit]

All Saints Catholic School Dallas, TX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary/elementary school. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this should therefore be redirected to the article on the relevant school district. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect - to associated school district. Meatsgains (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Currently there doesn't appear to be a separate article about the Catholic schools of Dallas, so presumably the redirect would go to Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas#Education, which currently lists the high schools of the Diocese but not primary schools. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas per longstanding tradition as expressed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Jacona (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as mentioned above. Seems to be a good compromise between deleting and keeping the article. Elaenia (talk) 02:08, 9 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) 09:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saju Chackalackal[edit]

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

There is a lack of independent reliable sources, only self-sourced information seems to be available. Jacona (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated and added reliable sources to the entry. User:Jeffshawnjose —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep - Has written books and there are a few independent links there about him. If his profile wont raise from that in some time then I'd vote delete. Antonio Chakala Martin (siguan hablando) 14:27, 3 March, 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:11, 3 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy T. Grunes M.D.[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO; third party coverage of the subject is scant, and limited in scope and depth JohnInDC (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like a completely unremarkable, run-of-the-mill psychoanalyst. No evidence of notability. 32.218.40.166 (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references provided are largely publications, which you can reasonably expect people pursuing a graduate/professional degree to have. Nothing notable about the subject, nor does the article claim notability in any way. Elaenia (talk) 06:45, 9 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 Dr. Dobb's Journal. (non-admin closure) Yash! 14:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jolt Awards[edit]

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

I cannot find any independent sources covering this award in any depth. There are many press releases and passing mentions from the award's winners, but very little about the award itself, and very little from independent sources. If someone can find good sources, I will withdraw my nomination, of course.

It looks like the awards were given out incrementally over each year, so this could be described as a regular column in Dr. Dobb's Journal, rather than a conventional award. The magazine's article says that the website still gives the award even though the magazine is defunct, but that's unsourced. It seems like this is better summarized at the magazine's article with new sources, but the extensive list of past winners doesn't would not belong there, so this doesn't seem like a good merge candidate. Grayfell (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have had a similarly difficult time finding any reliable secondary coverage for this award. It's more of a novelty and attempt at promotion for the product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dr. Dobb's Journal. Some of the lead could probably be merged there, but certainly not the entire list of awards. I don't see independent coverage of this, but it's possible someone will search for it, as this was a popular magazine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect' to Dr. Dobb's Journal as mentioned, because this may be best connected to that with no actual solid signs of an independently notable article of its own. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dr. Dobb's Journal. Back in the day, these awards were a big deal because Dr. Dobb's was a big deal. But I haven't found independent in-depth sources for these awards specifically. Nonetheless, these awards are verifiable and this is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted. I'd be fine with just the lead being merged in, too. --Mark viking (talk) 19:24, 3 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. postdlf (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Veterinary Nursing Association[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NORG -- organization has not "received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." Two of the references here are self-published, the other three do not mention the subject. ubiquity (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Your claim does not appear to be correct, because when I look, I do find "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization". I have added a couple of refs to the article. You should ensure that what you claim is in fact correct, and that may require looking for yourself, and not just reading the article. Schwede66 02:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily I don't like to reply to points made in a deletion discussion, but since you're calling me to task for lack of diligence, I feel I must reply. I have to disagree with you about what you think is "significant coverage." I did look for myself, and didn't find any significant coverage of the organization itself. The two articles you added mention the organization only in passing. One is a local article about a nurse who wins an award, and the other is a piece about overweight pets. This is a national organization, and if they're notable, I'd expect to see some national coverage of them and their activities. ubiquity (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete completely lacking in depth third party coverage. The added source http://i.stuff.co.nz/life-style/cutestuff/72997202/A-third-of-pets-in-New-Zealand-are-overweight is not about the organisation as the subject. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable per Schwede66. Satisfies GNG. There are also a number of relevant sources in GBooks (eg "McCurnin's Clinical Textbook for Veterinary Technicians" and the periodical "Veterinary Technician" (eg volume 22 at p 296; but bear in mind that because this is a periodical, you have to search each volume separately because the main search engine only shows one result for all volumes no matter how many volumes of the periodical contain mentions) and GScholar (there are relevant results on the fourth and fifth pages of results). National public bodies are generally notable. The NZVNA sources are non-independent, not self-published. As a plausible redirect to Paraveterinary workers in New Zealand with mergeable content, deletion of this page would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. James500 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: To me, when organization X creates and deploys a website for themselves, that's self-published. But the point of self-published is that it's non-independent, so I'll accept that they are merely non-independent. In my opinion they still don't meet WP:NORG. WP:NORG (specifically WP:NGO) says:

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
  • The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
  • The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

It's the second criterion about which I am complaining.

