Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 March	31 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Kwan

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

This article, created by an indef-blocked user, is likely a hoax. It's unsourced and I cannot find any information on the web about a feminist named Brigitte Kwan or 関秀華 (her purported Chinese name), except for Wikipedia-derived content. Zanhe (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of any sources. I looked through the listed sources and they do not speak of Kwan. Let alone support the paragraphs of text in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure about actual notability, but the person probably existed, see [1] (in Chinese). Timmyshin (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that's a blog post which claims Kwan was the grandmother of an actor. I haven't been able to find any RS about Kwan herself. -Zanhe (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree to Delete. Timmyshin (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only source I could find here is a blog post and it doesn't qualify for WP:RS. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 22:46, 6 April 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loo Kang Wee

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. One of the clear claims of notability is the UNESCO... award. But its ref only says that it went to the OSP@SG project, not to this person and not that this person was key in the project. Overblown claims are a great example of why this autobio needs WP:TNT rather than having to take everything under a microscope to make sure what is here is truly okay. DMacks (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. Ciridae (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, the award went to the organisation not to the person. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't seem to be enough coverage about the man himself, merely brief mentions. I would have suggested a merge to OSP@SG, but none of the hits I could find discuss his work on the project in great detail. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A taste of honey tv

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

Although one could pigeonhole this into an WP:A7, I'd feel more comfortable going about this a bit more thoroughly. The article appears to be about a children's TV show with virtually no coverage that I've been able to find. Based on the author's username, I suspect this article is intended to be purely promotional. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I cannot find any independent sources to support the show being notable. On a side note for Non-dropframe, it can't be speedy deleted via WP:A7 because creative works such as television programs are explicitly excluded from A7. There are only two sentences that tell us it exists and who the hosts are, so there is nothing "promotional" in there that requires a "fundamental rewrite" per ~~WP:G10~~ WP:G11. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Athomeinkobe, understood. What I meant is that the article, in its current form, is just as much about the hosts as it is anything else so an argument could, in theory, be made that A7 applies. That's why I characterized it as "pigeonholing." Personally, I think A7 or A9 should include things like books, movies, TV shows, etc...but I suppose that's neither here nor there. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I agree with you about expanding A7, but I believe the argument has been made and failed before. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of several articles written by the same person, likely the show's host/creator. I'm in the process of giving her a final warning about creating her own pages and nominating any of the mainspace articles for deletion that haven't already been deleted. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Hands Learn My A,B,C's, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonah and the Big Jelly Belly Fish) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything about this TV show and as far as I can tell from this YT video, this looks like it's a public access TV show. The thing about public access is that it's open to anyone and tends to be on a "first come first serve" basis to anyone that can afford to actually create a show. The IMDb page says that this is filmed in Richmond, Virginia and as a Richmond native, I can say that I've never heard of this show - and the local papers absolutely love writing about things that are filmed here. I do wish them well (especially since they're local), but right now they're just not notable enough for an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator of this article, Honeyazul24 is probably a COI editor; her username closely resembles the name of one of the presenters of the show A taste of honey tv. All of Honeyazul24's contributions lack independent, reliable sources, and this one is no exception. Mduvekot (talk) 13:14, 31 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) 12:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLOX City

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

Seemingly NN product from a NN company. Plenty of connected sources can be found but no in-depth third-party coverage. Looks like a publicity piece from connected contributors. Toddst1 (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLOX City Article writer's point of view: (Apologies if I'm doing this wrong, this is my first time discussing my POV in an Articles of Deletion page.) There is little third-party sourcing due to the website is not sponsored or merely recognized by any other website. The article was originally deleted for several reasons. I saw that it had been deleted and I had revived the article. As connected contributing goes, I've only told people about the article on BLOX City's Forums (http://www.bloxcity.com/forums) and a few minutes ago I posted on the website's owner's live stream. Which he did indeed view. Every section on the article was created by me over a span of 2 or 3 days I believe. Other users on BLOX City's Forums have fixed spelling errors and one re-worded a paragraph. I just don't see why the person marked it so early, it had been only (estimated) an hour and it was marked for speedy deletion. Thanks for reading this, tell me if you need more information. Pastorma (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Newly created articles that do not meet the general requirements for Wikipedia tend to be discovered and nominated for deletion quickly. I recommend submitting the article for Articles for Creation for a better chance of getting the article approved, and going to The Teahouse or the Help Desk for general editing assistance. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, not a single hit on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not Notable. There is no reliable sources covering the product and it fails WP:GNG. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are required to be independent to prove notability, and unfortunately there do not appear to be any independent sources at this time (the official website does not count as an independent source). If the game gains more exposure and coverage in independent sources then this article could be recreated. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't understand why the speedy deletion tag wasn't just restored. This is open and shut. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Roscelese. Fails WP:GNG and should have been re-tagged for CSD.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update. This article recently gained a secondary source due to my work, which makes it able to be re-evaluated for WP:GNG 76.218.105.99 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reread WP:RS and WP:N - the article still has no refs which meet the standard of independent significant coverage - user-editable sites such as bloxcity.wikia.com/ are not considered RS, and a single independent ref is not sufficient to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2. I have again tried to improve this article. I added an infobox w/ logo and details, categorized it, added one independent ref, restructured, gave more info, added references to many things to clean up the article. I think that this article is much more clean now, but it still needs some more independent refs. I'd suggest postponing the deletion of this article as I clean it up some more and find independent sources 76.218.105.99 (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly too soon, nothing else convincing especially given it's newly founded. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Roscelese. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pastorma. 76.218.105.99 (talk) 01:24, 8 April 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) 00:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Arnez Hines II

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

Non-notable actor. Cannot find any major roles that he starred in, nor any sources about him. Natg 19 (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another case of classic deletion material, simply nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has one role for a criteria that requires two, and no other thing that passes notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 31 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) 00:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Falbo

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

No evidence this footballer meets WP:GNG or has played in a fully pro league. Playing in the 2011–12 Primera C Metropolitana and the New Zealand league is not sufficient. C 679 21:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 21:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:13, 31 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) 00:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saturna Investment Trust

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

All but one ref are own web-site or simply portfolio offerings. The NBC ref I cannot see but even if good, a single NBC news item doesn't equal notability. Fails WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches instantly only found a few links and nothing actually better. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Velella. The author appears to have been a single-purpose account with possible promotional intent, having only authored this article and the related page Amana Mutual Funds Trust within the same span of time. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 21:32, 7 April 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 Zecharia Sitchin. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nibiru (proposed planet)

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

Articles relating to the pseudohistorical planets Nibiru and Tiamat and other factors relating to Zecharia Sitchin's work were redirected to his biographical article years ago until more well-cited information could be found. The current attempt to fork the article (likely unintentional) is little more than original research with one citation to Youtube and another a WP:SYN cite that doesn't mention the topic. Serendi ^pod ous 20:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Zecharia Sitchin. Not independently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zecharia Sitchin. As described by the nominator, Nibiru (hypothetical planet) already redirects to Zecharia Sitchin; Nibiru (proposed planet) should do so as well. Astro4686 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 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) 12:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwuemeka Fred Agbata

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

I have reviewed the sources cited and only this interview (which I can't access) provides in-depth coverage of the subject. I've also looked for other sources but have been unable to find anything better. Unless I've missed something, the multiple in-depth sources requirement of WP:BIO is not met. SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found an archived version of that source here and it strengthens my opinion about the lack of notability as the interview is completely self-serving and indicates that the source is not RS (i.e. no fact checking). SmartSE (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am interested in this after the investigation mentioned here - basically articles where the references were not supported by the sources. Peter Damian (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we just keep this discussion focussed on notability? SmartSE (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no idea about notability, given that half the links did not work, and the links which did work were just passing references. Peter Damian (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable blogger and digital marketer. The source that verifies that Agbata has been identified as a digital marketing expert in Nigeria is to an announcement of a panel he was part of. I've been on dozens of panels (and I'm sure many other people have to) and being asked by the panel organizer to participate isn't evidence of notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the essential test of having fewer references than I could muster for an article about myself. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 4 April 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 | 14:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Dugdale

