Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 May	17 May >

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. Nakon 02:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milk & Honey, Pt. 1

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

Subject fails WP:NMUSIC and the article generally lacks sufficient references. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:NMUSIC as stated by the nominator. Aoba47 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 22 May 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. There were no calls to delete the article beyond the nominator and the consensus in this discussion supported a merger. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baravar Cloakshadow

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

Subject fails WP:NFICT as it relies solely on references from the game's publisher, TSR. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Kotaku link indicates some notability, otherwise merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gnome deities. The Kotaku link is valuable, but not enough alone. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gnome deities. The Kotaku source is reliable, but it is just a paragraph and I could find no other independent RS. There is verifiability of basic facts for a merge. Most of the article content is already at Gnome deities, so perhaps just merge the Reception and Kotaku ref there. --Mark viking (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gnome deities - The Kotaku source is better than nothing, but it's three sentences in a listicle. The article also has grammatical errors and cites Wikipedia a couple of times, which doesn't help. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gnome deities. Not enough independent coverage. I agree with Grayfell's assessment of the Kotaku source. It's not enough to save the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as not independently notable at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 22 May 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. There were no calls for deletion beyond the nominator and the consensus of the discussion supported a merger to List of Greyhawk deities. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hextor

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

Subject fails WP:NFICT as it relies solely on works from the game's publisher, TSR. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Kotaku link indicates some notability, otherwise merge to List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greyhawk deities. I couldn't find any sources talking about this topic that weren't associated with the game's publisher. APerson (talk!) 02:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The Kotaku link counts for something, but isn't enough alone. I'm surprised I couldn't find more, but that's not a very good argument. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities. There are trivial mentions scattered throughout Google Books, but there's not really enough coverage in independent reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. Hextor is already described in that article, but the Kotaku cite can be copied there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sadly.; Per above. Hobit (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities for the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 22 May 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. Speedy close as obvious hoax. czar 09:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Sunshine 2

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

Still unsourced article, subject fails WP:NSOFT. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. Seriously, even a simple WP:BEFORE search would demonstrate that Super Mario Sunshine 2 does not exist. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax, or at best somebody trying to WP:CRYSTAL. This is a borderline WP:CSD#G3 in my opinion; a passing admin could delete it without waiting a week. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:20, 17 May 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. Nakon 02:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telecom Council of Silicon Valley

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

Not seeing sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (to pass WP:ORG). I had prodded it, but the article creator deprodded while packing it full of press releases. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - that's a pretty heavyweight list of world telecoms companies, so this could easily be notable in future, but this article doesn't show notability. Apparently written by the organization's president, so the fact that she wasn't able to find any better sources doesn't sound encouraging. Blythwood (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing at all suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 22 May 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. Nakon 02:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cronin (YouTuber)

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

Very few independent sources to verify notability. Most come from primary sources, i.e - YouTube WP:FAILN Kinda Stolen (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have gotten a trivial mention in his hometown newspapers, but that's not enough to establish notability. The name is a lot more popular than I thought, which makes research a bit difficult, but I don't see the kind of significant coverage of this Mike Cronin that we need. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all actually convincing for any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:44, 23 May 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. Nakon 02:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Roark

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

Actor bio that pretty clearly fails WP:NACTOR. All roles so far have been guest roles, or two recent recurring roles. No mentions in the usual sources (e.g. Variety, EW, LA Times), and only the barest passing single mention in THR, so fails WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N not established.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing solidly better for WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 22 May 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. Nakon 02:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Swing Dance Council

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

Not clear how this passes the WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. I see no RS coverage outside of some blogs and a couple of local interest pieces about some dance studios which are somehow associated with it - not enough to meet WP:ORGDEPTH even if they were more than bare mentions. The associated Swing Dance Hall of Fame, which this organization seems to sponsor, is equally bereft of significant coverage. Jbh ^Talk 20:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As article creator, with sorrow I have to admit that swing dancing has insufficient glamour to satisfy wikipedia guidelines. Yes swing dancing is happening in "some dance studios" all around the United States. Yes, WSDC is coordinating swing competitions. Yes nobody cares besides swing dancers. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: if you google "world swing dance council" you'll see that they apparently have developed some "point system" used for competitions that is cited/used by many, many dance sites/dance competition websites...I think this alone might make the council itself notable...but perhaps the content of its hall of fame should be merged into this article..??68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just googled "world swing dance council" and found nothing on the first 4 pages about any point system, and it's not clear why this would confer any notability? Theroadislong (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

(edit conflict) If you mean the Universal Unit System, according to her article it was created by Skippy Blair. She is a founder of WSDC but according to ("Skippy Blair and the Universal Unit System". Examiner.com. 26 May 2010.)_{url blacklisted} she created it in 1978 a decade and a half before the formation of the WSDC. Jbh ^Talk 17:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Universal Unit System is something different. And sorry, I cannot write a wp article on it: not enough glamour. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

idk..when I google it appears in lots of dance websites in reference to its point system/guidelines etc etc..it appears to be used by lots of dance events/competitions in some manner and the sites for these events/competitions refer to the Council's guidelines etc..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I add "points" to my search I see what you mention. The problem is that nothing there is RS - no one is writing about the WSDC. They seem to be too much of a niche organization to be covered in RS. Jbh ^Talk 18:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

true, unless it can be somehow viewed as notable just due to this general footprint it has in this niche world...I would have assumed that "swing dancing" isn't as niche as it seems...I've certainly heard the term many, many times...the article "swing dancing" has a section "swing dancing today" that is very short and, perhaps, info on the Council could be in there...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we run into situations like this but since it is impossible to write a policy compliant article without independent reliable sources Wikipedia has community agreed minimum notability guidelines - WP:GNG and more directly relavent to this case WP:NORG. Since there are millions of articles on Wikipedia and millions more that someone wants on Wikipedia it is not practical or even permitted by policy to have articles included based on claims of exceptional circumstance. Jbh ^Talk 19:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that WSDC council caters to Swing dancing community, which is a very small pond, which tempests do not raise even to state level of noise, not no say national. All news and discussions are carried out in enthusiasts' websites and blogs (spanning the whole US of A, albeit in a very sparse net), which wikipedia do not qualify either as reliable or independent. I did spend yesterday a couple of hours hoping to rescue the article, but realized the futility. Major swing conventions gather thousands of dancers (and hundreds of competitors), but they don't hit the tabloids: nobody smokes pot, nobody hits 1,$$$,$$$ jackpot, nobody rapes teenagers... Exquisite dancers? Who cares. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is an unfortunate hole in Wikipedia (but I don't know what could be done about it)..as potentially there are many thousands of people out there who could potentially be interested in learning more about this council via Wikipedia...this topic has a potentially larger audience than tens of thousands of niche Wikipedia articles that can be properly sourced...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 22 May 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 Userfied to User:Rich Farmbrough/Frolic (cheese) Ricky81682 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frolic (cheese)

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

3 sources presented. One is in-depth coverage on a cheese-specialist site, but there's not enough to back it up. A scanty mention on the commercial site of its manufacturers and a passing mention in the NYT. I couldn't find more with Google searching. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to find sources on artisnal cheeses. I propose to userfy this for potential inclusion in a future article with wider scope, such as Cheeses of New Jersey or American artisnal cheeses. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Seems sensible. Want an early close? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 20 May 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. Nakon 02:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Credit Ratings Limited

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I cannot find any coverage that would be considered in-depth or reliable. Article is currently without any references other than an external link to company website. CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the problem of finding sources, I'm not seeing any claim to significance here. The article merely states that it is a business that was incorporated on a certain date in a certain place. That brevity of description works well in a business directory, but not an encyclopedia. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've also considered A7, it may at best be removed for borderline but this is certainly not solid for any Wikipedia article yet. SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:25, 23 May 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Sawyer Jr

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

One source, unlikely and promotional. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for any convincing notability, not yet solid for the necessary improvements. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reliance on one source means the subject fails WP:GNG. I saw a passing reference here, as part of a discussion of the phenomenon of child preachers - perhaps child preacher could be an article itself. St Anselm (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have created child preacher, but I have not mentioned Sawyer. St Anselm (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- He strikes me as completely NN so far. We have a televised ordination service and two self published books. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps WP:TOOSOON; certainly no discernible notability at present.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability and possibly falls into the category of WP:TOOSOON Aoba47 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 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. Nakon 02:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mithunn Dev

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

Notability and sources Fitindia (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself reviewed and tagged this with PROD but it was removed, there's nothing at all convincing of notability here. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with one film listed its WP:Too soon, plenty of time for an article in the future , after more film or tv roles Atlantic306 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UltraMix 3