That said, I would happily accept a redirect to and possible merge into Paraveterinary workers in New Zealand. ubiquity (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off Topic Spat -
funny that you are stumbling at the same AfDs I've been involved in... again. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop following me, it's no coincidence you've turned up at most AfDs I've been recently involved in. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know perfectly well that this is on the organisations deletion sorting list, and stands out on that list like a sore thumb as an egregiously bad nomination. You need to stop making off topic comments, making personal attacks, oppose badgering, trying to intimidate editors who disagree with you, and trying to assert ownership of AfDs that you did not even start. This nomination of the professional body of an entire profession throughout an entire country is a particularly inappropriate policy violating one. We are never going to delete this when we can redirect and merge it to the parent article. Why don't you try addressing that? James500 (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thought you weren't going to answer me. There are hundreds if not thousands up for deletion at any point in time how you consistently turn up at the same AfDs in a short space of time is beyond coincidence. Your long winded excuse making fools no one. LibStar (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This one wasn't even an organisation sorted AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Lawless only Australian listed, unless you have a sudden interest in Australian AfDs or more logically just looked at my edit history. LibStar (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comments are irrelevant and inaccurate. James500 (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fact: you participated in these AfDs on disparate topics after I either listed them or !voted in them. Anyone can look at these AfDs and see if I am 100% accurate in saying this. LibStar (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fact: One of them I found on the PRODLIST, the others are bilateral relations articles (not disparate at all). All you've proved is that we have similar interests. James500 (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fact : you commented on the film festival before it was deletion sorted. Patrick Lawless was not listed in bilateral listing. Look forward to the excuses for this. LibStar (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The festival was on my watchlist after removing the PROD. As for Patrick, I normally participate in bilateral relations articles, as you well know. This is not an appropriate venue for making allegations about other editors. And since editors can legitimately follow each other to enforce policies, it seems to me that the allegations you are making are not in of themselves actionable in any venue. James500 (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick was not sorted as a bilateral article so you did not find the AfD via deletion sorting. Out of the thousands listed you simply came across it... LibStar (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has it occurred to you that I might have reached it through the "ambassadors of australia" category, and that I might now be watching all of them? I am correct in thinking that there is a WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR campaign to smash up all bilateral relations articles, am I not? And another WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR campaign to smash up all Australia/Oceana articles? And are you following HoldenV8 around? And have you ever followed anyone else around in the past? James500 (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The unbelievable excuses keep coming and how did you find the catacombs in Malta AfD? That topic is not related to bilaterals nor was prodded. It's obvious you've been following me in AfDs and the more weak long winded excuses you make the more obvious it is. I know you can't resist and will give a minimum 500 character reply. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And ironically you found HOLDENV8 by following my edit history, as there is zero evidence of any previous interaction between you 2 in any article. Expect a rich mobile edit 500 character convoluted response now. Can you resist? LibStar (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am too tired to argue with the substance of your baseless complaints. Your reaction to disagreement seems to consist of this: scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, endlessly for hours, and sometimes much longer. LibStar, quite frankly, it does not matter how I found the Malta catacombs AfD, which failed spectacularly, because that nomination was massive WP:CIR, consisting of a complete inability on your part to use a search engine properly. You should be apologising to the community for your incompetence in bringing that nomination. Your argument seems to consist of "LibStar violated a policy, and James500 called out the violation, but James500 would not have been aware of the policy violation if he had not looked at LibStar's contribs, so James500 has been a naughty boy" and that is not a valid argument. The correct argument is of course "Libstar violated a policy, therefore LibStar is a naughty boy". Now I will ask again: have you been following HoldenV8? (I know for a fact that you have, and I would like to know what you think the difference is. I think you know perfectly well that complaining, in essence, that I am enforcing policies and guidelines is not actionable). James500 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As expected a long winded excuse ridden answer. We both know you've been following my edit history to find AfDs I've involved in and ironically you used my edit history to find Holden. It does matter how you found the catacombs afd because it is an unrelated topic as part of a broader pattern of following me. By sheer confidence that's about 7 AfDs in last 2 weeks you've commented after me. Only 2 were listed as bilateral del sort. let me guess another 500 character plus response coming up . Can you resist? LibStar (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and if you are getting tired why respond in a long winded fashion? If you're tired suggest you take a break from Wikipedia for a few weeks. LibStar (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are driving me round the bend. Can you point to an occasion on which I was not enforcing a policy or guideline? Answer: no. Can I point to you violating policies and guidelines? Answer: lots of times. End of. James500 (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to my previous response. Suggest you take a WP:WIKIBREAK. even you know the benefits of avoiding the mental, physical and financial anguish of typing all those extra keystrokes. LibStar (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as for violating, you've been building up a good case for the last 2 weeks for wikihounding. Please now resist the temptation to respond. LibStar (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot hound someone by enforcing policies. Even if I was following you, which I am not. I suggest you work on your WP:CIR issues. James500 (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC) The only one doing harassment here is yourself by subjecting me to an epic blinding tantrum and screaming fit that absolutely will not shut up. James500 (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I told you on 7 February that I object to you following me around yet this behaviour has continued if not worsened last 2 weeks. Your weak excuse making just makes it more obvious. Of course you can prove to me you're not following me in AfDs by not commenting on the next 20 AfDs I will be in. Then I will fully believe you. LibStar (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you propose would violate WP:OWN. You could for example make twenty policy violating nominations that you know I would find objectionable. But let me make a counter offer. I've told you I object to violations of policies and guidelines. If you refrain from violating policies and guidelines, I would have no reason to interact with you, and it would please me enormously to avoid you like the plague. Will you agree to refrain from violating policies and guidelines? James500 (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
as long as you refrain from wikihounding including contacting other editors I've had disagreements with and you've had zero previous interaction on Wikipedia. And you admit you've been finding things from my edit history and won't do so in future. Then we have a deal and can move on. Ball is in your court. LibStar (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the way you interact with others that disagree you, you enormously enjoy disagreement to the point of following someone , so much for saving keystrokes. LibStar (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your agreement to refrain from violating policies and guidelines. I should not need to confirm this but ... I will not wikihound anyone. Deal concluded. Goodbye. James500 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the Merge or Redirect as suggested by Ubiquity - there is insufficient for two articles on the same topic NealeFamily (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Paraveterinary workers wiki page is outdated and incorrect. It really needs to be deleted, as veterinary nurses are not paraveterinary workers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.208.16 (talk) 22:19, 6 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 Userfy. There seems to be ample consensus that it is too soon for this article, but I will userfy to User:BasFey/2016–17 KNVB Cup so that this can continue to be worked on and moved back to mainspace once the tournament is upon us. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 KNVB Cup[edit]