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

There does not seem to be enough here to pass wp:SOLDIER; the DSO is not a major gong & if he had actually done anything elseother than going to Winchester & Christ Church I would have thougth that it would have been mentioned in the cited Times obit. The existence of which is not a sign of notability, merely that he is of the class that goes to Winchester and Christ Church.TheLongTone (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CMG & DSO plus Colonel of a regiment during WWI are suitable to pass notability for solider. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CMG is not a military honour, and major formations are not commanded by colonels.TheLongTone (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CMG is a major award, per WP:ANYBIO and Queen's Own Oxfordshire Hussars is a big enough regiment that a colonel that commanded them during WWI would be worthy of a bio. He's also found in the various Who's Who of the time, which only includes prominent people, but is snippet view only, so I can't link to it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has long been established that the CBE and above are sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO. The CMG is a higher award so he clearly qualifies. An obituary in The Times is also considered to be sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above I withdraw the nomination, altho it seems a ludicrously low bar; some awards are simply made for "being one of us" & not blotting your copybook. This man seems to have led a life of remarkable dullness; the Times Obit, as I suspected, has nothing to say about him. The obits editor was probably at Oxford with him The DSO was awarded in 1919 so I assume comes into this category.TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 31 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 'nomination withdrawn' LibStar (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West Australian Screen Awards

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

fails WP :GNG. it might sound like a major state award but coverage is extremely limited 1 gnews hit and only 1 hit in major Australian broadcaster abc.net.au . Otherwise coverage is primary. LibStar (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt:

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

Keep and encourage improvements to this poor stub as it appears to have more multiple independent sources available than originally thought. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a nationally recognized award and there are multiple independent references clearly establishing its notability. I would suggest that the nominator hasn't looked particularly hard when he states the coverage is very limited. Check out the news coverage for starters. Dan arndt (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British National Party leadership election, 1999

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

Article is basically a cut & paste of the opening para of History of the British National Party#Griffin leadership, identity nationalism; nothing of substance has been added, merely some flashy formatting. And there does not seem to be much that can be said about this tiny niche party election that cannot be contained in that article. I initially converted the article to a redirect, but article creator reverted the edit. TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nothing is wrong with this because they have the 2011 and 2015 elections so they should also have the 1999 elections. Jim red91 (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a classic example of WP:OTHERSTUFF.TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can be a valid argument, particularly in cases like this where there are a series of articles on the same topic. Number 5 7 20:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have numerous other articles on political party leadership elections (see e.g. Category:Political party leadership elections in the United Kingdom) including those of the BNP. As it was (at the time) a fairly significant party, I think a leadership election is notable. Number 5 7 20:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Regardless of the existence of other articles, and despite the small number of votes in the election, this seems like a notable chapter in the BNP's history with a fair amount of independent scholarly coverage ([2]), so passes the WP:GNG. I've fixed the vote counts in the article and added a source. If it's a cut and paste then it should be tagged as a split rather than deleted. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't think notability is the issue here; what I am concerned about is the fact that the article has no real content and I cannot imagine that there is really anything to say about it other than far-right fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And having had a look at ([3]) my opinion is not changed. None looks like substantial coverage, merely mentions in the context of BNP history. Confirming my reason for believing this should be deleted.TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of content is a WP:SOFIXIT thing, not an argument for deletion (see WP:NOIMPROVEMENT), and the book I added on the article talks about the election in the context of leadership elections in the UK in general. And, generally, one would expect that in academic books a BNP leadership election is largely going to be mentioned in the context of the history of BNP. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is clearly on a subject which we should be covering. That said, it certainly lacks content, and I'd be glad to help fix it up a bit. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:31, 1 April 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-withdawn by Thegreatluigi – Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lac de Mâl

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

I was uncertain about nominating this, but it's had virtually no actual content for over three months now. The complete lack of any real content also suggests it might not be especially notable. And since it's completely unreferenced (not that there's anything in the article TO reference)... Thegreatluigi (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I knew I should have just left this article alone. Though only three people have commented on this so far, I'm already convinced this nomination was a mistake. Lesson learnt. Thegreatluigi (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First lake in category: Category:Lakes of Mauritania. See ru:Маль (озеро). Advisor^{speak en-2} 14:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See [4]], wher it is described as an important habitat for birdlife. Note that lack of content does not mean there isn't content to be added; also that the fact that it is first (and only) member of a category is meaningless, since the cat was created by this article creator).TheLongTone (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly enough verification to qualify for an article under Wikipedia's gazetteer function as described at WP:GEOLAND. Assorted additional potential sources can be found by pursuing variant spellings such as "Lake Mal". Examples: [5] (p.60), [6][7][8]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it meets geographic requirements plus additional notability as wildlife refuge for certain birds.[9] Searching for "lac de mâl"+ oiseau brings additional results in French of course.[10] —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:39, 30 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) 22:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fanhui chanting

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

Delete Thanks to JMKR92 for adding more sources to this article, but I still see no evidence of notability. Specifically, the sources cited, with one exception, do not mention the subject, Fanhui chanting; they are about chanting generally. The source that does mention this term by name is a Wordpress blog devoted to Fanhui Chanting and which contains a total of three posts--one of which is about the creation of the Wikipedia page that is in question here. This does not, it seems to me, qualify as evidence of third-party interest. (There's also a citation to a Facebook page with 5 followers, similarly devoted to the subject.) I see no references in books or on the Web to any of the terms introduced here, which is strange for a phenomenon that is supposed to have been around for 6 years. At best what we have here is a very private practice known only to a small circle of associates; at worst, it may be a hoax. Jmatazzoni (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it may not be an blatant or obvious hoax, so WP:G3 probably doesn't apply, but the wordpress post celebrating the creation of this article, referred to as "recognition and the path to victory", the names that yield no search results at all and the reference to the hundi-hundi nights that must take place in complete secrecy, because they're not announced anywhere, even on their own website, make me think that this is a prank. And lastly, there's the recording of a chant performed by the group that leaves little, as they say on their own website, "doubt as to the sincerity of some practitioners of this new form". Mduvekot (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the prank question, note also the initiation of novices by "cleansing of all orifices with goat's milk". Again, this is a practice that could be a real thing but to which I can find no references to anywhere on the Web or in Google Books. Jmatazzoni (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The above comments and research are on point. I did a little looking myself, and I it looks like either a niche practice or a hoax.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:43, 8 April 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) 00:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Newell (baseball)

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

Fails GNG and NBASE John from Idegon (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his roles as a player and manager are all non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a player or manager and coverage is just routine sports reporting, not the significant coverage required for WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 08:23, 31 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chua Yeow Kee

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

According to this article, he never took part in any Karate tournament. He can't be grouped as a sportsman. He is a karate teacher in his own academy. He is not any National or state level coach. And I didn't find anything in search. Greek Legend (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No mention in any news source. Only a couple of websites have his profile (among profiles of other coaches). No indication of notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable martial arts instructor.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant or independent coverage and no real claims of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete This Article should not be deleted as although it is not stated in the articles, he has participated and represented Singapore in many competitions, one of them being the Third World Open Karate Tournament in Tokyo as reported by Singapore newspaper "The Straits Times" TimesSport Section December 1, 1983. The reason why there is not much online resources for more information on Chua Yeow Kee is because he was most active when he was around 20-30 years old which is more than 30 years ago at a time where there was no internet yet, especially in Singapore which only became independant in 1965. Chua Yeow Kee was also known as Singapore's Top Oyama (Masutatsu Oyama) Karatekas, as reported by Singapore newspaper "The Straits Times" TimeSport Section December 1, 1983. 99gohdaniel (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Links to his clubs do not satisfy GNG, nor does appearing at a karate tournament many years ago (even if documentation was presented). He appears to fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. Agree with Papaursa, even if he did participate in competitions and it was supported in reliable sources, that doesn't qualify for notability. Meatsgains (talk) 00:06, 9 April 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 by User:BethNaught as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. (non-admin closure) Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MullerMoo

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

Overt advertisement, full of promotional language (uses phrases like "We use the world's leading manufactoring process"), no apparent notability, and sourced to in-house publications, incidental mentions and puff pieces. Elmidae (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 30 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 Dreamcast homebrew#Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Dreams Tournament

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

Non notable unreleased game. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is a mix of passing mentions, PR rehashes and primary sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Using the custom Google WP:VG/RS search engine, there are a total of four this, all from the same website. Does not meet WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dreamcast homebrew#Games. Dearth of reliable, secondary source coverage but a useful redirect to its list entry. @Soetermans and Duffbeerforme czar 16:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farahnaz Amirsoleymani