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Unlike other UltraMix albums, this one didn't make it to any charts. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited, this doesn't warrant a separate article. st170e^talk 14:32, 23 May 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. Nakon 02:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Jays–Rangers brawl

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

A single event; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Although there is of course coverage in the news media (more than are currently in the article—some have been removed), there is no indication that this will have any lasting effects making it an encyclopedic topic. It can easily be covered, and in fact is currently better covered, at 2016 Toronto Blue Jays season (see Blue Jays–Rangers brawl) and 2016 Texas Rangers season (expand "Blue Jays–Rangers brawl" to match). Yngvadottir (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - This was a prominent bench-clearing brawl in Major League Baseball and Rangers/Blue Jays history. At a bare minimum, if the article cannot be kept, it should most definitely be redirected ~~to List of violent spectator incidents in sports.~~ This title is formatted in a manner similar to "Pacers–Pistons brawl", and will more than likely be a popular search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no long term notability here. This is a fight that will be talked about ad nauseam for the next few days and then forgotten. This is nowhere near as notable as Pacers/Pistons brawl.--Yankees10 19:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. To compare this to the Pistons-Pacers brawl shows a lack of understanding of the significance of that particular fight, and the relative insignificance of this one. Redirecting to List of violent spectator incidents in sports makes no sense as well, since no spectators were involved in this fight. Bench-clearing brawls happen often enough, it takes something extra special, like Ron Artest attempting to fight fans, for it to deserve an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (with conditions) Wikipedia isn't news. Wikipedia does not aim to compete with Twitter or Reddit. There is absolutely no need for there to be a separate article. 2016 Texas Rangers season, 2016 Toronto Blue Jays season, Rougned Odor, and José Bautista suffice. It can be redirected to Bench-clearing brawl and have a very short summary of each bench-clearing brawl, including those involving other teams in that article. Please don't redirect this to an article pertaining to a specific team, as it would not be good for fans of the other team. Neither Odor nor Bautista attacked fans, unlike Metta World Peace (known as Ron Artest at the time). Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 19:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Such a generic term that it is not worth redirecting.—Bagumba (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason to think this was any more notable than many other baseball brawls that have occurred over the years and have no lasting impact. This can be mentioned in the season articles of each team (and perhaps the main combatants articles) if desired. But I don't even see a good redirect target, since it has a tiny bit of relevance to each of 4 articles. Rlendog (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another baseball brawl that will be forgotten in a matter of weeks. Not deserving of a Wikipedia article in the slightest. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is it interesting among sports fans? Yes. Does it belong on Wikipedia? No. Wikipedia is not ESPN, a relatively minor sports brawl is not note-worthy enough for its own article. Will211 |Chatter 01:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A stub article with no context or reason for notability.→StaniStani 04:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely zero notability for this brawl and too vague to be redirect search term. Safiel (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has been expanded significantly since the start of this AFD. Two other articles to which this term could redirect are 2016_Texas_Rangers_season#Blue_Jays.E2.80.93Rangers_brawl and Violence in sports#Baseball. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It could also redirect to 2016 Toronto Blue Jays season as well. This is why I am not in favour of having this article redirect to a specific team article or a specific player article. However, I don't mind it being redirected to Bench-clearing brawl with additional context for other brawls involving other teams as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Johnny Au:, the fact that two major league baseball teams were involved is a reason for keeping the article. The incident took place in Texas, while 2016 Toronto Blue Jays season does not mention the incident. That being said, article Violence in sports#Baseball facilitates information about this incident quite well, and is a potentially good redirect target. @Muboshgu:, the term "Pacers–Pistons brawl" and "Blue Jays–Rangers brawl" are FORMATTED similarly, but are indeed not similar in notability. Furthermore, the term should be kept since redirects are cheap. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 2016 Toronto Blue Jays season does indeed cover the incident - better than the standalone article, as I said in my deletion noimination. IMO 2016 Texas Rangers season should cover it similarly and that should be that. The argument against redirection is that a redirect can only take the reader to one article, and there is no obvious redirect target, since it is equally relevant to both teams' seasons. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If "Blue Jays–Rangers brawl" redirects to Violence_in_sports#Baseball, people can click on the name of either of the teams to learn more about it. Additionally, the content from "Blue Jays–Rangers brawl" can be merged with Violence_in_sports#Baseball. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That would be the most logical redirect without ticking the other team's fanbase off. Even better, Violence in baseball can be created and have this article redirect there. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A pimple on the bum of the history of baseball. Delete per NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, pretty much all of the other delete reasons given above. I don't feel a redirect is sufficient either. Tampabay721 (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as I'm aware of this but there's simply convincing for its own actual article, isolated event and nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 22 May 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. Nakon 02:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Green (wrestler)

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

Female pro wrestler that fails to meet WP:GNG. Fight results and post-fight interviews are routine sports coverage and don't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing particularly convincing here for her own notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no significant independent coverage to support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:41, 23 May 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 17:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SM Safees

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unsourced, and being a municipal councillor in a town of just 40K people is not an automatic inclusion freebie — while a person at this level of office could clear the bar if they could be reliably sourced as significantly more notable than the hundreds of thousands of city or town councillors around the world, having a Wikipedia article is not an entitlement that anybody gets just because they exist. In addition, the article was created by a user named "Safees", suggesting a direct conflict of interest. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indicated potential WP:COI and fails WP:POLITICIAN.Dan arndt (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP, fails WP:POLITICIAN.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 09:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing else better convincing of the applicable notability. Unlikely anything anytime too soon either. SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 22 May 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. Nakon 02:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Djiboutians in the Netherlands

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

This very small community has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutian Americans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutians in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very little can be said about this group as a whole, not notable, and precedent is to delete. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing particularly convincing for its own article, delete at best therefore. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 22 May 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 closing this per no reason given for this AFD. With no deltion rastionale, editors do not know what might need to be addressed. Can be sent again to AFD as soon as a proper rational is given. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger In My Land (film)

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

Reason Changgogoi (talk) 16:04, 16 May 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 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:53, 17 May 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. Nakon 02:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International School Twente

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources showing the verificability of the article has been given and listed. The article should no long fail WP:GNG and should thus no longer be a subject for deletion. Any questions are welcome. (User talk:Powerofvoice) 15:31, 17 April 2016 (WET)

None of those references appear to provide significant coverage in independent, reliable sources - most are just mentions of the school in listings. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional independent and reliable reliable are provided now - including articles from local newspapers and the record of the speech given by the Queen's commissioner on the governmental website. More sources will be added soon. (User talk:Powerofvoice) 18:44, 17 April 2016 (WET)

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches for "International School Twente" and "Internationale School Twente" (Dutch spelling) don't reveal enough independent reliable sources for the subject to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I am mistaken since I am new here, but if you perform the search, you would find links to governmental websites(like of the city Enschede) and quiet a few media press. It is true that it is a very new school with less media coverage than some others, but I do not think it would fail WP:GNG - the host school of the secondary department has a Wikipedia page in Dutch but there are not much information covered on Google about that either, but it does exist. Also searches in Dutch may not reveal much information because this is an international school for the English-speaking community nearby. You could search for the school on the Cambridge school finder and you will find it there. The school is supposedly receiving more coverage in the summer. Please do not mistaken me with trying to market the school, I am one of its students and the school needs a lot of improvements, but I think it is significant enough to simply be on Wikipedia as it is somewhat quite known by many other international schools across the Netherlands. --Powerofvoice (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Powerofvoice. Wikipedia's notability guidelines generally require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Inclusion in listings such as the Cambridge site doesn't count as significant coverage in my mind, as they are routine mentions rather than in-depth coverage. The fact that nl:Het Stedelijk Lyceum Enschede exists doesn't really change things here, as each Wikipedia operates to different policies and standards. What is considered notable there might not be here. If more media coverage is going to be forthcoming in the summer, then perhaps it is worth waiting to create an article after that coverage exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure I don't really have to point out again, consensus says that all secondary schools are considered notable as long as their existence and status can be verified. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most past AfDs on secondary schools have been closed as keep, but that doesn't mean that consensus can't change or that we are bound forever more to keep all secondary school articles even if they fail to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate this, I quote the closing statement at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 March 30: "All of the various outcomes essays are just compendiums of how we've done things in the past, which doesn't necessarily mean that's how we should do things in the future". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the consensus to change the way we do things and I'll agree with you! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus emerges through discussion on pages such as this (genuine discussion informed by policy, rather than mimetic pointing to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note those who support the retention of secondary school articles have been saying all along that we should keep these articles because longstanding consensus at AfD says we should! Yet here you are saying that consensus is created at AfD! Yes, that's exactly what we've been saying! The consensus has clearly not changed no matter how often the handful of opposers of the consensus say it has or should. No matter how often you ridicule SCHOOLOUTCOMES it illustrates consensus. No more, no less. I just can't help feeling that you won't accept a consensus unless it's a consensus you agree with! That isn't how consensus works. I certainly don't agree with every consensus on Wikipedia, but I accept it because it is consensus. Time for you to do the same, I think. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't allow for people to disagree with consensus, and therefore leaves little space for consensus to change. If, every time someone suggests deleting a secondary school article, you jump in to say that we can't do that because consensus is to always keep, then how could that consensus ever change? I'm not saying consensus has changed. I just think that editors should be free to disagree with it without it being suggested that they are somehow being disruptive. I think we agree that consensus is created across AfDs, but the point of disagreement is that I think policy-based reasons for deletion should be given, rather than editors simply pointing at SCHOOLOUTCOMES and refusing to engage in discussions about the need for sources to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem with disagreeing with the consensus. The problem is with those who claim there isn't a consensus when there clearly is and that pointing out the consensus isn't a valid argument, which it also clearly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the long-standing (unchanged despite recent efforts) consensus of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES AusLondonder (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is just a summary, not an argument despite recent efforts to claim something else. (And that removal was not overturned.) The Banner talk 17:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, editors sought to overturn SCHOOLOUTCOMES and failed. The school that was deleted had practically no sources, unlike this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusLondonder (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