2016–17 KNVB Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. No sourced information for this to be created yet. Qed237 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection, keep article I have created the article, and put a lot of time and energy in it. The user above claims that the article is made too early, while there is already relevant news of it. Also, the articles about the domestic cups of Germany and Israel next season are also made already. The first user claims that the article did not had any sourced information. I have added relevant and reliable sources (articles from the association itself) to the article, making it an article meeting the quality requirements. I hereby dismiss both claims. BasFey (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE? Just because other articles exists does not mean they should or they could have other notable information. You can not use those as motiation here. Qed237 (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, there is already relevant news about the event, namely the expansion of the tournament. That news was announced about two months ago. And when this article is deleted, the two aforementioned articles about the domestic cups of Germany and Israel should be deleted as well. BasFey (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After my last defensive argument on keeping this article, I've added things to comply with the quality of this article, like categories, templates and expansion of the table. I believe I almost did everything now to save this article for deletion. When I think up of improvements or see news, I will apply it immediatley, if still possible. BasFey (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:: If article will be deleted now, after 4 months it can be re-created or restored. 4 months... Not sure if really is a WP:TOOSOON case. --XXN, 20:55, 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 12:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:: All the District Cups, except the North (Round of 16) and West II (Final) now have the quarter-finals as their next round. It wouldn't be long until all semi-finalists are known. BasFey (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - seems to be a textbook case for userfy, editors shouldn't be discouraged by deletion of such articles, which will surely benefit from the information in the not-too-distant future. C679 18:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - It is obvious that the competition will take place, but not enough details are yet known to give this article enough encyclopedic value for me to !vote keep. It's obvious that the article will be recreated, so I find no need to delete and require the author to request undeletion. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:49, 7 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) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luisa D'Oliveira[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actress, with no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE WP:NACTOR as virtually all of her listed roles were supporting or guest characters. This is written with a marked advertorial skew (there's more text here about her working as a waitress and bartender -- which what actor hasn't? -- before getting into acting than there is about her actual acting), and is sourced entirely to IMDb and a Q&A-style interview on The Huffington Post -- but while an interview would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG had already been covered off, it fails to bring any GNG in its own right. So nothing here makes her an actress who's qualified for a Wikipedia article yet. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can be written and sourced more substantively than this. Bearcat (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She meets the stated critera of having "had significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows." Press coverage shows her roles were significant as her name frequently appears in reviews and entertainment news articles in publications like Hollywood Reporter and Entertainment Monthly. She is quoted in news articles in the Toronto Star and Vancouver Sun as well as the HuffPo interview; these are evidence of her notability, not just something to be considered after she's had the leading role in a blockbuster. Having a leading role is not a prerequisite for notability. Wiki has many articles about actors whose notability stemmed from them playing many supporting or guest roles over a long period of time and becoming known to the public as a character actor or supporting actor. TheBlinkster (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC) P.S. Editing to add, The criteria at WP:CREATIVE is not the right one for actors; the appropriate criteria is WP:ENTERTAINER which explicitly lists that it applies to "actors". TheBlinkster (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Quoted in news articles" does not get a person over any Wikipedia notability criterion in and of itself — a person has to be the subject of an article about them, not a soundbite provider in an article about something else, for that article to count for anything toward WP:GNG. And Q&A interviews do not count toward GNG either — they represent the subject talking about herself, and so suffer from the same problems as any self-published PR or EPK sources: they're not neutral, and may contain inaccurate or self-aggrandizing or non-factchecked claims. So they're acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of biographical claims after GNG has already been met, but count for zero toward the meeting of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She is the subject of the HuffPo interview. Furthermore, having had multiple significant roles, she meets the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER in my opinion. Your argument for deletion seems to have been based on her not meeting the criteria of WP:CREATIVE, which is different, and is not appropriate for actors. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mistakenly typed the wrong shortcut, so sue me — but passing WP:ENTERTAINER is still dependent on the quality and volume of sourcing that you can provide to support the claim to passing ENTERTAINER. No notability claim can ever be passed just by asserting that it's passed, if it's not properly sourced as passed — everything I said about the article is still entirely true, and the argument is not voided just because I accidentally typed CREATIVE instead of NACTOR, because the volume and quality of sourcing is still the be-all and end-all of an article's ability to pass NACTOR too. And I didn't say that she failed to be the subject of the Huffington Post interview — I said that she's talking about herself in the Huffington Post interview. There's a longstanding consensus that precisely because they represent the topic talking about herself, and are thus subject to the same problems as a press release or any other non-neutral public relations source, Q&A-style interviews cannot help to carry a person over a notability criterion. Interviews may be used only for supplementary confirmation of biographical facts after a notability criterion has already been met on the basis of better sourcing than the interview alone — and that's not some tendentious personal rule that I made up myself, but the real standard rules of how GNG really works. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line is that the woman has had significant roles in a number of TV series and some films, thus establishing her notability as an actress. No sign of this letting up either. If she was just somebody who had one or two parts and then we never heard from her again it would be different, but taking all the available source material as a whole, she appears to have established notability as an actress, especially in Canada. TheBlinkster (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line is, where is all this "available source material as a whole" that properly establishes her notability? It's not on Google News, where the only source that's even slightly about her is the Huffington Post interview that's already footnoting this article, and which cannot confer notability in and of itself for the reasons I've already explained — and it's not in ProQuest, where her name garners just 14 hits of which every last one is a passing namecheck of her existence and none of them is about her. It's not enough to just assert that she passes NACTOR because she's had roles, because every actor in existence has had roles (it's part of the job description) — and it's not enough to just assert that coverage exists if you can't show where it exists. An NACTOR pass is dependent on the quality of the sourcing you can provide to demonstrate an NACTOR pass, not the mere assertion of an NACTOR pass, and you still have yet to show any evidence that the necessary quality of sourcing is actually out there — I've looked for it and I'm not finding any, so what special secret alternative place are you looking where better sourcing exists? Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 6 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) 01:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation communication system[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism with no third-party source. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking through the history I realized that there is in fact no real contributions to the article since it was started. Everything else are just cleanups, spell checks, category changes and bots. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a little known neoligism lacking significant coverage. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:49, 10 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) 08:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Quick[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, I check the links given, none show Selena Quick. A "quick" news search ereturns nothing, and web search returns primary- and wikipedia. Murry1975 (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- No coverage in references provided or in a simple online search. The second reference (at the bottom) redirects to an adult website, to boot. GABHello! 21:20, 3 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) 00:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WEconomy Index[edit]