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

Ref #1: is a press release. Ref #2, 404 error— that aside, I am not convinced that the "leading Persian magazine of western Canada" has sufficient breadth of readership to qualify its content as able to support a notability claim. Ref #3 is a personal PDF file, lacking independence. Ref. #4 does not mention the subject anywhere. Ref #5 appears to be a press release on one of her books written by the publisher, "faripublishing.com". Ref #6 is a link to an Amazon page where her book can be purchased. Ref. #7 does not mention the subject, though it appears it may have originally been a kind of review for a book, in which case it might have been useful for a notability argument for that book, not necessarily for the author (just as the article on Hyperbole and a Half has no corresponding article on its author), and even if it did include that kind of coverage, I am not convinced, based on what I was able to determine from the web site, that the publication is itself a reliable source of information. Lastly, there is no corresponding article on the Persian Wikipedia about her, which leaves us at a dead end. There does not appear to be enough genuine, reliable, independent, non-trivial material here to qualify this person as notable, and failing the appearance of such, I nominate it for deletion. KDS4444^Talk 08:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks adequate sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article creator was a spa on this subject so doesn't appear to be around to possibly provide notable sources, a gsearch brings up nothing useable for either the subject or her books so delete as does not meet WP:GNG OR WP:AUTHOR, per nom the article references are unable to be used as they are either press releases from the publisher, don't work, are trivial mentions, or don't relate to subject. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Larsson

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. It was previously prodded by It was deprodded by User:McGeddon for similar reasons, endorsed by User:NickW557 and deprodded by creator User:Stefan99mecom with no rationale. Not all sportspeople are notable, and I don't see this one - who started their career seemingly last year - winning anything, or getting any serious coverage. Being mentioned in passing as one of the drivers in a minor event seems, so far, the best I can find. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems very much like a WP:VANITY bio with sources such as facebook, blogs, etc. I am not seeing any independent, reliable coverage, the few minor newspaper mentions are articles written by her, not about her. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but nominators typically don't talk to themselves like this. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "[n]omination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Also, isn't this a "he"? Rebbing talk 13:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rebbing: Of course, I messed up: this vote was intended for another AfD, I must have messed editing... moving there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, that makes a lot more sense. Cheers! Rebbing talk 10:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The specific notability guideline for motorsports is WP:NMOTORSPORT. I don't have time to look into it properly, but a cursory look suggests that the subject doesn't meet either that specific guideline or the more general notability guidelines. Rebbing talk 14:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as endorser of the contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG as the coverage is trivial and passing in nature. There's no indication of, and I've been unable to locate, any significant coverage about the subject. Additionally, the subject-specific criteria at WP:NMOTORSPORT don't appear to have been met. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 30 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 Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koen West

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

Fictional character with no notability to be found, see also Araluen (character) Wgolf (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cleverman or delete. There are some trivial mentions, such as this one, but I don't see significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cleverman. Dan arndt (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 30 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BOLT IOT Platform

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

No evidence of any notability and no notability claimed in article. It is a bit of (no doubt useful) technology but no evidence that it is notable Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- KEEP: I think there is notabilty, the article has good sources and the awards and nominations this piece of technology has had give some notability i think. Masterofroks (talk) 12:53, 30 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Little Birds tour

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

Upcoming concert tour with no indication of notability. WP:NCONCERT specifies that "Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." But all that's here is one source establishing that the tour is happening, a list of the venues, and no indication whatsoever of any notability "in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms". Redirect to Garbage (band), without prejudice against recreation at a later date if and when something genuinely substantive and notable can be written about it. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request can now be closed as new sources that indicate notability have been provided. The article is now in no worse shape than for example Pearl Jam 2016 North America Tour, The Offspring World Tour 2016, Queen + Adam Lambert 2016 Summer Festival Tour, The Formation World Tour, América Latina Olé Tour 2016, Hits 2016 (Rod Stewart tour) etc.--Garbidz (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Garbidz is the original author of the article crh23 (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 30 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) 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The studs

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

Can't find anything about this group. Search results are about others. Greek Legend (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to pass WP:NBAND. Only ref is about death of a band member, no notable albums/songs (all blue-links are to DABs or other articles), no other forms of notability.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches are finding nothing else and the Korean Wiki also has nothing better at all, still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient third-party sourcing or in-depth news coverage to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 08:40, 8 April 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 Glossary of surfing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gnarly

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY - I PROD'd the page and after the page's creator posted his concerns on the talk page, I decided to remove the tag and nominate for AfD to get other user's feedback. Meatsgains (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm generally skeptical of NOTDICT arguments, as they tend to sweep up stubs or articles that are genuinely about words or phrases. But this article is focused on three (well, two and a half) definitions of the word, so there is no clear non-linguistic topic. And since I can't find books or scholarly articles about the word as such, I don't see hope for an article here. Cnilep (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mm. well it seems to me that there is some indication of it being a notable term in skate/board/surf culture [11] [12] [13] [14] - so further research may well uncover enough resources to write a sensible page on that topic. In my view, however, the page would need a much tighter focus on the use of the term within those subcultures rather than a general dictionary-type definition. JMWt (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Glossary of surfing. Straight up WP:DICDEF, and the key definition is one for which we have a glossary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Glossary of surfing per Rhododendrites. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've struck my !vote, above. The comment stands, but I've no objection to a redirect to the glossary. Cnilep (talk) 03:55, 4 April 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedism

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

This article qualifies for deletions on several points. Firstly, there is only one ref, and that is to a quote; there is no reference to what "encyclopedism" is, or what its history or attributes are, and has had the re-improve tag since 2013; the article reads life a personal reflection or essay on the topic, rather than having an encyclopedic tone; the areas covered by the article are better handled at the articles history of encyclopedias and encyclopedias. Both of these cover what an encyclopedia is and what the history of the encyclopedia is far better and with better references, making this a case of Wikipedia:Duplicate article.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is an open CFD nomination on the emponymous category (Category:Encyclopedism) located here. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article makes broad claims with no sources. (The nominator gives way too much credit to the article for having 1 source when it's just a bare link without a page numbber to "Pliny's Natural History in 37 Books".) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. Most of the issues seem to be with the current condition of the article, which isn't cause for deletion. The article is in lousy shape, to be sure, but it's a distinct subject with several book-length treatments, edited collections, and countless papers on the subject. Per WP:NEXIST all that matters is that the sources exist -- they don't have to be cited in the article right now. For example:

Literature and Encyclopedism in Enlightenment Britain (Springer)
Encyclopedism from Pliny to Borges (University of Chicago Library)
Johann Heinrich Alsted: Encyclopedism, Millenarianism and the Second Reformation in Germany (Oxford)
The Business of Enlightenment: a publishing history of the Encyclopédie, 1775-1800 (Harvard)
Reading the World: Encyclopedic Writing in the Scholastic Age (UChicago)
Josselin de Jong, P. D., & Vermeulen, H. F. (1850). Cultural anthropology at Leiden University; From encyclopedism to structuralism'. Leiden Oriental Connections, 1940, 280-316.
Grafton, A. (1985). The world of the Polyhistors: Humanism and encyclopedism. Central European History, 18(01), 31-47.
Neurath, O. (1946). The orchestration of the sciences by the encyclopedism of logical empiricism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 6(4), 496-508.
Swigger, Ronald T. "Fictional Encyclopedism and the Cognitive Value of Literature." Comparative Literature Studies (1975): 351-366.

I'll stop there unless someone wants more. It's easy to say that encyclopedism and encyclopedias are closely related, of course, just like it's easy to say writing and books are, but these works aren't about the products of encyclopedism or about the encyclopedists -- they're about the process.
If it makes big claims that aren't sourced and you don't want to grab a source, tag the article or individual sentences. For the most egregious parts, remove them.
The current article doesn't offer a lot, which is why I'm not !voting strong keep, and I don't know how much of it I'd save if I were to start working on it (it's admittedly been on my to do list for quite a long time, sadly), but I also don't think anything is accomplished by deleting. It's impoverished; it's not damaging. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your reply here shows more time and dedication than the article has seen in years. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between a really poor article and a poor topic. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag copiously for all of its faults so it's clear that we know this isn't the article we would like. I agree with User:Rhododendrites' analysis, and it is a shame that within Wikipedia there would be such poor treatment of the very thing we are in the middle of doing here. LaMona (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not mind having an article on encyclpedism in principle, but it is a very, very lousy article and has been essentially unchanged for nearly five years. Unless the current one is completely rewritten and given WP:RS it should be deleted --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: an important topic, but it needs work, particularly around Saint-Simon, Neurath (International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Bogdanov, and Hayek's critique of encyclopedism. Leutha (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – GNG pass: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], more.... North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 8 April 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. A clear consensus to keep after relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apple electric car project