This article certainly has more sources, but the rationale that resulted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Shepherd English School being closed as delete was that the article failed to meet WP:GNG. Look at the sources cited in the current article, and you will see that many are not independent of the school, hence why I think this also fails GNG (after having searched for potential additional sources). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources given are related sources, so not sourced conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 17:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, the school is not even a separate school but is just a department of a bigger school The Banner talk 18:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The school's wi-fi allegedly (but did not) make a kid sick. Beware! [1][2]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with many others that as a secondary school, it is notable enough to be kept per longstanding consesus. Although changes should be made to the page to improve the quality(e.g. adding sources to unreferenced materials). I believe deletion is not necessary in this case. 192.87.100.27 (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC) — 192.87.100.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you suggest some sources, 192.87.100.27? I have struggled to find many. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches simply did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school has received significant coverage here^WebCite and here^WebCite from RTV Oost. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three relists? Really? Just close it as no consensus already.—S Marshall T/C 21:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Even a "no consensus" close will provide aid to those arguing against the "every school is precious" folks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that is what you want to prevent at all costs. Milowent. That is load and clear...

The Banner talk 18:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a secondary school, it apparently has some coverage, I see no reason to delete it. Fieari (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is a section of a secondary school. Not an independent school. The Banner talk 18:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourcing is not great but I think secondary schools that seem non-temporary have a right to have articles on them. Blythwood (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is not a separate school.. The Banner talk 18:22, 23 May 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. Nakon 02:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lagerwey Wind

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

Does not meet notability for organizations, as there is no evidence of significant coverage of the company in secondary sources. Delta13C (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm of course not Dutch but my searches so far have found nothing convincingly better thus delete considering there's also nothing immediately convincing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing better to add to this article and there's only one reference. This doesn't meet the notability guidelines in my opinion for companies! st170e^talk 14:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 14:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 14:37, 23 May 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 Bratz (2007 film). (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 23:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz: Motion Picture Soundtrack

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

Unreferenced since creation in 2014. Despite the claim that the album"garnered" critical acclaim, nothing to back up this (sole) claim to notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bratz (2007 film) per WP:COMMONOUTCOMES for film soundtracks only the diehards collect and don't chart. Nate • (chatter) 21:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only problem with the suggested merge is that the target is of very dubious notability. Main claim to fame appears to that it was nominated for 5 Golden Raspberry Awards in 2007... but wasn't even crap enough to win any.TheLongTone (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The film itself passes - it looks like it received over 70 critic reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, which would be enough to make it pass NFILM. I've added those sources to the article. Now the film soundtrack is another deal entirely and offhand it'd likely be best served as a subsection in the main article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Common Sense Media review for the soundtrack and a review at AllMusic, such as it is. I'm not really going to count in the AllMusic review since there's no star rating or staff name attached to it, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it hit the Billboard 200 for three weeks, so together with the review this might be enough. I'll see what else I can scrape up, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with history. I searched and found one review and evidence of it charting, but not much else. I get the impression that there was more out there, but for whatever reason it's not on the Internet or if it is, it's hidden under a wave of similarly titled items. Searching for it by the article title isn't much help since a lot of places seem to refer to it only as "Bratz" and use the term soundtrack as a descriptive title rather than the full, formal title. It's fairly rare that something uses the full article title. In any case, while the review and the Billboard listing might be enough by itself to pass NALBUM, there's really not a lot of substance here and there's no reason why this can't be placed in the main article for the film in one of the subsections. Especially once you remove the unsourced content like the assertion that the soundtrack was used in an episode of Gossip Girls - that was fairly vague and it's not certain if one of the soundtrack exclusive songs was used or if it was a song that happened to be on the soundtrack (but was published elsewhere), something that makes a big difference. In any case, leaving it with its history intact will give people the opportunity to flesh things out if/when the other sources do surface. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the pertinent info and made a collapsible tracklist. I ended up removing one of the album covers since it made the page too wonky. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up just un-collapsing it and re-added the other album cover. I also merged the game into the film article since that also had a low amount of coverage that I could find other than two game reviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as obviously not convincing for its own article, best connected to the film itself obviously. SwisterTwister talk 19:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bratz (2007 film). Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 23 May 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. Nakon 02:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bratz dolls

As it is right now it has absolutely no encyclopedic value and is completely unsourced. I constantly see people add nonsense and fancruft to it. I've been trying to keep an eye on it but it's hard when not a single source exists to varify any of the information.

If a list of ever single Bratz doll should exist I feel it should be started over by someone who's going to do it correctly.*Treker (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe this is encyclopaedic worthy; it might have been better to PROD this first. At the moment, I'm voting delete since it is completely unsourced, cannot be verified and not notable enough for its own article. I think it's needless. st170e^talk 17:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating. I didn't PROD it because it gets edits pretty regularly from fans and I figured maybe some of them would want to state their case and improve the article for real. Doesn't seem to be the case so far.*Treker (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this would be best listed at the original article, nothing solid to suggest its own article. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 22 May 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. Nakon 02:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Namik Paul

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

Non-notable actor lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Also, the article's sole reference is a routine blurb that doesn't come close to meeting the 'significant coverage contemplated by WP:GNG. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has the lead role in a prime time tv series that has already passed 50 episodes, passes WP:NACTOR. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the needed solid independent notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please rewrite that comment in comprehensible English? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please refrain from making WP:UNCIVIL comments. reddogsix (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there's nothing uncivil about asking for clarification of comments that I can't understand. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, per the copious independent reliable sources that can be found simply by clicking the word "news" in the search links spoon-fed to us above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — 86.17.222.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Did you even look at my contributions before accusing me of being a single-purpose account? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing much for reliable sources that indicate notabiltiy. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON and the actor becomes more popular but right now it's not enough. - Pmedema (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:32, 16 May 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. Nakon 02:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Praxis Records

(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 custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 14:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 14:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - needs, like, any sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - long history, a couple of marginally notable artists, and no sources found in search. The "Praxis Records" mentioned in Billboard and some U.S. country-music publications appears to be an unrelated entity. Notability is questionable at best, but perhaps someone will be able to find some German sources? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best, still questionable for the needed independent notability which is expected with these subjects, so it's not surprising there's nothing improvable. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 16 May 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) 07:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Banayan

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

Administrative relisting for proper inclusion in AFD, no comment on article. Nakon 05:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

The very notion that this article should exist is extremely dubious. If the revision history is viewed, it is clear to see that the page was created by the subject of this article for self promotion. Much that has been provided is content that is either only possibly known by the subject himself, or is so inflated that only someone with extreme self interest in the subject would write. The subject is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. Barely any of the 30 under 30 Forbes Honorees have Wikipedia pages, as being chosen for 30 under 30 itself does not make you notable. With the multiple categories, the subject was not even featured. The claim that he was the youngest VC is made by an article that did not show proof as to him actually being the youngest, and is unless otherwise proven, an unsubstantiated claim. GeraldoAbbson (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are references, however they are mostly not about the subject. However, I could see if there were a few more RS for the subject, that may pop up over time, it would be worth keeping. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by [3] and [4]. WP:TNT not not required to fix COI issues. ~Kvng (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and Draft if needed, as this has existed since August 2012 and not only that, but the only solid best here is the Fortune listing and information thus still questionable and I believe it's better to wait for a better article considering simply the article's overall appearance and suggestance. Notifying DGG since he may be interested with this. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. youngest venture capitalist -- which seems a completely unreliable claim -- is just tabloid fodder, not anythingsignificant. A7would apply here. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage, existing references provide only passing mentions at best. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePromotional piece. Coverage is trivial at best. RockyMtChai (talk) 17:34, 17 May 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 as per unanimous positive consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Arkley