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

May not meet notablity guidelines, with no categories, and no wikifies. 333-blue 08:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- pretty much no coverage whatsoever to indicate notability, even as a student project. GABHello! 21:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the WEconomy concept appears to be roughly similar to Sharing economy, but there is no indication this index is at all notable. The only independent ref predates the concept by years, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 06:18, 4 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) 00:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IATSE 514[edit]

IATSE 514 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a local chapter of a trade union, with no strong or properly sourced claim of notability as a standalone topic of a separate article from its parent organization. The only sources here are one news article which has nothing to do with this chapter (it's about the parent organization endorsing Hillary Clinton -- which is a moot point as this chapter is in Canada), and the chapter's own website (a primary source that cannot assist notability). As always, Wikipedia is not a free webhost on which any organization (or any local chapter of a larger organization) is automatically entitled to an article just because it exists -- the chapter must actually be the subject of RS coverage in its own right to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:BRANCH. Being a unit of a notable organization doesn't establish the unit itself as notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note CharlesD 514 is the article creator and has no edits outside those relating to the subject. Elaenia (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find anything to indicate this specific chapter of the organization is notable by itself. Elaenia (talk) 02:42, 9 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 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. (As no one's stated where to merge I'm taking a guess here - If I'm wrong... thanks for fixing it!) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards[edit]

2001 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The WCCAs are notable as a whole, but the yearly event doesn't meet WP:GNG. All these lists lack reliable sources, only using primary sources. Even the much more notable Eisner Awards only have one list documenting all winners - I don't see why the WCCAs would need all this. ~Mable (chat) 08:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

2002 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2003 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2004 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all the winners from these lists into one master list (or to the main article) instead of outright deleting them. The non-winning nominees don't need to be retained - that information can be mentioned in their individual articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I suggest merging into a singular list as well, mentioning only the winners. The nominees are pointless to list here. You could make a table with the awards and the years horizontally and vertically. Maybe at best list the nominees for best comic. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table might prove a bit difficult however as I looked at the categories of different years and the organizers kept changing them. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge A notable event, but even with the gradual rise in popularity of web comics over the years it is not notable enough to have all of these separate award pages.ZettaComposer (talk) 19:30, 3 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  18:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bola Mosuro[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. She's only doing her job. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no independent sources either, considering each and every one of them seem to be from the BBC. GABHello! 21:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found some mentions of her in Gale and added them, but I don't think it adds up to GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:09, 8 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) 08:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Water District (band)[edit]

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

Article about a band, shading into advertorial territory (not blatant enough to be a speedy, but skewing away from WP:NPOV nonetheless) about a band with no strong claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC. And the sourcing here is entirely to blogs and primary sources with not so much as one single solitary piece of reliable source coverage shown. As usual, a band is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because they exist; RS coverage supporting a proper claim of notability must be present before they qualify. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches found nothing better and the current article is still questionable for the notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 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 10:23, 3 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. sufficient consensus. not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Noushin[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist, which makes no strong claim of notability per WP:CREATIVE and is based entirely on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage shown. Essentially, this is an advertisement for an artist rather than an encyclopedia article about an artist. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm sad to see no articles or signs of notability (except for a few passing mentions in reviews of exhibitions and auctions) for this artist, despite his lovely art. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete likely it seems as simply none of this is solid for notability and searches found nothing convincing enough aside from expected coverage at News, browsers and Highbeam. Draft and Userfy if needed. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 14:53, 3 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) 08:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Khan(actor)[edit]

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

Prod removed without comment. Concern was Unremarkable actor, possibly too soon in his career Gbawden (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I patrolled this at NPP and planned to nominate because none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER with apparently only 1 best known film. SwisterTwister talk 14:50, 3 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) 08:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internet of Hearts[edit]