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

That this article is about a rumored Product that meets the criteria in WP:SPECULATION paragraph 5 for deletion. There is no data available from Apple Inc. that such a Product is being OR will be created Loomdime (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple iCar was the 3rd AFD on this subject. That title now redirects to this article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—multiple sources have reported on this project. The fact that Apple hasn't confirmed or denied its existence is immaterial. This article passes WP:GNG and doesn't warrent deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 23:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep. This is a notable rumor which has been talked about by many news organizations, and, even if Apple never would say something such as "The project is currently undergoing development.", it would still be a notable subject. Take Half-Life 3 for instance; the probably most infamous example of vaporware is a popular rumor (and a confirmed project). Now, if Titan were only speculated by quite a few sources, then, it might not be a notable subject after all. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:N upon a source review (e.g. USA Today, Newsweek, Time, The Wall Street Journal, more: [21], [22], [23], [24], ) and is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL because it anticipated, verifiable and is of sufficiently wide interest to merit an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, well-sourced article. Not really a speculation at this point. You don't really need a product listed on manufacturer website to pass the check. SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In fact being listed on Apple's website would not be a good way to establish notability as that would be a primary source. Additionally given the wide reliable coverage as cited by @Northamerica1000: above this one deserves to stay. Mwenzangu (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above, It may be a good idea to stop with the AFDs as it's not going to be deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000, although the article could be rewritten to avoid violating WP:CRYSTAL.--Proud User (talk) 16:28, 2 April 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 Brooke Bond. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Bond Taj Mahal

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

Frankly I questioned this article since I reviewed it at NPP and have been watching it since, the author has frequently spoken to me and has cited improvements but I'm simply questionable whether this is solidly independently notable. At best, this apparently is owned by Brooke Bond so it could be somehow salvaged by merging there. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. I'm not sure this one is entirely obvious. On the one hand, the page is clearly rubbish and there is little that gives much hope that it'll be improved into something useful. But on the other hand, other branded products are well established on wikipedia. So I think we're just down to looking for reliable sources - which might be a bit tricky. But, I think it is possible - like these [25] [26] [27] etc. I think it is a notable tea brand in India. But how one writes a wikipedia page on that.. I couldn't say. JMWt (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article shoild not be deleted because....

My friend SwisterTwister said that I have to add the sources from newspapers and magazines to improve the article. So I have edited the sources from magazines and newspapers. So please do not delete this article. I'll also try to improve it more. Thank You --sattu 04:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)\

My friend SwisterTwister is confused that this is notable or not. This is notable as whole India knows about this tea so we can say that this is notable. Isn't it ? Thank You

This article is not merging in Brooke Bond as the company Brooke Bond is also owned by Hindustan Unilever. It is describing the product (tea). It is not merging in Brooke Bond as this company has many teas and their head is Hindustan Unilever which has different products like purifiers, teas, soaps and other sanitary, etc. So I can say that this article is not merging in Brooke Bond but we can say that this article is related to it. You can ask any Indian about the same and he/she will reply you so. If you are confused then you can see Brands owned by Hindustan Unilever Limited and wikipedia/Hul Thank You sattu 05:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarthakniar (talk • contribs) Thank You sattu 05:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Sarthakniar/talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sarthakniar, repeating yourself again and again does not help convince anyone and is very unhelpful in terms of convincing people. The suggestion above is that this get moved into a "list of brands" section at Brooke Bond so we need more evidence that is actually significant discussion of the brands other than the fact that it is from an important company. This is about the tea not the company, which is a separate article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarthakniar (talk • contribs) 05:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oksattu 05:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as essentially promotion of http://www.tajmahaltea.com/ It is all company primary source material, with a large number of sources added that do not speak to Wikipedia-notability. A Smerge to Brooke Bond may be justified, but I think WP:TNT applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This article should not be merged in the article Brooke Bond as their is no information on the products of Brooke Bond In the article Brooke Bond. So if we add information on tea in that article then it seems very odd. In my opinion it is little bit damaging the encyclopedia if we do the same. This product is notable as notable means that someone or something that is important or interesting and we all know that this is important. but we can't say that this is independently notable as it is a product of Brooke Bond. This is not independently notable but then also this should not be merged in the article Brooke Bond as if it is merged than it can be harmful for encyclopedia. This article should not be deleted as the products owned by any company should have their own article for more information. There are also many articles in Wikipedia which are owned by a company like XUV 5OO. It is also a product of Mahindra and so it is also not independently notable then why this question is not put at that product. My conclusion is that in my opinion this article should not be deleted. If you agree with my statement then please comment here and also on my my talk page if you can. Now it is your choice that you want to delete the article or not but please do not destroy the encyclopedia as our main aim is to improve the encyclpedia. Sarthakniar/talk

Thank You sattu 06:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promo and almost entirely primary sourced content. Not notable in it's own right separate from Brooke Bond. Any truly encyclopedic and notable content here can be merged or recreated there. Chrisw80 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brooke Bond - not finding significant coverage for this product to suggest it meets notability. Although it's long standing consensus that products are generally kept, I don't feel this could be one of the case. A mere mention on Brooke Bond would do —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this is connected to that company, I also originally considered this and still support. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brooke Bond. This particular brand of tea does not appear to meet WP:GNG, per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 7 April 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) 12:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minhaj Shifat

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

Article has lack of significance. Could not find any news related to him in google. Thus article has not pass WP:MUSBIO. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The bd24live article is a decent start, but gonomanusherawaj seems to be just an edited-down rehash of it. Searches of the usual types, including by Bengali script name, found brief mentions in the Bengali press, but nothing as substantive as the bd24live piece. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see a consensus for deleting Time (rapper) as well. No prejudice to Time (rapper) being nominated for deletion if thought appropriate. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Steele (journalist)

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

This article's last line is "Steele is also a hip-hop artist known as Time." The link is to the article Time (rapper). I didn't find any sources about this journalist named Chris Steele, though there are some doctors and sportsman named Chris Steele.

Time (rapper) The lead states that "Steele is also an investigative journalist." Why two articles were created about this guy by the same user after a gap of many years?

Others can decide whether Time (rapper) should be nominated together. Greek Legend (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not need two articles on him. Whether we even need one is debatable, but not two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need two articles on him. I was going to suggest a merge, but it looks like the article on his career as a rapper already includes the sourced bits from this one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionably better for solid independent notability (WP:CREATIVE). SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 7 April 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) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Arent

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

Does not meet notability guidelines per WP:SOLDIER: low ranking military man; no notable decorations cited; no sources listed since Oct 2015. The article states that the purported award of the Knight's Cross is an invention by the German author Franz Kurowski, whose accounts are often semi-fictional. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless a source for the Knight's Cross is produced. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well stated by the nominator. Arent fails the basic WP:GNG standard, and is not saved by WP:SOLDIER. I agree that the Knight's Cross is most likely a invention by author Franz Kurowski. The lack of verifiability supports this liklihood, See the discussion in the article in the 'Knight's cross" section. The bad translation is fixable, the lack of notability much less so. --Bejnar (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ganksta C

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

Article does not meet notability guideline for biographies. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of sources identifying anything approaching notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the redirect Str8 Husla points to Ganksta C and probably ought to be deleted as well.Mduvekot (talk) 16:51, 7 April 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Radical European Masters season

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

This article merely gives a list of provisional dates, and contains no prose describing this motorsport series, or even any indication that the series actually took place. Even if there was some referenced content, this series is a low ranking non-professional event, with sparse non-routine coverage, so does not meet the WP:GNG criteria. QueenCake (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was the website of the series [28] and with this I also think that we should also add Radical European Masters to the list. Matt294069 is coming 00:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as none of this actually imagines better solid independent notability and there's no better context to actually convince keeping. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 30 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) 12:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Nixon