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

Subject has been in or a session musician in multiple bands but fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:MUSBIO criterion 6 - "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". No longer a penguin (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Has he been? I don't find any documentation to support that. He has been a member, but not a "reasonably prominent" member. In this case "reasonably prominent" means that sources write about him. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is one interpretation of "reasonably prominent". A different one is in WP:MUSBIO, which says that "Generally speaking, in a small ensemble, all people are reasonably-prominent". He seems to have been a member (or leader) of Seventh Angel, My Silent Wake and Ashen Mortality. Now, I assumed somewhat that Seventh Angel and Ashen Mortality were notable, since they have articles (silly me), but upon closer review Ashen Mortality and My Silent Wake are probably only borderline cases of notability and Ashen Mortality should probably be reviewed for notability. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I want to point out that the line you quote is about albums and songs that should otherwise be merged into the artist article. What we're discussing here is the artist and notability is the key (which is far from established here, I accept). No longer a penguin (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes sorry. Still applies though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it seems this AfD is suggesting this and the current article is not too of concern currently. Delete as my searches noticeably found nothing better and the current article is still questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if he's way better known as a member of various bands than as a performer, himself, on his own merits, I agree that this is a case meeting WP:MUSBIO. It's not like he's just been a studio side-performer; he's been a vocalist- a 'frontman'. I think both Seventh Angel and Ashen Mortality are significantly well-known and his role in them is a part of that general notability. In terms of sourcing, I think coverage by the likes of HM Magazine (see here) and Allmusic (see here) demonstrate that; neither of those publications have detailed information on just any random group. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, they do have detailed information on just any random group. That's where they get the all from in the AllMusic title. If you can show me were Arkley has sufficient material to support inclusion I'll change my opinion. His bands are notable. he isn't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No they don't. The name of the website has no bearing on its reliability. --Michig (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry. Yes. They have information on most every band, and this individual is not even covered at the above link. This is the link for the subject being discussed: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/ian-arkley-mn0001033699 no detailed info, but there is an entry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, they have *entries* for a lot of (but not all) artists, distinctly different to 'detailed information'. They only tend to have bios and reviews for artists that WP would consider notable. --Michig (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - As pointed out by the other user, Allmusic noting that a certain band or release exists is not the same thing as having descriptions for artists with details included. Allmusic most certainly does not "have detailed information on just any random group"; that's self-evidently false. Look at the website's aforementioned account for metal band Ashem Morality and compare that to a group like the metal band Boned to see the difference (if you don't know Boned, they're the metal group behind the infamous Up At The Crack album, listen here, and are the perfect example of an artist being famous-ish yet neither Allmusic nor Wikipedia worthy). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - As well, both bands that I mentioned have gotten commentary from HM Magazine, which is stated in the Ashen Mortality page, which makes the hair-splitting about Allmusic even more silly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NMUSIC criterion 6. Aside from considerations of individual notability, would be a reasonable redirect to any of the bands he was in that have articles, so at worst it should be kept and trimmed down to verifiable details. --Michig (talk) 16:08, 16 May 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. Nakon 02:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Wild Heart

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

Cannot find anything to establish notability of this book-or indeed the author. Article is unreferenced & almost all plot summary, not that that is relevant. TheLongTone (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find anything to show that this would pass notability guidelines and that's with my searching through my school's database, Highbeam, and a general Google search. If there is coverage out there for this book, it didn't make it onto the Internet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing convincing at all for the needed solid independent notability and there's not an actual article for the author at all. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 22 May 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. Nakon 02:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Free McBoot

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

No sourcing or evidence of notability —swpb^T 13:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable exploit for the PS2 console. Other then "it exists" and "here's how to install and us it", there is no long standing encyclopaedic information available. - Pmedema (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should not have passed NPP DeVerm (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing for convincing for solid independent notability, delete is clearly the option here. SwisterTwister talk 19:39, 22 May 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. joe decker ^talk 00:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mankada Azeez Moulavi

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

I can't find enough independent coverage. - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 13:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing else better and the article contains nothing else convincing....Not to mention it's unsourced! Notifying DGG for his familiar analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone decision untilit can be looked at by someone familiar with the relevant language and able to look for sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending evidence of significant coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG: insufficient reliable, third-party verifiable sources to indicate notability. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found the obituary: KNM president passes away in The Hindu. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that's all I can find so delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Content copied from the link: http://mankadaazeezmoulavi.blogspot.in/ @User:RHaworth • Arts Rescuer 18:50, 20 May 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) 00:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kasey Palmer

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL WP:GNG NextGenSam619^t@lk 13:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as, for these subject AFDs, this is always enough. There's nothing for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 22 May 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. Nakon 02:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Adan

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NMODEL. The sources provided consist of a mere mention in runway commentary, a promotional blurb and the web page of a company she owns. All I could find in searches are social media mentions and a bare mention about being an investor in a large building project. Jbh ^Talk 13:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although African fashion is not well-represented on Wikipedia, and I always make a little extra effort when double-checking nominations from that subject area, this person simply does not have the independent coverage required to demonstrate her notability. I also found [5] but again, a very slight passing mention, and no other mentions for her or Tulia on that news site. OK, she exists and she does fashion collections, but unfortunately at this point, there's barely anything on which to build a convincing keep case. Mabalu (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself tagged this, I would've PRODed too but I see it would've likely been removed too anyway. Nothing at all and at least AfD will now add locks to this if it's restarted too soon. Simply nothing at all currently convincing for notability and this frankly would've been best deleted at PROD for its obvious explanations. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was DePRODed by the author [6]. PROD is all but useless except to put a clock on an article created by a drive-by author, otherwise it is just prod-deprod-afd. Jbh ^Talk 19:42, 22 May 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. Nakon 02:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S. Q. R. Ilyas

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

Notability - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 12:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Alternative search per WP:INDAFD: S Q R Ilyas) --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Content copied from the link: http://sqrilyas.blogspot.in/2016/02/syed-qasim-rasool-ilyas-president-of.html @User:RHaworth • Arts Rescuer 23:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the issue of copyright violation - the apparently offending text in the article has been there for nearly four years, and the claimed source is only three months old. While I have very little doubt that copying has occurred, it was almost certainly in the other direction. This AfD should therefore be run its course, as there are just about sufficient claims of notability that the existence of substantial coverage from reliable sources (not necessarily in English) is quite possible though very far from certain. PWilkinson (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I have restored it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After four and an half years, no-one has managed to add any evidence of notability. One link points to an article about the party, not this guy and the other link is broken. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now as there's nothing particular to suggest his own actual notable article and the party was founded in 2011, so there's no automatically convincing historical explanations. Delete for now as there's nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 22 May 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 A11 by Iridescent (non-admin closure by FrameDrag (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

David Hyldkrogs algoritme

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

Article about a non-notable programming algorithm whose name returns no Google hits. Passengerpigeon (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it was notable, I think David Hyldkrog would already have an article. Deb (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably could be speedy deleted as an A11- made up and no claim of significance. Per this, it's a recently made up algorithm, and so is original research and non-notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:54, 16 May 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) Ya sh ! 14:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mujtaba Farooq

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

Notability, Autobiography - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 12:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable Indian-Muslim leader, but article needs better sourcing and rewrite, that I'll start working on. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request Hi @MichaelQSchmidt: and @Nvvchar: Can you please advise as to what WP:Indian policies/guidlines/sourcing apply to this articles subject please? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Alternative search per WP:INDAFD: Mujtaba Farooq) --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Judging from the 76,000+ WP:INDAFD hits, subject is a well-known figure in Indian politics and meets WP:BASIC; I have added one citation, and I think this is merely a question about starting to dig into the sources and build the article. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BASIC. It's a stub, but it can grow over time and through editorial efforts through the many available sources. Deletion does not benefit the project nor its readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious improvements needed, but significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrated through WP:INDAFD. AusLondonder (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect to Butuan Polysports Complex. Somebody boldly redirected it, and frankly, I think that works. —C.Fred (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Butuan Polysports Football Stadium

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

Non-notable stadium, larger sports complex which it is a part of is also up for deletion. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 12:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 12:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 12:40, 16 May 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 considering this has actually been redirected to that other article and said other article is also nearing Keep (which I may close later myself), thus this current article has nothing available to AfD nominate. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Butuan Polysports Baseball Park

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

A baseball park that is clearly not notable, the larger sports complex which it is in is also up for deletion. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 12:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 12:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 12:39, 16 May 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, criterion G7. —C.Fred (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Butuan Polysports Basketball Arena