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

Contested PROD. NN per WP:PRODUCT/WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not the place to promote recently patented inventions. All the coverage in the article appears to be synthetic. There are 20 ghits for the phrase "Internet of Hearts", the vast majority of which refer to a song called "Jesus is an Internet of Hearts". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Internet of Hearts" does not appear notable on its own due to lack of sources, and at least for now is either adequately covered by the existing article on Internet of Things (IoT), or could simply be mentioned in that article with an appropriate source support if there is one or two out there. Not enough sources to justify a whole article of its own, though. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:30, 6 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  07:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helmet Integrated Systems[edit]

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

Article about a company which does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG Speedy was contested because of promotional "World's Leading" term. Searches have brought up nothing of value to demonstrate notability. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches found nothing noticeably better for an improvable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find anything as SwisterTwister stated. On a related note, the speedy decline seems rather odd because A7 requires a credible claim of significance, and a marketing claim about being "world's leading" in the field is hardly a credible claim as that's a commonly used promotional term. Elaenia (talk) 07:33, 11 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. --Kinu t/c 16:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Island Drive[edit]

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

Contested PROD and a non-notable roadway. Despite the usage (or mis-usage) of the infobox, there is no cited assertion that this is a primary state highway, the normal level at which we judge a roadway to be notable. Even if it were a secondary state highway, that would not be an "automatic" indication of notability. Imzadi 1979 → 00:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No claim to notability is made. This article seems to be an attempt to turn a road map into prose, which normally does not work well and is not suitable as encyclopedic content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable connecting road. Dough4872 01:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — The article does not contain any evidence of why it is anything more than an ordinary collector road in a residential resort area.  VC  01:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete per nom. This local road is not notable. -happy5214 01:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and precedent. SounderBruce 02:54, 4 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. postdlf (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of English-language euphemisms for profanities[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT, this kind of list belongs on wiktionary Prisencolin (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If we had enough stand-alone articles dedicated to terms on the list, it might make a little bit of sense, but although it claims "notable" as part of the inclusion criteria, it sees that's either based on WP:OR or based on some Wiktionary sense of notability (which certainly is not the same as here). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:12, 3 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) 08:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Page[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actress. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Her acting roles are also minor ones. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. PROD contested without rationale. Skr15081997 (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 10:05, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Vázquez Martínez[edit]

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

I do not believe that this individual meets Wikipedia's notability criteria under either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Although the link to his Google Scholar profile shows thousands of citations, many of these are clearly to a different "L. Vazquez," so his actual notability is unclear. I can't find evidence that he satisfies the "average professor test" described in WP:ACADEMIC. Furthermore, this BLP is a written as a lengthy resume with no in-line citations, making it seem promotional. Astro4686 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. The research and arguments put forth by @David Eppstein have persuaded me that Dr. Vazquez is notable under WP:ACADEMIC. I therefore withdraw the AfD. I am grateful to the participants in this discussion, especially David Eppstein. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Identity of citations has to be sorted out. Will nominator help? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Reply. Hi @Xxanthippe: Yes -- I'm happy to pitch in. I'll begin sifting through the citations when I have time tomorrow. Before nominating, I did track down 4 of the 5 papers for which he was listed as the lead author, and they weren't very heavily cited (fewer than 20 per paper, except for one with ~30, if I remember correctly). But obviously, that's not a comprehensive analysis. Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have completely rewritten and stubbed-down the article, so that it no longer looks like a cv. Regardless of the messed-up scholar page, and whatever his actual citations are, I think the corresponding membership in the Spanish Royal Academy gives him a pass of WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Hi @David Eppstein: thank you for your revisions to the article. I'll have to give some thought to your WP:PROF#C3 argument. Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've also gone through a comparison of a Google scholar search for his name (ignoring the bad profile) and the papers he lists as his own on his web page. This gives me the following list of his top-cited works (the ones with over 100 citations):
        • Numerical solution of a nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation (1978; 217 cites)
        • Nonlinear Random Waves (1994; 207 cites)
        • Resonant soliton-impurity interactions (1991; 155 cites)
        • Numerical simulation of nonlinear Schrödinger systems: a new conservative scheme (1995; 131 cites)
        • Localization decay induced by strong nonlinearity in disordered systems (1990; 126 cites)
        • Numerical solution of the sine-Gordon equation (1986; 121 cites)
        • Resonant kink-impurity interactions in the sine-Gordon model (1992, 112 cites)
      I think that should be enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Hi @David Eppstein: many thanks for looking these up. My only question is whether it matters that he's not the first author on these papers. I've been searching for highly cited papers on which he was the first author. I haven't gone through all of his papers yet, but here's what I've found so far. All citations are from Google Scholar.
        • "Relation between Two Variational Methods to Calculate the Energy Levels" (5 citations, 1990)
        • "A More Accurate Explicit Scheme to Solve Certain Quantum Operator Equations of Motion" (1 citation, 1987)
        • "About the Ultraquantum Limit" (no citations listed, 1987)
        • "Long Time Behavior in Numerical Solutions of Certain Dynamical Systems" (8 citations, 1987)
        • "Particle Spectrum Estimations for the Quantum Field Theory ?F + s sin ?F = 0 on a Minkowski Lattice" (4 citations, 1987; the title is shown as it appears on his website, and the ?F stands for a formula that couldn't be reproduced in plain text)
        • "Explicit Schemes to Solve the Schrödinger Field on a Galileo Lattice" (4 citations, 1986)
        • "Discretization Effects on a Classical Lattice" (no citations listed, 1986)
        • "On the Discretization of Certain Operator Field Equations" (12 citations, 1986)
        • "Fractional heat equation and the second law of thermodynamics" (14 citations; 2011)
        • "Spectral Information Retrieval from Integrated Broadband Photodiode Martian Ultraviolet Measurements" (13 citations; 2007)
        • "Fractional Diffusion Equations with Internal Degrees of Freedom" (29 citations; 2003)
        • "Numerical Investigation of a Non-Local Sine-Gordon Model" (34 citations; 1994)