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

No evidence of any special notability. The refs provide publicity not notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that someone who was discovered by the late Helmut Newton, photographed by some of the world's leading photographers, has written 2 best selling books, edited a fashion magazine, run a deli, and is now a company director for a company that manufacturers sanitary products for humanitarian aid is notable. To have one successful career is something that many would consider special to have several is both special and notable. Paulwest (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Paulwest (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand and can sympathise with your concerns. However the bar for notability in Wikipedia is set higher than that, and measured against those criteria, this article does not demonstrate notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete at best for now since it's questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her first book got some coverage: [29], [30], [31], [32]. However, most of these are just beauty tips, a quotation or two from Nixon, and a plug for the book. It's difficult to find articles about her specifically, but part of that may be a lack of digitized sources from the 1960s. I don't have a problem with deletion, but it seems like maybe this could be moved to draft space to give the creator a chance to look for better sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells of conflict of interest. No idea what the heck is with this image upload at File:Image of Victoria Nixon.jpg with image license: This file is in the public domain, because On multiple websites -- what does that mean ??? Because "on multiple websites" means anything is in the public domain ??? Additionally, literally all uploads on Commons have no permission from original photographer or magazine that holds copyrights and are copyvio. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI isn't a policy-based reason to delete an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject also fails on reception of significant discussion in secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also similar problems with article by author at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Messenger. — Cirt (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot of problems with this article. Lack of sourcing, poor compliance with WP standards and copyright issues on the images. That said, I am unconvinced that this wouldn't meet our standards if only it was better written, and that's no reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley:Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us where the individual has received significant discussion in secondary sources independent of the subject ? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOUR. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, this is an interesting one. Looking at it from the surface, my initial reaction was to think that she OUGHT to be notable at least for her modelling career. However, when I tried to probe further, I really struggled to find sources about her that are suitable. The article is very promotional. I do have to note that this "reference," as quoted: "Joyce Dinsay of the University of the Philippines Baguio school biology department mentions the advice given in Victoria's book "Supermodels' Beauty Secrets" - is just too adorably cute for words. Awww factor aside, though - sadly, it all has to be a delete vote. Mabalu (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digicorp

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

Article about a barely known company that does web development consulting with small products that have little or no traction. They have little press in newspapers. Specifically, the youtube video is about a product that no longer exists, the times of india article doesn't work and the India Today write-up is just a small magazine story about the company. Reduciblenominee (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have fixed the link to the Times of India article. For your information, India Today is not a "small magazine", it's the most read English weekly magazine in India according to the Indian Readership Survey 2014. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment meant that the article, not the magazine, was small . . . Chris vLS (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha yes you might be right but since I got confused, it's probably best to clarify. Biwom (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this actually suggests better for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 30 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) 12:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looping (video game)

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. The sources currently used in the article are all patently unreliable (MobyGames, Mamedev.org, Video Game Critic, ConsoleClassix.com) and were added back by the original author against the advice of my talk page message. czar 03:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 04:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Websites may perhaps be generally considered unreliable, except when these particular references are examined, they contain firsthand sources and photographs/scans of reliable images, items, and publications. This is not following the totality of the sources used. There are cross-referenced details. Additionally, moving this article to mere draft status will prevent others from building and improving the article. Lastly, it is much easier to criticize and debase something than to correct its shortcomings.--SidP (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can someone improve on the article if they cannot access reliable sources on the topic? See our list of vetted video game sources to see the exact issues with the sources above. czar 05:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is still questionable of independent notability at best, delete as the article, despite having a certain number of sources, is still questionably better. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No doubt it exists, but there it does not meet WP:N like this. A quick Google search does not bring up any additional RS'es. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:28, 1 April 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) 12:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elive

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

Non-notable, only significant coverage appears to be from e-magazines. Much of the content appears to be promotional. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article is still questionable for the applicable notability at best. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem notable. Couldn't find substantial coverage (admittedly only did a 5 min search).-- Elmidae (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twana Amin

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

No RS Source in google book search. The claims can't be verified. With the exception of Central Kurdish Wikipedia, all articles in other Wikipedia projects was created by the same user named similar to the article. Greek Legend (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for the applicable notability, simply nothing convincing enough and the article certainly needs better work before becoming acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps (world news & Middle East news) did not turn up much. Might be a language problem here -- this is an English Wikipedia, and many external links are in hard-to-translate languages.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:27, 8 April 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) 13:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SonicScoop

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a music reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 05:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 05:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 05:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no considerably minimal signs of better satisfying the applicable notability, nothing else convincing for this troubled article. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Website article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Refs provided are an incidental mention and a non-RS corp site. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:17, 1 April 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) 00:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Muhammad

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

Vanity page unsupported by references. Only significant ref is subject's personal website. Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Claims to have performed and collaborated with notable artists, but notability is not WP:INHERITED Scr★pIron^IV 12:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this suggests better notability, no signs of actually convincingly keeping. SwisterTwister talk 22:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced (self-)promotion. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 7 April 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. We seem to be arriving at consensus that this shouldn't be covered as a separate article. There are some proposals to redirect; no consensus for that here but that may emerge from subsequent discussions. Sandstein 11:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist (slur)

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

Looks as an essay or original research with nothing showing notability beyond this article Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Non notable Article. Needs context. Colin Shui (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are high-quality, and are all verifiable. Hawaan12 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Hawaan12 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

delete It doesn't even bother to cite the central claim, and I'm doubtful that it is true. Mangoe (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination rationale doesn't seem to quite reflect the state of the article, which is referenced. And the first book cite does seem to pertain to the central claim, though without hyperlinks we really can't tell what says what. This may be mostly WP:SYNTH -- or perhaps not. This short stub has no less than four references. However, one is to a bulletin to staff at Cornell and another, an "Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance Guide" of uncertain notability. Sand nigger, one of two analogous slurs mentioned, is a redirect to List of ethnic slurs and that is what we could here. ~~Delete or redirect~~ until such time (if ever) that a much more solid case is established that this is a bona fide notable topic. Userfy if requested. And I would encourage Hawaan12 to improve referencing with Gnews and Gbooks results with hypertext links so editors can see what is being offered as support for the article's statements.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator has added several references with links. The second, The TV Terrorist: Media Images of Middle Easterners, would most definitely be considered WP:RS. Unlike Mangoe, above, I'm not "doubtful that it is true." The notion that a great many Arabic or 'foreign'-looking people aren't being mislabeled as terrorists at one time or another is willfully ignorant, at best, it seems to me. The question is the truthfulness of the assertions -- which the new refs do verify -- but their notability for the purposes of a standalone article. I'm certainly open to changing my mind on this one and will watch the Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change to neutral for now. I want to see where this is going. It deserves a full discussion and is not a obvious delete, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Hawaan12 (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Shawn in Montreal and I think the willful ignorance being displayed is in bad faith. 'Terrorist' is very frequently used as a pejorative term towards Arabs, particularly in Israel, where the term is applied to virtually all individuals of Arab ethnicity who commit a violent crime (this could be included in the article at some point). At first glance, the references in this article seem to be meet the guidelines for WP:RS, but I'll try to add more and fill out all of the publishing details when I get some free time since notability seems to be the only legitimate concern here. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this as unique to the Israel/Palestine conflict, btw. With the reaction to ISIS and Al Qaida attacks against the West, and now the Trump campaign, there may be references from Western sources, too. I don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's unique to the conflict either, I was just throwing out the first example of widespread usage that came to mind after the USA (and I'm referring to usage by media outlets and high ranking officials). I'm not particularly versed in the commonalities of this term in other parts of the world. Here are some examples of what I mean: [33], [34], [35]. The Guardian and the Economist articles contrast how the terms "terrorist" or "terror" are reserved for Palestinians or Arab Israelis since Israel's Defense Ministry has ruled that Jews cannot legally be considered terrorists. The quote by Mohammad Barakeh in The Guardian article is especially noteworthy as he claims that the government's designation of terrorists according to ethnicity is symptomatic of racism. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it seems to me that this may be a case of WP:SYNTH, though. It seems to me you're conflating Israeli resistance to calling Jewish terrorists terrorists, and articles about Anti-Arabism or Islamophobia that mention of the fact that Arabs or Muslims maybe branded as terrorists or other derogatory things, beyond this one slur. Both Anti-Arabism and Islamophobia in the United States make mention of the terrorist slur and those articles -- and our readers -- might benefit from improvements to those articles, rather than maintaining this standalone article on a word, indeed, the misuse of a word, per WP:NAD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point about my example being SYNTH and more about the misuse of the word. Despite that, there are still some quality references in the article, and I've also found some references through my own research, such as: [36] - "This Article suggests that September 11 facilitated the consolidation of a new identity category that groups together persons who appear "Middle Eastern, Arab, or Muslim," whereby members of this group are identified as terrorists and disidentified as citizens.", [37] and [38]. I don't think we would have to worry about the article being a mere dictionary entry since there are multiple dimensions to the usage of this term (e.g. origins, effects of 9/11 on its usage, usage by country, perpetuation in films). That being said, I would support the merging of this article with either Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims in the United States or Anti-Arabism as a second choice. As a side note, if the article is kept, it might be better if it was renamed as a stereotype rather than a slur. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Berkeley Law paper is very good. Yes, it's more about the stereotype than the word, I can see that. Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims in the United States would be a good place to expand on this -- though not the only place, surely, as it's not just a U.S. phenomenon, especially following the migrant crisis and ISIS terrorist attacks in Europe. And then as you've pointed out, there's may be a related, regionally distinct (as some might argue, others, not) usage in Israel. So maybe that's an argument for keeping and repurposing/renaming this article as summary of global stereotypes of Arabs/Muslims as terrorists. I've reverted to neutral: this does seem to me to be a notable topic and I'm fine with wherever it's explored. And it's unlikely to ever be in just a single article, anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Israel for 16 years and never heard someone called an Arab a terrorist as a slur. Taking into account 20% of Arab population with Arabs being members of parliament, serving in army and being withing every aspect of society, I think it's quite defamatory. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is defamatory, towards Arabs, that's rather the point. The article and this Afd now have more than enough WP:RS to establish that this is a widely discussed issue, at the very least. Arguments like 'this never happens/this isn't true' aren't terribly persuasive, no matter how many times they get raised, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