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

Not notable, a stadium that only holds 4,000 people. Larger sports complex that it's in is also up for deletion. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 12:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 12:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 12:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non Notable Definition ... Tell me what is non notable? If you don't ask me a question, I will delete those all articles that I've created!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Galope Barniso (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 May 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. Nakon 02:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic Brazilian

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

fails WP:GNG. I could find no evidence of a significant contribution or population of Icelandics in Brazil LibStar (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not encyclopaedic at best. I can see this if there is a significant amount of individuals that fall into this category. I'm trying to be WP:CIVIL and not say how superfluous this article is. - Pmedema (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing particularly better for its own notable article, thus this can be mentioned as however needed elsewhere instead. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 22 May 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) 23:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuhiko Kimura

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. jps (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tagged for seven years, and no independent reliable secondary sources yet establish notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing for applicable notability from the current article. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 22 May 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 Withdraw to Keep as I see nothing better happening here (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The London Theatre – New Cross

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

Simply a local theatre for which my searches have only found pieces of expected local coverage, I haven't found nothing anything noticeably better to suggest better improvements for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking beyond the article:

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

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

Keep per being "local" to London is not a negative, and London media coverage is exactly what we would expect for London cinema, as shown by the number theaters "local" to other cites and countries.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Article could certainly be expanded and cited through the many sources to share its background and history and notability to London, England. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as found sources confirm WP:GNG. SwisterTwister, did you do any research at all? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with both MichaelQSchmidt and ThePlatypusofDoomThanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious notability per above. Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 22:56, 20 May 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 Withdraw to Keep as I see nothing else different happening here (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Baldazzini

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

I nearly PRODed this too since my searches found nothing at all aside from two links at Books, both not solid enough to actually improve this, see Books. There's simply nothing convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For now at least. Numerous Italian language sources, prolific bibliography of illustrated works, more research needed though. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, typical ST nomination with no decent WP:BEFORE. The claim of "nothing at all aside from two links at Books" is obviously inaccurate as long as I see 843 results in Google Books, including a whole chapter ("Dall'Emilia con amore: Roberto Baldazzini") in Irripetibili: le grandi stagioni del fumetto italiano by Luca Boschi, an entry in the dictionary New Italian design by Nally Bellati, and a 6-pages chapter ("Roberto Baldazzini") in Marginali: iconografie delle culture alternative by Carlo Branzaglia. Many results are available in Google News archives as well, examples include articles on Panorama [14], TgCom24 [15], Il Resto del Carlino [16], La Repubblica [17], Gazzetta di Modena [18], Panorama again [19], Il Sole 24 Ore [20]. The linked research by the nominator is dumb and meaningless, and sounds a perfect recipe for failure: the string "Roberto+Baldazzini+Italy+Italian+illustrator+comics" excludes not just all the results in Italian language, but also the English language results where one of the words is not mentioned. Was it not easier searching just for name+surname and see if the results fit (and most fit)? Cavarrone 18:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cavarrone. Softlavender (talk) 09:35, 20 May 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. Nakon 02:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bays

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

Non-notable actor. Only notable for his minor role in Office Space. Natg 19 (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for the needed notability and also improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has only one notable role.Vincelord (talk) 17:16, 17 May 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. Consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aangik Communications

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

This is also actually applicable for PROD material as the article is not easily pinning the necessary notability and my searches simply found nothing better than one apparent mention for being the production company. Nothing at all convincing to keep and improve. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No useful sources found to help establish notability. Also searched using the Indian English Newspapers Search app. Am I completely missing something here? I can't even find sources for the awards.. If the awards are verifiable and notable, then there might be defacto notability, but I can't see it so far. Chrisw80 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources whatsoever for notability. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS, no article.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 23 May 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Atiqullah Raufi

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

Three different events, none showing any evidence of having any lasting influence. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Error fixed- ArtsRescuer • Talk me 11:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any policy-based reason for this !vote? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A terrorist organization asassinated a Supreme Court justice. Intrinsic notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @E.M.Gregory:: Sorry, but that is incorrect, "the chief of the secretariat" is not a justice. --Randykitty (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. He was, "the head of the Supreme Court’s secretariat", "a senior officer of the nation's highest court," Washington Post [21]. I have no idea what that means in terms of what his job was. The coverage of this attack was certainly international. Deletion seems to remove useful information about this period of Afghan/Taliban history. Is there a logical target article to which you suggest a redirect?E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the coverage was international (as could be expected), but not lasting (unfortunately, attacks like this are all too common in Afghanistan to generate lasting coverage), so this fails BLP1E, I think. Perhaps there's somewhere a list of Taliban attacks/assassinations? --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, per sources, per assasinated supreme court justice. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BabbaQ, as stated above, tRaufi was not a justice, but "the chief of the secretariat". No lasting coverage either. --Randykitty (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Move to Draft at best as I myself would've also considered keeping, noticing the Supreme Court mentions, but this is also still questionable for its own notable article and there's also no actual article for him either. Therefore, there's simply nothing else better convincing especially since it was a then-event. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 22 May 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) st170e^talk 19:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canon Sinuum (Pitiscus)

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

The single reference is not enough to pass WP:GNG. The article was previously deprodded by Schwilgue and tagged for notability by Bradv. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are certainly sources for an article on Pitiscus' Thesaurus mathematicus, any particular reason for the article title Canon Sinuum (Pitiscus), Schwilgue? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There was some move-warring earlier this year over whether Bürgi's Canon Sinuum needed a disambiguator in its title. I suspect the choice to create this article under this title (instead of a more general article under the title Thesaurus Mathematicus) may have been fallout from that disagreement. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very obviously, as notability is verifiable through references to sources from the last 400 years that are easily found and cited, e.g.

Jean-Étienne Montucla; La Lande (1799). Histoire des mathématiques: dans laquelle on rend compte de leurs progrès depuis leur origine jusqu'à nos jours,... chez Henri Agasse. pp. 582–.
Michaud (1823). Biographie universelle ancienne et moderne ou histoire par ordre alphabétique, de la vie privée et publique de tous les hommes qui se sont distingués par leurs écrits, leurs actions, leurs talents (in French). Chez Michaud frères. pp. 539–.
The English Cyclopedia. 4. Vol. 7. 1868. pp. 995–.
Mathematical Tables and Other Aids to Computation: A Quarterly Journal. Vol. 3–4. National Research Council. 1948. pp. 558–.
C. Sasaki (9 March 2013). Descartes’s Mathematical Thought. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 110–. ISBN 978-94-017-1225-5.

I'm not a big fan of page moves during AfD debates, so we still have the article at Canon Sinuum (Pitiscus). Although this part of the work maybe is that which gets talked most about, it would makes sense IMHO to move the article to Thesaurus mathematicus. Thoughts?

This nomination for deletion, despite sources being available, with the argument The single reference is not enough to pass WP:GNG is a sad disregard of due diligence and should remind taggers that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Mentioning that it was previously PRODed and de-PRODed, as well as previously tagged by another user with {{notability}}, does that serve anything but to testify a tripling up on lazy WP:DRIVEBY-tagging? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I essentially see several of these subjects are notable and I would've especially kept it had I reviewed or otherwise encountered it, convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 22 May 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. Nakon 02:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to Protect You

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Should be ~~merged~~ deleted. If desired, the namespace could be redirected to the album Useless Trinkets: B-Sides, Soundtracks, Rarities and Unreleased 1996–2006 or Eels (band). Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AfD is not the place to propose a merge. --Michig (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, what I meant was the article should be deleted. Then the namespace could be redirected to something relevant, if desired. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The song on it's own is not notable. I have no objection to redirecting the name space to somewhere more appropriate. - Pmedema (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 22 May 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. Closing this as keep because the nominator withdrew their nomination and general consensus was to keep with only one objection (I'm excluding one contribution due to WP:JUSTAVOTE). (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 21:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MAHANAYIKA

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

Proposing WP:TNT. It may have some connection with this 2016 Bengali movie. but I feel the article needs to be rewritten. Tito Dutta (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have improved the article a little bit along with a couple of sources since it has connection with the Bengali film Mahanayika. Thank You – GSS (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- ArtsRescuer • Talk me 11:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOREASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no information about any filming and release, thus nothing to assume this can be timely improved for the notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer: See WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

looking beyond the original article:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Mahanayika Movie Saikat Bhakat Rituparna Sengupta Indraneil Sengupta Soumitra Chatterjee Saheb Chatterjee RKB Films