The final four papers in this list were identified as "relevant publications" in the original resume-like article. (One other paper was listed as a relevant publication, but I could not find it on Google Scholar.) Since a resume will typically list a person's most highly cited papers, I am skeptical as to whether he has authored more widely cited papers that these. Of course, if citations on a co-authored paper count, then I would agree with Eppstein and @Xxanthippe: and would withdraw the nomination accordingly. Thoughts? Best wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is math, so the authors should mostly be alphabetical. They aren't, completely, but I think that still explains most of the author ordering. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 5 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 move to draftspace. I'm not sure why it was moved from userspace to mainspace instead of draftspace when it is obviously not a finished article. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caring for our Watersheds[edit]

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

Ok, I'm probably the last person who should be nominating this but this was formerly in articlespace, listed as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hershey890/Caring for our Watersheds for deletion since it hadn't been touched since March 2014. MFD had one keep vote and one move to draft vote with neither seemingly saying it is notable as it was (could be notable). Meanwhile, it was moved to mainspace with the MFD removed so I closed the MFD as keep or moot or even nomination withdrawn (?) I guess. However, there's no actual indication that this is a notable competition: the website itself still has a 2014 copyright notice but this page shows that there is going to be a final competition this year in April 2016. I haven't been able to find sources for it either. So I guess draftify? Let this bounce this back and forth between MFD and AFD? Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe: A move to Draft namespace gives the article more prospect to actually be improved by other potentially-interested editors. Note that if it is re-userfied, it may never be improved, because people are unlikely to ever see or find it there. Its author, Hershey890 (talk · contribs), has made only four total edits to Wikipedia, which ended in March 2014. As such, I recommend draftification, along with a notice on the creator's talk page about the page move. North America1000 11:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral, but leaning support, on experienced editors being allowed to move userpage drafts to draft space, whether they may be better exposed to reviews, and will likely be deleted as a matter of course with a variety of nicely worded messages and simple instructions on how to get it undeleted any time in the future. I don't oppose this, but don't think it proper that the userspace to draftpace move should be decided as an AfD consensus decision. ie. The decision here should be to move it back to userspace. I don't oppose its move to draftspace as an editorial action. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe: Regarding draftification from userspace pages, the practice is already in place. For example, see a script (that I sometimes use) at User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/Draftify. North America1000 12:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I clearly don't keep up with everything. Draftifying apparently abandoned drafts with some quality material seems a good idea. Does the tool leave the user a nice message explaining what just happened, and how they can retrieve the draft? Or, I supposed that is covered by the G13 autodeletion process? I trust a redirect is always left behind, so the user if he returned is taken straight to the draft and not a confusing new page creation tool. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe: Depending partially upon which boxes are ticked when using the script, it automatically creates a redirect to the draft namespace page and automatically notifies the user on their talk page about the matter and the location of the draft. It also watchlists both the user page and the draft page. Works quite well. North America1000 13:45, 3 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) 08:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Valentini[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Fails WP:N. Astro4686 (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing pops up with a quick google search. The only reference so far that an asteroid is named after the person wouldn't qualify for a BLP as it's an indiscriminate dictionary, and being named for a celestial body doesn't qualify someone for a BLP. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:53, 6 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) 08:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alvin and the Chipmunks episodes, movies, and specials released on home media[edit]

List of Alvin and the Chipmunks episodes, movies, and specials released on home media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. Koala15 (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - clearly a trivia article. --Ches (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:16, 3 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) 08:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Bharat Saxena[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a businessman, with no strong claim of notability under our inclusion rules for businesspeople (which depend on sourceability, and do not grant an inclusion freebie to every single person who ever started a business.) Also this was created by a user named "Ibsaxena", an evident WP:COI. Per WP:INDAFD, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can show notability properly, but he doesn't get to keep this in the absence of proper sourcing for it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Basically nothing here for any applicable notability, I would've frankly PRODed. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 4 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) 08:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Drummond (musician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and based entirely on primary sources, blogs and small-town weekly newspapers with no indication of sufficient reliable source coverage in the types of sources it takes to satisfy WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a place where every musician automatically gets an article just because he exists; certain specific markers of achievement have to be attained, and a certain specific quality of sourcing (i.e. medium-to-large-market dailies, music magazines on the order of Rolling Stone, Spin or Exclaim!, etc.) has to be demonstrated, before he becomes eligible. (And no, the CBC Music profile does not cover the sourcing piece off — that's a section of their website where any musician who wants to make a song or two available for streaming gets to upload their own self-penned PR bio to accompany the songs, so it does not represent the CBC covering him in the sense that's necessary for our purposes.) Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability and/or sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Local awards and coverage, nothing else convincing he's independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 4 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) 00:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gokul Butail[edit]