on the other hand, I did not mean to write "there is" rather than "there may be" usage in Israel. I'm not here to prejudge any of this -- I'm certainly no expert. So I have changed that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And on the other hand I never wrote "this never happens/this isn't true", but "I didn't hear it". I've looked thru most of the links and they either for a lawsuit, filed by individual or a personal opinions or even blogs. There is no any independent source, talking about such slur as a widespread one and I believe to call it slur it has to be widespread. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Berkeley Law article (and others) refer to an Arab-as-terrorist "stereotype," which if so, goes beyond an individual author's belief. You know what, I'm going to change my !vote somewhat to do not delete. I'm not sure what the fate of this should be, but this line of argument is rather meritless, imo. Sorry. There's now enough RS to establish that different published authors are talking about something that exists, regardless of what you saw or heard in your 16 years in Israel. And indeed, this isn't limited to Israel/Palestine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it does so as an ethnic stereotype. To keep this page, we would need disscussions of this word ("terrorist" used as a slur, and specifically as an ethnic (not religious) slur.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm late in responding but I don't see a huge difference in whether it's a "slur" or an "ethnic stereotype." It seems to me that's a quibble over terminology, not notability. Indeed, a rename that changes the disambiguation from "slur" to something more aligned with "stereotype" would seem to me to be a fine idea, if kept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - good sourcing. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:SYNTH. Sourcing is not sufficient to support an encyclopedia-worthy discussion of this word as an ethnic slur. See my search on terrorist + ethnic slur (https://www.google.com/search?q=terrorist+++%22ethnic+slur%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) I dug a long way down that search without finding substantive discussions. Sources in article do support ethnic stereotyping, but they are not formal or in-depth discussions of this word being used as an ethnic slur. Sourcing on the page is largely from paltry sources, including blogs. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Redirect to Islamophobia - WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NEO issues. Why have an article about a word in an encyclopedia when we already have an article covering a very similar topic in Islamophobia? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NEO. Parsley Man (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Parsley Man. Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NEO. Edison (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems encyclopedic to me since google books search returns with keywords such as ethnic slur ([39]) have thousand+ results in a detailed manner that goes beyond ordinary dictionary results. Hence the content seems expandable, even though I think the current crop of references are high quality, including academic, specialist and scholarly citations. 95.147.168.34 (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— 95.147.168.34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Significant coverage exists on this article subject, and definitely passes WP:GNG. Sure, the article isn't perfect and could maybe use some love, but that's irrelevant to the AFD process; it's about identifying notability using external research. And this is a clear pass in my book. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm redacting my vote, as arguments for deletion per WP:SYN and WP:NEO are making me take a step back. I also believe that, looking back on the "sources" I found, they don't appear to meet WP:GNG. I'm going to perform another pass on this and make a decision. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete (see below). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oshwah can you please share some of the reliable sources you found discussing the use of "terrorist" as an insult or ethnic slur. thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory - I've changed my vote to delete after taking a second pass and re-evaluating my original reasons. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these 2 comments miss the fact that sourcing would need to exist for use of the word "terrorist" as an an ethnic slur. sources on ethnic slurs are as irrelevant as sources on the accusation that Middle Eastern ethnicity is conflated by some with terrorism. We cannot keep an article about an ethnic slur unless we have evidence of extensive, secondary source discussions of the term being used as a slur.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After taking time to perform a second pass, review policies and guidelines, and re-evaluate my original rationale for the input I originally made above, I have come to agree with others here that WP:NEO and WP:SYN both apply in this particular case. On top of that, WP:GNG is far from met - I couldn't find much at all that comes even close (I honestly don't know what I was thinking originally). Adding this vote to replace the first one (above) that I've now redacted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting the sourcing The first 3 sources on the page are blogs. The 4th alleges that Middle easterners are stereotyped as terrorists, but not that they are called "terrorist." That is true of all the rest of the sources on the page, with the exception of sources 7, 8, 9, and 10 cite individual examples in which an individual was called, or alleged that he had been called, a "terrorist." They do not prove that the occurrence of this usage is widespread (it may be, I don't know, but 4 instances and/or allegations cannot support an article.) What we need to be able to keep this article, and what I have not found, are reliable sources - journalism or scholarship - discussing the use of this word as an ethnic slur.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ethnic slurs where better-attested, reliably sourced anti-Muslin slurs including Towel head and Raghead already redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ethnic slurs; E.M.Gregory has it exactly right. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, No redirect Delete as synthesis. A few uses also does not make for notability. A slur it may be, but it is not an "ethnic slur", and is not specific to any particular ethnicity. It has been applied to a variety of ethnicities, including some Irishmen. In the 1960s there was a meme (we didn't call them that back then) "Up against the wall, Yankee (Yanqui) terrorist!" --Bejnar (talk) 20:09, 8 April 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) 01:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Carvalho

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

Only claim to notability is for WP:ONEEVENT, a crash that made the local news. Otherwise does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. QueenCake (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as nothing imaginably better for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources to support notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 31 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) Rcsprinter¹²³ (dialogue) 19:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gala cười

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

Non-notable TV show, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. JMHamo (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Topics from non-English-speaking countries are naturally harder to source, but taking a look at the Vietnamese Wikipedia version of this article, it seems to be an actual TV show which ran for a few years. Likely notable. sst✈ 05:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: can be expanded. Anyone speak Vietnamese? Tpdwkouaa (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as the two comments above are not actually suggesting at all how and when we can soon source this and thus this article is simply troubled with no better information and sources, not even basically thus, regardless of language barriers, this is best deleted until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at the Vietnamese version of the article. SST flyer 01:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 30 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 Jeep Wrangler. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commando Jeep

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

Mostly commercial promo; not a successful product, nor one remarkably innovative, etc. Might be worth a space in some other page, though. Anmccaff (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterysteppe (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 March 2016‎

See WP:JUSTAVOTE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Jeep Wrangler.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as mentioned because this is not actually seriously needed for deletion and could've even been accepted as its own article if not for it perhaps being best connected to the Jeep Wrangler. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting that there have only been a handful of these produced, that they differ little from other COTS militarized Wranglers, and that the article began as all-but-outright commercial promo. Anmccaff (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 30 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 procedural close as mistake by nominator per [40] (non-admin closure) —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Share taxi

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

Not mentioned at target, although it is mentioned (but only in passing) in boda-boda. Delete per WP:REDLINK? Si Trew (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this AfD was a mistake made by the nominator. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FShare_taxi&type=revision&diff=712629259&oldid=712629197. - Takeaway (talk) 06:36, 30 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) — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 03:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Kurbatova

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

Having searched through Google and Google News, I can't find any substantial coverage of her besides very short, non-substantial mentions, and so this fails both BIO and GNG. GAB^Hello! 15:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Harpists aren't Kardassians. I'm more surprised that we have the number of mentions that we do have. Considering the amount of, and level at, I'd expect to see coverage for a specialist musician early in their career, I'd consider this adequate to justify an article.