Strongest of KEEPS with an expressed disappoint in the lack of due diligence on the parts of ArtsRescuer, and SwisterTwister. In looking it was quite easy to find the topic of this film has required media coverage to meet WP:NF. And while the stub first nominated was quite poor, it is more often easier to fix than to delete and re-write from scratch. The article's improvement to well-sourced start-class is undeniable... so come on folks, let's all thank Titodutta and GSS-1987 for showing the topic's potential. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per WP:HEY and the improvements to the article by MichaelQSchmidt, and because this meets WP:NF. The delete !votes above appear to have not performed any source searching about the topic, and per WP:NEXIST, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer – The article has been renamed to Mahanayika. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the outstanding work completed by MichaelQSchmidt, which I thank him for. Others should emulate his attitude and investigate for a minute or two and improve an article before calling for deletion of an article about a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Super great work by Schmidt. The article was in condition, and now there is no reason to delete. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And closer please note: from prior AFD discussion behaviors, I do not believe ArtsRescuer or SwisterTwister will revisit to see their concerns have been so easily addressed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:31, 23 May 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. Nakon 02:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Panorkavu

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

Hindu temple that is claimed to be "famous", but for which I found no evidence of notability in English. A Google search returns little except for Wikipedia mirrors for this article and for Manithara Sree Panorkavu Bhagavathy Temple, which is an older article on a different temple, which shares many of the same sourcing problems. Maybe there are better sources in Malayalam? --Finngall ^talk 23:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's essentially nothing suggesting the needed notability improvements, including basic, thus delete until someone with fluency at both sides can start a new article. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of references to support the article. Can't find anything myself. st170e^talk 15:10, 23 May 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) Ya sh ! 14:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Butuan Polysports Complex

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

I don't think the sources cover the subject into enough depth. Delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know that the Butuan Polysports Complex is a national sports complex. This sports complex is part of the Palarong Pambansa bidding for 2019. Photos about Polysports Complex is mine, and I take pictures using Samsung Galaxy Core-II. There's only 3 references about that article. So, that article is a good article. So please, I know about the history of that Polysports Complex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Galope Barniso (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. Please see Talk:Butuan Polysports Complex for my contested deletions. mcLovin'tosh (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2016.
- Hi. Do you know how to semi-protect the Butuan Polysports Complex article. Please lock it to avoid vandalism permanently. Salamat.
Keep one combined article. This article still needs attention and improvement, but the complex appears to be a major piece of public infrastructure that has been covered in national media such as the Manila Bulletin,[22][23] Philippine Daily Inquirer[24], and Philippine Star [25] and thus sufficiently notable to warrant one combined article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I added those articles about this article from "Mindanao Gold Star Daily"'[26][27]
Keep - looks to have enough coverage; article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable sporting complex, like GS said, there is enough coverage. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:51, 19 May 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. Nakon 02:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tami-Adrian George

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

Non-notable actress with a series of minor roles. Fails WP:NACTOR. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as quite obviously not better for WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG, nothing else convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:24, 22 May 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 Withdrawing as Keep and I'm willing to add the reviews myself, likely later tonight (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Marines

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

Unfortunately this is still questionable at best and it's likely because it's from the pre-Internet boom so any sources are likely both archive and also Japanese. I have searched including with the Japanese-listed name Militia but I found nothing; the Japanese Wiki has extra information but nothing else convincing to help improve this (at least, from what I comprehend). The best my searches basically found was only this 2007 review. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – IGN review: [28], GameSpot review: [29], Nintendolife review: [30], AllGame has a review score, although no written review: [31], Mobygames page lists a bunch of magazine reviews: [32]. Nintendo Power also reviewed it according to GameRankings: [33]. --The1337gamer (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as searches confirm notability, meets WP:GNG. SwisterTwister, did you do any research at all? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (1) Assume good faith—it's silly to expect everyone to automatically know the ins and outs of historical game searches. (2) MobyGames is the best place to find listings of old magazine reviews, and old magazines are the best place to find information on games from the 90s, as the content hasn't digitized well. On the basis of the MobyGames mags alone, we can say the topic is safely notable. czar 08:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is likely sufficient coverage to meet the minimum notability threshold from just the materials in our Reference Library. See EGM (Oct. 1993), PC Gamer (May 1995), and Super Play (Oct. 1993). One good way to discover sources like that on-Wiki is by scanning through the page's WhatLinksHere link and looking for incoming links from the WP:VG Reference Library or from Wikipedia's Shared Resources page. -Thibbs (talk) 19:44, 18 May 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. Nakon 02:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NewEdge

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

With this being still questionable for WP:CORP and WP:GNG, I nearly PRODed, my searches have found nothing better at all and there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is hardly any independent coverage, wouldn't pass GNG. Note that searching for NewEdge returns multiple false positives which are about Newedge Group. In addition, the state of the article indicates it is better to WP:TNT it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hardly any reliable sources. The state of the article is very bad, and really should be WP:TNT'd. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:10, 18 May 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} st170e^talk 15:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mariya Yamada

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

With the Japanese Wiki containing extra information but no actual other sources aside from 2 listed, my searches also found nothing better than this passing mention. IMDb also lists nothing else convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yamada may not be in the spotlight as much as she used to, but for a while there she was one of the most popular gravure idols and was appearing on television several times a week, especially on variety shows. She has 61 TV dramas to her credit: [34]. She still appears quite a lot in other shows [35], and also has her own NHK radio show: [36] (3 hours every weekday on the main national network). She thus appears regularly in the entertainment press for the usual things: marriage, birth, friend's funerals, etc. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], etc. etc. Another editor has already added some references to the article. Easily passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of the article passes NACTOR with 61 tv credits. Also passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:55, 21 May 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)} st170e^talk 15:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Luxiang

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

The article has nothing convincing for the applicable solid independent notability and its improvements, my searches have simply found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per being arguably notable to China. My own searches (sorry about your broken google-foo nominator) finds sources [52][53][54] (many needing translation [55][56][57]) to support this film critic / producer as meeting WP:CREATIVE. Needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS. Passes WP:GNG, if barely. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:22, 16 May 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) 23:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ldirectord

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

Nothing at all convincing for the applicable notability and my searches found several links Books, News and Highbeam so far but there's nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable Linux service application. Chrisw80 (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and does not have any sources. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG by a mile.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 23 May 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) 23:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Gallagher

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

PROD removed. Not a notable actor per WP:NACTOR - only one significant role. Not a notable person per WP:GNG - no significant coverage beyond mere trivial mention in reliable sources. One popularity award nom, didn't win. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:TOOSOON for an article on this subject. Fails WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've also perhaps considered keeping but I would be satisfied with a Redirect to the TV series at best. I would sincerely hope however that no one restarts....as we have seen quite so before. SwisterTwister talk 18:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless they clearly pass GNG, we should avoid any articles on people who are currently under age 18 (at the lowest).John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 23 May 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 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Game People

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

I do not believe this article meets Notability standards. The article overall reads like an ad for the website. As well, I noticed someone in the article, User:Paulgovan, wrote up the article, which is a clear conflict of interest. GamerPro64 03:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, most of the references are no longer accessible, very superficial references, or references to the Game People site itself. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) All hits were passing mentions, and no other major coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 08:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 08:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability. Looks like it mostly exists to be an advertisement. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the previous three editor's points. Rockypedia (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing noticeably better and the current article is still questionable for notability at best. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Gordon Graydon Memorial Secondary School. Nakon 02:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Team 1325 Inverse Paradox

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

Two PRODs both removed, Jbunley and my own, despite the article being questionable and both of our PROds explicitly explaining this. There's nothing at all convincing for basic notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication this passes GNG or NORG. No objection to redirect. Jbh ^Talk 02:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Update Jbh ^Talk 14:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gordon Graydon Memorial Secondary School. Not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant rankings in any FRC tournament. Perhaps summarize on Gordon Graydon Memorial Secondary School. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this does not gain an automatic entitlement to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists — it qualifies for a Wikipedia article when it can be reliably sourced as passing a notability criterion. But none of the sourcing here demonstrates that at all, as it's mostly primary sourcing with the exception of a small smattering of purely local media coverage — but WP:ORG specifies that coverage of an organization has to expand beyond the purely local to satisfy WP:GNG, precisely so that we're not forced to keep an article about every hobby club or neighbourhood resident's association or high school extracurricular program in all of human existence just because it's gotten a couple of articles in the local Pennysaver. So this can be mentioned in the school's article, but it does not meet the standard necessary to merit its own standalone article as a separate topic. Redirect to Gordon Graydon Memorial Secondary School. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 20 May 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) 23:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Taylor (actress)

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

Fails both PORNBIO and the GNG. Was previously nominated for deletion with a no consensus before PORNBIO became more restrictive. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 01:21, 16 May 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 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all to finally suggest better signs of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real claim of passing WP:PORNBIO. Lacks significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Coverage by XBIZ is not substantial. Coverage by AVN is not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:PORNBIO. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:22, 22 May 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. Nakon 02:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Affairs Conference