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

WP:BLP, created by an editor with a likely WP:COI, of a person with no particularly strong claim of encyclopedic notability. Essentially he's a backroom IT consultant to the government, which is not a position that would normally make someone a topic of encyclopedic interest in and of itself -- and the sourcing here is almost entirely to blurbs rather than to genuinely substantive media coverage. And the only other non-blurb source here is the inclusion of his name in the government's own staff directory (a primary source that cannot assist notability at all.) Neither the substance nor the sourcing here is enough. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 3 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 keep. per SK1 - The "Film" is actually a Chinese TV Comedy ....., So technically there's no valid reason for deletion... and seeing as nom's not returned I'm closing as Speedy Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 19:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Mother-in-Law, Pretty Daughter-in-Law[edit]

Happy Mother-in-Law, Pretty Daughter-in-Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film failing WP:NFILM. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Oppose this is a TV series not a film. How can you nominate a page without reading at least the first sentence? Timmyshin (talk)
  • Keep Incorrect nom rationale; short drama series which seems to have gotten a good run. Seeing no reason for deletion at all. Nate • (chatter) 04:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Notable TV series that was run nationwide in China. Nominator obviously did not perform WP:BEFORE. -Zanhe (talk) 18:44, 3 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 redirect to other better article on the same subject. No prejudice against starting a new AfD on that article, but it should be a new AfD, because this one's nomination rationale is based purely on the quality of the writeup, a moot point after the redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. R Balasubramaniam[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an academic, written far more like the kind of public relations profile that one might expect to see on the "our staff" section of his own institution than like an encyclopedia article, and citing zero reliable sources to support it. He would probably be eligible to keep a properly sourced article, so I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if the article gets referenced properly before close, but he's not entitled to keep this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:20, 3 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) 08:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Earl Williams III[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate for office. As always, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election -- if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for an article independently of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough -- Wikipedia is not a repository of campaign brochures. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins his seat. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a public figure the page of David earl Williams III should not be deleted as he is a candidate for and known figure. He has been involved in 2 federal congressional races as all proper citations are in place to prove so. Willywill3x (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
See WP:NPOL. "Involved in congressional races" does not get a person a Wikipedia article in and of itself — unless you can show that they were already eligible for a Wikipedia article before they became a candidate, they do not become eligible for a Wikipedia article until they win the seat. We are not a free public relations platform for unelected candidates (or unsigned musicians, or unpublished authors, etc.) who are looking to increase their visibility; we are an encyclopedia, on which a person does not get to have an article until after a valid notability claim has already been met. And also, you do not get to erase other people's comments from this discussion, or remove the AFD template from the article. Bearcat (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. People can't "public figure" themselves into notability. WP:POLITICIAN points out that merely ending up as an "elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". The subject would have to meet the main Wikipedia:Notability criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". The kind of routine coverage that sources provide almost automatically to anyone qualifying for a ballot does not normally get a biography over the Wikipedia:Notability hump. I've found a couple more sources, but I don't think that's enough:
    --Closeapple (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POLITICIAN exists for articles like this. To make matters worse, the US-led invasion of Iraq is given some PR treatment in the opening sentence to become the "Iraqi freedom war". Give me strength. AusLondonder (talk) 20:37, 10 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) 08:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Matson[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a poet, which was created in draftspace in 2013 and then went stale until being moved into mainspace about a week ago. This makes no strong claim of notability under WP:AUTHOR, and cites no indication whatsoever of reliable source coverage -- the sourcing here is very nearly all to blogs, except for one reference whose publisher is left completely unidentified. Delete Bearcat (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fairly blatant self-promotion (or promotion by others); some parts read like a resume. Quis separabit? 17:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator (under the auspices of WP:SELFPUB and WP:PROMO). Weak attempt at self promotion. Doesn't appear notability can be established from reliable/independent coverage. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:56, 11 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) 01:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Foley (actor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor with only debatable claim to passing WP:NACTOR, and more importantly no reliable source coverage to support it -- the only "reference" here is IMDb, which is not a reliable or notability-covering source per WP:IMDB/RS. Delete, without prejudiced against recreation in the future if and when it can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I patrolled this at NPP and planned to nominate, actually considering using PROD instead of me starting an AfD, my searches found nothing and his best known work was only 20 episodes of Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as thoroughly non-notable actor. Maybe too soon, maybe not. Quis separabit? 17:14, 6 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✈ 10:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valérie Guignabodet[edit]

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

Delete: brutal death notwithstanding, she does not appear to reach threshold of notability as film director. Quis separabit? 02:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A brief glance at GNews makes it evident she has received substantial coverage in French, e.g. [11][12]. Reviews of her work in English include Variety [13][14] and The New York Times [15]. Passes GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with plenty of coverage, as already noted above, and this, this and this as well. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated above. These numerous mentions, especially the ones outside the events of her tragic death, would justify meeting WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the reliable sources coverage mentioned above including Variety and The New York Times and french newspaper coverage show her to have been a notable director and that WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:53, 10 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne McKenna[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable or merge with Richard Dillane. Quis separabit? 02:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this is better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 14:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Not notable enough actor. Cindlevet (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable theatre actress with roles in a number of highly regarded Shakespeare productions at venues such as The National theatre, as shown here [16] I think Wp:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, to address the "keep" above, there are a couple of mentions that she's been involved in well regarded stage productions, but nothing other than a mention that she appeared, as far as I could see. If her performance in said productions was covered in depth by reliable theatre publications, I might be more convinced, but at the moment they just look like trivial mentions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:02, 13 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✈ 10:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In-N-Out Burger products[edit]