If they were a rapper, we regularly consider one feeble release (and the horde of angry fanbois) to justify articles. At the very least, we should accord harpists the same treatment. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and Draft and Userfy if needed because my searches only found a few news articles so far. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is a bit promotional but seems to just about squeak over the notability line. I've reorganised to start from most notable activities and cut the list of student performances down. Blythwood (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - those advocating for 'keep' appear to be doing so based on their own impressions of Ms Kurbatova as divined from the article. Go outside Wikipedia and it is very obvious that no-one says anything about her. So we shouldn't either. Syek88 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 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. There is some disagreement about whether the provided sourcing is of broad enough regional scope to support notability, but there is nothing here that makes this a consensus. The sourcing is at least capable to satisfy verifiability requirements, so there is no policy that mandates a deletion in the absence of consensus either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loma Linda Broadcasting Network

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

Non-notable. I found no significant coverage in reliable sources. Article has been heavily edited by a COI editor and most sourcing used is weak and not reliable. Essentially an advertisement. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 01:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is key network of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's flagship medical and educational institution of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, as well as valuable programing reaching across the globe. Simbagraphix (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:FARAWAY. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 15:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete a complete lack of third party coverage. 2 gnews hits says it all LibStar (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- This is essentially a TV franchising operation by a church. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I've had a look around and I have found some refs that seem to support it being notable. Sadly some the refs that are currently used to support the article don't appear to be satisfactory. That means more work! Not sure I really want to spend time to save this one. I do think it should stay but it needs more work. Perhaps the observation about the COI editor is true. That doesn't make it less notable. So I hope someone else comes in and helps to improve.
I will add that there are 206,514 Adventists in In California, which means a healthy viewing audience in the state alone. There is a regular references to the network and related info in various books and magazines etc Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIG, WP:MUSTBESOURCES Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 15:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The network is syndicated and seen wider than just in the state . Karl Twist (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft at best if no immediately better improvements are available as my searches found noticeably better than a few links thus nothing convincingly better to keep yet. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Ngan, Juliane (2006-07-27). "Spreading God's word through Americas". The San Bernardino Sun. Archived from the original on 2016-03-29. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
  The article notes:
  
  The Loma Linda Broadcasting Network started 10 years ago as the brainchild of four residents with technical backgrounds and a common vision -- a voice to share the primarily Seventh-day Adventist community's spiritual and health message with the rest of the world.
  They received an outpouring of community support -- each volunteer and supporter with their own vision -- until the network came together as one.
  After gaining their 501(c)(3) status as an official nonprofit organization providing an hour of programming to the community, they shot their shows for almost a decade from borrowed rooms in local churches and various locations throughout Loma Linda University.
  The network now provides 14 programs weekly, spanning 65 hours of renewed programming a week, which is replayed to correspond with the varying time zones throughout North, Central and South America, via satellite. Ten years later, it seemed appropriate for them to have a place to call home.
  On July 8, the network celebrated its 10th year with the opening of its new 3,000-square-foot facility at Mayberry and Main streets in Bryn Mawr. It is a symbol of achievement for several hundred volunteers, who dedicated their weekends and evenings over the past 17 months to build the network headquarters, which features five sound stages, and control, editing, green and viewing rooms.
2. Santschi, Darrell R. (2006-10-08). "Station Goes Global. Loma Linda Broadcating Network now seen worldwide". The Press-Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2016-03-29. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
  The article notes:
  
  The Loma Linda Broadcasting Network was on the air from its studio in the Bryn Mawr neighborhood when a pager carried by one of its technicians went off.
  It was a text message from an alarmed viewer who had lost the signal. In Iran.
  "We thought he was joking," recalled the station's president and CEO, Ganim Hanna. "We ran to the control room and sure enough, the Internet stream had been interrupted. We reactivated it."
  The television station, situated in a former citrus-packing house, has grown from a tiny, one-room operation that could accommodate only 10 viewers at a time a decade ago to a worldwide network that soon will be available to more than 1.5 billion people in 194 countries.
  Its budget has gone from the red - "At first we had to pay for everything out of our own pockets," Hanna says - to $1.2 million a year. The money comes from viewer contributions, many of them unsolicited, in return for 24-hour-a-day health and science programs laced with generous doses of Christian messages.
3. "Thomas J. Zirkle, 71". Redlands Daily Facts. 2008-01-16. Archived from the original on 2016-03-29. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
  The article notes:
  
  He developed an interest in media when he was attending Loma Linda Academy and participated with other students in radio productions at the Loma Linda Campus Hill Church's radio station.
  In the '70s, with Dr. Roland Zimmerman, he determined to transmit Loma Linda University Church events to patients' rooms in the LLU Medical Center. He raised funds, purchased cameras and learned television production skills for the project.
  The effort has grown to become a 24-hour operation at Loma Linda Broadcasting Network, where he was serving as chair of the board, moderator on several programs, and presenter on a devotional "One-to-One" weekly television show.
4. Sparacino, Diane C. (2003-04-07). "No Mixed Signals - Network offers alternative TV". The San Bernardino Sun. Archived from the original on 2016-03-29. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
  The article notes:
  
  LOMA LINDA - When Ganim Hannah had the idea to start a Christian television station six years ago, he couldn't imagine it would grow to reach a potential audience of millions.
  But it has.
  The Loma Linda Broadcasting Network, a nonprofit entity run entirely by volunteers, has recently switched to a 24-hour-a day, seven-day-a-week schedule and is now beaming its signal via satellite, extending its reach to an internatinoal audience.
  "This is a true ministry for the people, by the people,' said Hannah, 45, president and chief executive officer of the network.
  Prompted by the lack of family programming and negative images on cable and network television, Hannah began to explore the idea of starting an independent Christian network.
  In 1997, the Loma Linda resident founded Loma Linda Broadcasting Network, or LLBN.
  Hannah designed the network to provide viewers with a positive alternative to current programming, with an emphasis on faith and healthy living.
5. Lopez, C. L. "Loma Linda Broadcasting Network to open new building". Redlands Daily Facts. Archived from the original on 2016-03-29. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
  The article notes:
  
  BRYN MAWR - A decade ago, Loma Linda Broadcasting Network's first show aired for an hour on a local cable channel.
  Since then, the network has grown to include broadcasts in North, South and Central America and live broadcasts in the internet. This summer, the network will be seen worldwide via satellite.
  A dedication service of for the network's building this Sunday will also mark that milestone along with the network's anniversary.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Loma Linda Broadcasting Network to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thank Cunard for digging up these articles; unfortunately, they fail WP:AUD. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 06:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, source #3 fails WP:SIGCOV. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 06:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says (my bolding):
  The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
  The Press-Enterprise is a regional newspaper. It serves the Inland Empire, a region in Southern California. The San Bernardino Sun is also a regional newspaper; it "serves most of the Inland Empire in Southern California. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Los Angeles/Orange Counties to the west, east to the Arizona State line, north to the Imperial County line, and south to the Riverside City line."
  Therefore, Loma Linda Broadcasting Network meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience.
  Cunard (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Redlands paper is clearly eliminated by WP:AUD (which, I think, you have implicitly admitted by not including it in your comment). That leaves us with the P-E and the Sun. Let's take a look at that guideline again:

attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media *** is not an indication of notability

Both the P-E and the Sun clearly fit the criteria of local media. Their circulation is limited to the Inland Empire, a metropolitan area in Southern California. "Regional" in the context of the guideline refers to regions larger than one metropolitan area. With the three remaining sources failed, there is no more argument that the topic is notable. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 07:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Additions of metropolitan newspapers and trade journals to WP:AUD reverted where I have mentioned your comment here, I have reverted an 9 October 2015 edit to the guideline that changed it from:

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, national, or international source is necessary.

to:

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional (meaning statewide, provincial), national, or international source is necessary.

I don't see a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 15#Local vs. regional media and Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 15#Are trade magazines/portals acceptable? to make the changes to bar metropolitan area newspapers and all trade journals from establishing notability.

I consider metropolitan area newspapers like The Press-Enterprise and The San Bernardino Sun to be regional newspapers because they serve the Inland Empire, a region in Southern California. It should not be necessary for a metropolitan area newspaper to have to serve more than one region to be considered a regional newspaper.

Cunard (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the P-E and the Sun may claim to serve a large area, most of the "Inland Empire", as they define it, is uninhabited desert. In reality, they cover Riverside and San Bernardino respectively, both medium-sized suburbs of Los Angeles. I agree that "regional" papers should not be outright barred, however, I do not believe the specific ones under discussion are examples of "regional" papers that would establish notability on their own. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 21:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inland Empire says based on the source http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metro_general/2006/CBSA-EST2006-02.csv:

The U.S. Census Bureau-defined Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metropolitan area, which comprises Riverside County and San Bernardino County, California, covers more than 27,000 square miles (70,000 km²) and has a population of approximately 4 million.

I consider a newspaper that covers this area and population to be a regional newspaper.