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

Non-notable student conference, under constant promotional pressure from students involved in it. See article history and Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable student conference, the oldest and largest of its kind in Canada. Has hosted a number of important keynote speakers (Dambisa Moyo, Stephen Lewis, David Frum) and received widespread media coverage in 2015 for hosting Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald as keynote speakers. See the sources provided on the page or Google it for more. NB – I am not involved with this conference. RogerSheaffe 10:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this edit is typical of what I've encountered from promotional editors at this article. Have a look at this ref which supposedly supports "international coverage": a caption on a picture is not "coverage". meh. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a 'promotional' editor, but I did add that link to international content after you deleted the word 'international' from an edit I made regarding Snowden's appearance, demanding a specific link. For the record, I think a widely-circulated Reuters file photo (with a caption mentioning the event) heading several international news articles on Snowden does constitute some form of international coverage. But I have added two more articles, these ones specifically on the World Affairs Conference – one from UPI and the other from Russia Today – to meet your threshold as you evidently could not be bothered to Google them yourself. With respect, I'm finding your destructive edits to this page tiresome.The full 2016 conference itinerary someone posted was indeed not fit for WP, but repeatedly ripping out a few sentences on distinguished keynote speakers (Dambisa Moyo, David Frum, Jeffrey Sachs) simply because the information comes from a conference-related publication seems extreme. The very rules you cite WP:SPS note that 'Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves...' (emphasis added). There are caveats, e.g. the source not be 'unduly self-serving' – I don't think factual statements on past speakers even off an the website of a related institution could be realistically termed as such. Further that 'the article is not based primarily on such [primary] sources'. It was once true that much of the article did indeed link back to self-published sources, but that's no longer the case. I think that adding back the list of past speakers is at least a reasonable inclusion, but am sure you'll delete it instantly again. I'm not sure why you have such an axe to grind with a student event – perhaps some of those students have been over-eager editors in the past. But the event does indeed meet the notability guidelines IMHO, so respectfully I think you should lay off. RogerSheaffe (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete altogether perhaps as I would've also suggested Redirecting but if this is vulnerable to restarting, it's best deleted for now since the overall article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This event fails WP:GNG. There's simply not enough coverage to show notability. What little coverage there is is centred around Edward Snowden, not around the conference itself. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 18:17, 23 May 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) 23:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clash Records

(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 custom Google search of reliable music sources. The label's founder didn't meet the notability guidelines either, so there are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 13:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 13:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 13:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no refs, no notability. I'd say redirect to the founder Bong-Ra, but he doesn't have an article and probably no refs and no notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there's actually probably a better chance of an article on Bong-Ra passing notability than one for his record label: Bong-Ra has played at many of the most famous outdoor festivals in Europe, including the Glastonbury Festival, and he recorded a session for John Peel on his legendary BBC Radio 1 radio show in 2002. However, Clash Records itself appears to have been defunct since 2012 and released only 14 singles, most by artists even more obscure than Bong-Ra himself. Richard3120 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I saw this earlier and planned to comment, none of this actually suggests there are particularly better signs of notability improvements, there's nothing else convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 22 May 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. I'm closing this discussion because there is no clear consensus and there has not been any further involvement from other editors, even after being relisted twice. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 15:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Kill the Fun

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

Non-notable song from a non-notable album that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no obvious closest article with information about this, still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely its position on the charts is sufficient for WP:NSONG; or am I missing something here? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC) I misread, it would appear. Redirect given the discussion below; the article title is a valid search term. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: From WP:NSONG: Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. ... Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria.

1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.

Charting does not mean that a song is notable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JJMC89, I am aware of that requirement. The question is, however, what charts qualify? I can find very little guidance on this. a priori the R&B songs chart seems to qualify. Do you have reason to believe that it does not? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Charting only suggests that the song may be notable; however, without significant coverage in independent reliable sources, a standalone article is not warranted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:25, 18 May 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. Consensus is that she is notable independently. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Chaplin

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

Subject does not appear to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial independent secondary sources. Current references are non-existent, one external link points to IMDb which is not independent. Has won no awards nor had any staring role in a major motion picture. Google search turns up IMDb, Spokeo, Facebook, Amazon, Pintrest, Barnes & Noble, etc. Being descended from Charlie Chaplin does not by itself confer notability (per WP:NOTINHERITED). KDS4444 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came to her page to see the actress Josephine Chaplin, so this must be Wikipedia perfoming the function it was meant to in providing information. The fact that she was actually in films that exist is a source of proof. I have seen the Jack The Ripper dvd with her on the front cover so at least there she had a notable role. Middle More Rider (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She may have a famous dad, but she's credited with 26 different roles in film and TV. She has named roles in many of these. She passes WP:NACTOR #1. This isn't a case of WP:INHERITED. Middle More Rider, were you going to !vote Keep? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Lack of independent sources and WP:NOT INHERITED. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I just added several independent sources to confirm her roles and her parents. So there are independent RS in the article. This also isn't a case of of NOT INHERITED, she passes by WP:NACTOR #1. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect instead as imaginably best connected to Charlie Chaplin, article still questionable for solidity. SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes keep for me. If I can go into a retail store and buy this http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414J3M771YL._SY445_.jpg what on earth has Charlie Chaplin got to do with it? I think it's rude to keep refering to people with the Chaplin surname as some sort of appendage to Charlie Chaplin and not just the person that they are. Middle More Rider (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She had a significant role in a major Pasolini film and billed roles in other notable films. If her name wasn't Chaplin and her earliest credits weren't in films her father directed, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Clearly meets NACTOR. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reality check: WP:NACTOR states that in order to qualify under those criteria the person needs to have had significant roles [plural] in multiple notable films, etc. [also plural]. Having had a single significant role in a single "Pasolini film" whose name is not mentioned does not qualify a person as notable; being billed in other notable films does not qualify a person as notable; thinking it is rude to refer to a Chaplin as some sort of appendage is not an argument for notability; being credited with 26 different roles in movies and television does not qualify a person as notable; being able to go into a retail store and see a DVD with her on the cover is not evidence of notability. Everyone, please, for God's sake, read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and then come back here and have another look at your arguments to Keep this article. The ONLY one that holds any water is the one claiming to have added new sources. KDS4444 (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She has one of the main roles in Escape to the Sun [58], she had a starring role in Nuits Rouges [59], a starring role in Jack the Ripper [60], a named role in Docteur Françoise Gailland [61], and a named role in Bay Boy [62]. These roles all make her notable in addition to the Canterbury Tales film. I'm not even counting in her other roles or the ones for French TV which are difficult for me (since I'm not fluent in French). Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Megalibrarygirl. In my view, this person meets the criterion of main roles in multiple notable films, as the sources listed above show. Would this be at AfD if WP:NOTINHERITED was irrelevant? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the addition of references to multiple reliable, secondary sources such as

Howard Hughes (30 April 2011). Cinema Italiano: The Complete Guide from Classics to Cult. I.B.Tauris. pp. 140–. ISBN 978-0-85773-044-2. Based on the writings of Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales (1971) was shot in England with an Italo-British cast. ... There were featured roles for Laura Betti and Franco Citti, and Hugh Griffith, Josephine Chaplin, Michael Balfour and ...
Leonard Maltin (2009). Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide. New American Library. pp. 418–. ISBN 978-0-451-22468-2.
Mick Martin; Derrick Bang (1994). Video Movie Guide 1995. Random House Publishing Group. pp. 761–. ISBN 978-0-345-39027-1.
Semana (in Spanish). Vol. 31–32. May 1971. pp. 957–.
La Revue du cinéma, image et son (in French). Ligue française de l'enseignement et de l'éducation permanente. 1975. pp. 269–.
Gérard Leblanc (1992). Georges Franju: une esthétique de la déstabilisation (in French). creaphis editions. pp. 112–. ISBN 978-2-908702-02-6.
Mario Guidorizzi (1993). Cinema francese: 1930-1993 (in French). Casa editrice Mazziana. pp. 97–. ISBN 978-88-85073-25-8.
Jay Robert Nash; Stanley Ralph Ross (1986). The Motion Picture Guide. Vol. 6. Cinebooks. pp. 2182–. ISBN 978-0-933997-06-6.
La Nouvelle revue des deux mondes (in French). 1976. pp. 730–.
Peter Cowie (1977). International Film Guide 1978. Tantivy Press. pp. 343–. ISBN 978-0-498-02106-0.
John A. Willis (1986). Screen World. Vol. 37. Crown Publishers. pp. 154–.
Leslie Halliwell (1996). Halliwell's Film Guide. HarperPerennial. pp. 249–. ISBN 978-0-06-273372-6.
Bowker (1983). Variety's Film Reviews: 1971-1974. Rr Bowker Llc. ISBN 978-0-8352-2793-3.
Phil Hardy; Denis Gifford (1986). The encyclopedia of science fiction movies. Woodbury Press. p. 313. ISBN 978-0-8300-0436-2.
Stefan Jaworzyn (1994). Shock Xpress 2. Vol. 2. Titan. pp. 16–. ISBN 978-1-85286-519-1. The only film from Franju's television period to receive any sort of foreign distribution was L'Homme sans Visage (1974), starring Jacques Champreux, Gayle Hunnicutt, Gert Frobe and Josephine Chaplin, a Fantomas-like thriller about a ...
Cinema. 241-46 (in French). Vol. 1. 1979. pp. 124–.
Cinéma. 289-300 (in French). Fédération française des ciné-clubs. 1983. p. 5. ... Après Maria Pacôme, il avait épousé Joséphine Chaplin, dont il avait eu un fils, Julien, le 16 octobre 1980. ...
L'Express. Vol. 2. Presse-Union. 1981. pp. 108–.
Jean-Marc Doniak (1998). Les fictions françaises à la télévision: 1945-1990, 15000 œuvres (in French). Dixit. pp. 38–.
La Revue du cinéma. 407-411 (in French). Ligue française de l'enseignement et de l'éducation permanente. 1985. p. 11.
The Hollywood Reporter. 1-18. Vol. 317. Wilkerson Daily Corporation. 1991. pp. 42–.
Francisco María Benavent (2000). Cine español de los 90: diccionario de películas, directores y temático. Mensajero. pp. 232–.