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

Outrageous promotionalism. There is a quite sufficient list in the mainarticle, so no merge is needed DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - i'll admit that the article is not as long as it could be, but the reason provided for deletion is simply wrong:
Reasons for keep:
  1. These items are the major products that are unique to major American company presented in a neutral manner.
  2. This article is not a set of indiscriminate information, and does not meet any of the ten general defining criteria set forth in WP:NOT.
  3. It shows how a company adapts when moving into new markets.
  4. It helps show how a company responds to its competition by adapting existing lines of products or creating new ones.
  5. It is sourced to major news outlets (AP, USA Today and NY Times) and sites that deal with nutritional and health news. All of the content is supported by multiple, independent sources which shows the subject is notable
  6. In-N-Out's menu has a major cult following, with articles written solely about its secret menu in major, national publications.
Additionally, they meet the four standards of notability as stated in the notability guidelines:
  1. There is significant coverage of the subject in the independent press;
  2. The sources are reliable;
  3. The sources are all secondary, or if primary, follow the WP:PSTS guides for primary sources;
  4. I and the other main author generated none of the information, are not promoting the products, it is not structured as an ad (no peacock statements) and it is not a press release.
This article was created in response to growing size of the main article, In-N-Out Burger, using the WP:Summary style guidelines. I used the Burger King products Article as a general format for this article to ensure that it wasn't a simply a list of products, but an article about the menu, and while it isn't as comprehensive as the BK article, it does provide some expanded information of the company's defining feature - its secret menu. The source articles show it is in fact notable and that this notability is verifiable. Your claim that it is pure commercialism or promotionalism is spurious. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I understand the concern about promotionalism, but on the other hand, In-N-Out does have a committed following that has led to a massive amount of coverage, especially with respect to the "Secret Menu", so I'm not sure that all this content should be completely removed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that Wikipedia should be a place to get information about anything, and that includes the menu of a popular restaurant. As for promotionalism, I don't think there is any. That is like removing the lists of the highest rated movies because it promotes certain movies. Jacejfrancis (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jeremy's well-reasoned and cogent argument. Clearly notable as shown by multiple, verifiable and reliable sources. It makes sense to have the chain's products detailed in a separate article, leaving a summary and link in the main article, especially in light of the separately notable "secret menu" (which is, indeed, not so secret). Geoff | Who, me? 20:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it certainly could go more in depth, this article still deserves to be kept. If we have articles about Burger King products and McDonald's products, there's no reason In-N-Out should be excluded, especially on the grounds that the article displays "outrageous promotionalism", which, by reading the text, one can see is not true. If this article does contain any content which reads somewhat like an advertisement (e.g. "100% pure, cholesterol-free vegetable oil"), it's only because the information, which is reliably sourced, happens to favor the company. While some rewording may be necessary, this article should be kept. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (talk) 18:32, 7 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) 00:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Keniston[edit]

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

Only rationale for article seems to be that this individual is running for President of the United States. This does not provide the necessary level of notability for an article. ALPolitico (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is the nominee of a notable party (Veterans Party of America) which is on the ballot in the general election at least one state so far.--Cojovo (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: In addition to my comments above, I wish to note WP:POLOUTCOMES: "losing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated." Keniston is obviously a candidate at the national level, one with certified ballot access in the general election.--Cojovo (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This discussion was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall talk 00:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable political candidate. Quis separabit? 02:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. His party is only barely notable, and article contains practically nothing outside running for president. JDDJS (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines for inclusionSir Joseph (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the US presidential election is that rare beast that's so widely covered that a candidate who fails NPOL still has a chance of passing WP:GNG anyway, that fact does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on everybody who happens to be a minor party candidate for president: the volume of substance and sourcing still has to actually satisfy GNG before they're eligible for an article. US election history is literally overflowing with people who were nominated by a minor party, or even independently declared themselves, as a candidate for president, but who then actually satisfied the ballot access requirements in only one, two or even zero states — so we simply cannot confer an automatic presumption of notability on every person who can be described as a candidate for president. But this, as written, is a 58 word blurb that's parked on one primary source and media coverage in just two minor media markets, one of which is local to the town where he lives — and those local sources would still exist regardless of what office he was running for, and thus can't help to establish notability as such. Neither the sourcing nor the substance here are enough. Delete, or redirect to Veterans Party of America, without prejudice against recreation in the future if the volume of media coverage ever increases enough to surpass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Veterans Party of America (as was done originally) per Bearcat.--JayJasper (talk) 20:43, 5 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✈ 10:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ALICEWEB[edit]

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

Non-notable website failing WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are hundreds of independent sources that make at least some reference to this Brazilian government database that can be obtained by WP:GOOGLETESTing. For instance, [17], [18],[19],[20],[21]. By its nature, it's unlikely to have many sources where ALICEWEB is the primary discussion subject. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good short article defining an economics data source. Sensible for Wikipedia to define it. It would appear in an economics encyclopedia, therefore include in Wikipedia. Useful link from studies using its data. doncram 03:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are hundreds of Google Books hits and thousands of Google Scholar hits citing this government service as a source of data. Chris vLS (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a government database so sources are mostly going to be citing ALICEWEB without direct coverage of the topic. Elaenia (talk) 05:37, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_March_3&oldid=1142621637"