Cunard (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, good info there Cunard. There's some proof in there that the Loma Linda Broadcasting Network is notable to have an article here. Also I'd like to add that there is an audience that is wider than the state. Adventists in other states access the network. I'm standing by my vote to keep the article as well. Also more work needs to be done on the article. It can be kept here and with others participation improved over time. Karl Twist (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It has a large audience" or "It can be improved" are irrelevant to notability. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 20:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll see a few sections down, the boundaries and definitions of the so-called region are amorphous and poorly defined, due to the large parts of the MSA that are unpopulated desert. I maintain that the papers you are citing do not meet the WP:AUD threshold. The language you cite from their self-description is promotional puffery. In reality, they are local papers. Assuming arguendo that they do, however, three local newspaper articles do not meet the general notability threshold in this case. It seems to me that this discussion is going in circles, so we will just have to agree to disagree. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 20:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard, enough references. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:45, 6 April 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Nee

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

Fails notability, WP:prof not met. No secondary coverage. No independent references. There are a number (10-15) research papers to which he has contributed but this is typical for a research professor. MB (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Nee responds. I disagree with the description of me as a 'typical' research professor. My complete publication list includes far more than 10-15 research papers including at least ten in the world's top scientific journals like Nature and Science. These are all readily available on Web of Science, Google Scholar and my cv on my academia.edu page. There are some listings of my papers that are incomplete over which I have no control. Having worked closely with two of the foremost scientific minds of ecological and evolutionary biology in the 20th Century, Robert May and John Maynard Smith, I occupy a place in the history of science. However, if the decision makers of Wikipedia decide I am a complete nobody unworthy of even a few photons, who am I to argue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandawk8 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Nee: nobody has said that you are unworthy of an article. They have said, above, that the article in its current state does not provide evidence (in the form of citations establishing your notability) that you are worthy of an article. Maproom (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - clearly meets WP:NACADEMICS "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work" his google scholar record shows a total citation count of 9000, of which the most highly cited paper has 650 citations. This is a substantial piece entirely about him in the Edinburgh Evening News. I have to question whether the nominator followed the instructions at WP:BEFORE, as these sources were not difficult to find. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did find the article in the Edinburgh Evening News. It reports on his drug/alcohol addiction. This is not in-depth coverage about his notability as a scholar. I did not consider this as relevant; there was only passing mention of his academic career. Sean Nee does not mention addiction, and that would not contribute to notability anyway. This leaves WP:NACADEMICS. I found nothing to satisfy any of Criterion 2-9. Notability depends entirely on being the author of "highly cited academic work". Since this is a subjective measure, I of course will accept the consensus on this. I will also note that the subject created the article himself which is strongly discouraged (WP:AUTO) and has commented above that he is noteworthy. I find lobbying for your own notability is a COI and an indication that you probably aren't noteworthy. The subject also says that "he has a page" here. This is Wikipedia, not Linked-in. MB (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citation record gives stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, Google scholar gives clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 as Xxanthippe has already noted — some 23 papers with over 100 citations each, and an h-index of 42, well above the usual bar for a keep. The recent news stories linked above give some color to the article but I think per WP:BLP that they would be better omitted; his past addictions are not what makes him notable. For the same reason perhaps it would be appropriate to courtesy blank this AfD after it is closed. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 2 April 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) 22:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Zoppini

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

Nothing in news search and the page creator has same name as the article title. Greek Legend (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This looks like a copyvio with the "This is the YouTube profile image of Milo Zoppini" and copied syntax, though I can't find where from. Fails WP:GNG in any case. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zoppini's projects MITO Graphics and FxBoxStudio are in no way notable. Mduvekot (talk) 13:41, 7 April 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 11:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

97269

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

As demonstrated by the few articles in the ZIP codes category this belongs, ZIP codes are generally not notable. Neirther of the soruces in the article confer notability as they are primary sources, and a search for more did not find any. Obviously, it is difficult to search given this is a 5-digit number, but the only sources I located were not focused on this ZIP code. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – IMO should be a speedy deletion. – S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, I don't mind if it's deleted, but as a new user here's my rationale for considering this issue notable: After Lot Whitcomb brought his family down the Oregon Trail and founded the city of Milwaukie in 1847, he became its first post master 3 years later in order to serve the ~500 residents. I assume at this point that the city was recognized by the federal government as unique from its northern neighbor, Portland, which was settled in 1845. At some point over the next century and a half (I cannot find a record of this event), the Postal Service elected to consider Milwaukie as part of Portland for the convenience of postal delivery, even though it was its own legal entity with its own postal customers. This act removed a practical recognition of Milwaukie's autonomy from Portland, and today Milwaukians are requested by the USPS to identify their selves and businesses as located in Portland, Multnomah County "whenever possible" even though they live and work in Milwaukie, Clackamas County. Residents of north Clackamas County adhere to societal ways that are different from those of Portlanders, and the federal government's small concession of allowing them to self-identify as non-Portlanders would be appreciated by the community. -Calebjbaker (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator for reasons explained in the nomination as well as those on the article's talk page. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:20, 5 April 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) 12:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doron Kalinko

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

No evidence that this individual has any notability. The only in-line ref tells us that he is married. Of the other refs, one is about the company, another appears to be a press release and the third is self-written - but all are about the company and not the man.Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 03:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I patrolled this at NPP with plans to nominate since it was obviously questionable. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I can see, no profiles or articles on him alone, although there is this source suggesting that he may be notable in future. Blythwood (talk) 04:06, 30 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. I have discounted the "Keep" argument from Brett nineone, a user with only four edits, two of them Skooli spam and the other two to this discussion. Bishonen | talk 22:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skooli.

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

trivial references- no notability DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this actually suggests any better notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Might be notable enough in future, but not now. Plus the article is just too promotional. Edwardx (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page - All sources are legitimate Canadian news outlets. All information on this page is verified/verifiable by reference checks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett nineone (talk • contribs) 20:39, 1 April 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 11:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Bignold

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

No evidence for actual notability -- routine notices only DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The lead asserts that he was an M.P. like his father, which would be an automatic pass under WP:POLITICIAN, but the obituary notice from the Illustrated London News does not mention parliament, so we are left with the question of whether his stint as Lord Mayor of Norwich or any other position passes that standard; I suspect that under current readings, it does not. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No non-trivial independent coverage that I can find. The assertion that he was MP for Norwich appears to be false, given that it's not mentioned in any sources and he's not listed at Norwich (UK Parliament constituency). —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is currently questionable enough and there being no better convincing signs. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suspect the mistake is due to him being recorded in his notice of death (e.g. in The Times) as "the son of the late Sir Samuel Bignold, MP for Norwich,..." That's been taken to read that he was an MP, whereas it's actually saying his father was. It seems clear that Charles never was an MP. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Add comment. A more detailed obituary was printed in a variety of financial publications, asserting that he was "one of the foremost and most popular of the men of Norwich" (see also [41][42][43]) but I don't see anything there that seems likely to meet current notability standards here, assuming that Lord Mayor of Norwich isn't the sort of position that conveys notability. (I note that our article about Norwich states, "though now simply a ceremonial position, in the past the office carried considerable authority, with executive powers over the finances and affairs of the city council.") We might consider redirecting to the article about his father, where he is already mentioned. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added him to the List of Lord Mayors of Norwich, for what it's worth. My feeling is that he was notable, but there simply isn't enough remaining coverage for an article. I tried searching various things like Who Was Who and didn't find anything. Redirecting to his father's article might be a good idea. Also no prejudice to recreating the article if someone digs up fresh sources. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:24, 30 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) 22:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Carson

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

Google news search is about a murder victim with the same name.

This article is not about that man. Greek Legend (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable WP:MUSICBIO.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all including for minimal notability, delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. —Cryptic 08:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroko Tsuji (Singer)

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

Reason Orugoro (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article has multiple with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Hiroko_Tsuji_%28Musician%29 --Orugoro (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hiroko Tsuji (musician), already did that along with moving main article to there, some redirects, and CSD cleanup of template, wikipedia, and user space versions created.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madhukar Nirpane

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

No news results about a living politician. Greek Legend (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – If I'm interpreting this correctly, they're head of the Shiv Sena party organization in Parbhani district, which, in lieu of any significant press coverage, makes them a non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN. The Shiv Sena MP for Parbhani is Sanjay Haribhau Jadhav. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet better for WP:POLITICIAN. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nizolan is most likely correct, searches turned up zip. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:23, 7 April 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.