attest that she has had significant roles in multiple notable productions, e.g. in Pier Paolo Pasolini's The Canterbury Tales, in Menahem Golan's Escape to the Sun, in Richard Balducci's L'Odeur des fauves, in André Hunebelle's Les Quatre Charlots mousquetaires and À nous quatre, Cardinal !, in Georges Franju's Nuits Rouges, in Jesús Franco's Jack the Ripper, in Jean-Louis van Belle's À l'ombre d'un été, in Histoires extraordinaires, and in Georges Franju's L'Homme sans visage, and meets the inclusion criteria for actors. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indisputable evidence of subject's personal notability in the acting profession, particularly in view of the praiseworthy comprehensive research submitted above by Sam Sailor. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After all the heavy lifting done by other editors, now seems a pretty simple decision. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:05, 18 May 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) Ya sh ! 14:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Chaplin

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

References currently consist of a link to the subject's personal website and a link to IMDb which is not an independent source. Article requires multiple non-trivial independent references to justify retaining it. Subject appears to fail the notability guidelines. Notability is not inherited (per WP:NOTINHERITED). KDS4444 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charlie Chaplin as best connected there, current article is still questionable overall for solidity. SwisterTwister talk 00:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: The above redirect opinion was typed in and saved only 54 seconds after the user's previous edit to another AfD debate. ––Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's been in 9 films, released 2 music albums and played live concerts. What has any of that got to do with Charlie Chaplin? Middle More Rider (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 8 May 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, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very obviously, as notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, and notability is here verifiable through references to sources that are easily found and cited, e.g.

"BBC Radio 3 – Late Junction Session – May 2011 – Hans-Joachim Roedelius and Christopher Chaplin". BBC. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
Claude-Marie Trémois (1997). Les enfants de la liberté: le jeune cinéma français des années 90 (in French). Seuil. pp. 35–. ISBN 978-2-02-032309-3.
Carrie Tarr; Brigitte Rollet (1 November 2001). Cinema and the Second Sex: Women's Filmmaking in France in the 1980s and 1990s. A&C Black. pp. 270–. ISBN 978-0-8264-4742-5.
Positif. 407-412 (in French). Nouvelles éditions Opta. 1995. pp. 58–.
Janis L. Pallister; Ruth A. Hottell (2005). Francophone Women Film Directors: A Guide. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press. pp. 151–. ISBN 978-0-8386-4046-3.
Maximillien De Lafayette (1 May 2010). Hollywood and Europe Greatest Black and White Films Stills and Cinema Legends Portraits: Photos, History, Biographies, Commentaries and Reviews. Book. 2nd Edition. pp. 263–. ISBN 978-0-557-45409-9.
Jerry Epstein (1 January 1989). Remembering Charlie: the story of a friendship. Clio Press. pp. 339–. ISBN 978-1-85089-351-6.
Brian Mills (21 October 2010). 101 Forgotten Films. Oldcastle Books. pp. 3–. ISBN 978-1-84243-390-4.
Roman Schliesser; Leo Moser (2006). Die Supernase: Karl Spiehs und seine Filme (in German). Ueberreuter. pp. 177–. ISBN 978-3-8000-7228-6.
Filmkunst. 145-148 (in German). Österreichische Gesellschaft für Filmwissenschaft, Kommunikations- und Medienforshung. 1995. pp. 54–.
Wochenpresse (in German). Vol. 45. Kurier-zeitungsverlag und Druckerei. November 1990. pp. 63–.
Catherine Saint-Martin (1987). Charlot/Chaplin, ou, La conscience du mythe (in French). Té.Arte. pp. 121–. ISBN 978-2-9500717-1-2.
George Batista Da Silva (3 September 2008). Charles Chaplin (in Spanish). Clube de Autores. pp. 25–. PKEY:90134199.
Variety International Film Guide. Andre Deutsch. 1990. pp. 176–. ISBN 978-0-233-98613-5.
Jessica Winter; Lloyd Hughes; Richard Armstrong (27 September 2007). The Rough Guide to Film. Rough Guides Limited. pp. 257–. ISBN 978-1-84836-125-6.
"AFI FESTIVAL: A 'Great Day' With Some Great Films". LA Times. Retrieved 21 May 2016.
"CRITICS' PICKS". Washington Post. 14 June 1992. Retrieved 21 May 2016.
John Willis (1 May 1993). Screen World 1992. Hal Leonard. pp. 90–. ISBN 978-1-55783-135-4.
Willman, David (6 May 1992). "Christopher Columbus Sails Right Past Bankruptcy". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 9 October 2010.
Jacob Levich (1996). The Motion Picture Guide 1996 Annual: The Films of 1995. CineBooks. pp. 307–. ISBN 978-0-933997-37-0.
Cinéma Gay - Un siècle d'homosexualité sur grand écran (in French). Editions Publibook. pp. 318–. ISBN 978-2-7483-8799-5.
Paolo Mereghetti (2001). Il Mereghetti: dizionario dei film 2002. Baldini & Castoldi. pp. 1601–. ISBN 978-88-8490-087-6.

showing subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR #1. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:12, 22 May 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Maniguet

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

WP:BLP1E. Known only for being involved in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, and all content is about this. Should be covered there, if at all. Sandstein 20:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the much better referencing in fr.wiki, which does so far as to think one their books is notable. Lots and Lots of pre-internet sources in Egnlish plus a lot of francophone sources too. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable NealeFamily (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rainbow Warrior instead as best known for that at best, still questionable for own article. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 15 May 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, 16 May 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 no clear consensus after being re-listed twice. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 21:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louis-Pierre Dillais

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

WP:BLP1E. Known only for being involved in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, and all content is about this. Should be covered there, if at all. Sandstein 20:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of source spread across multiple countries, decades and languages. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not address the problem that the sources are all about one event, the Rainbow Warrior sinking, which should lead us to cover this person in the context of that article. Sandstein 08:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E has three required conditions, only the first is met. Publishing an account in The Times about the event is not maintaining a low profile. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have enough to meet notability NealeFamily (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for his own solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 8 May 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, 16 May 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 no clear consensus, even after being relisted twice (where it failed to gain anymore discussion). I'm also disregarding one contribution because of WP:NOTAVOTE. I don't believe a third re-list would give this debate a clearer consensus so I'm therefore closing it. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 21:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Mafart

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

WP:BLP1E. Known only for being involved in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, and all content is about this. Should be covered there, if at all. Sandstein 20:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of source spread across multiple countries, decades and languages. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not address the problem that the sources are all about one event, the Rainbow Warrior sinking, which should lead us to cover this person in the context of that article. Sandstein 08:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E has three required conditions, only the first is met. Publishing a book about the event is not maintaining a low profile. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant enough to meet notability NealeFamily (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for solid notability, seems best connected to that event. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep household name in New Zealand and of interest and notability as a person, not only in connection with the RW bombing. MurielMary (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The example given at "Subjects notable for only one event" is John Hinckley, who is notable only for attempting to assassinate Reagan however has his own page as his role and the event are both significant. Marfart similarly fits this description - the event was significant, and his role in it was substantial. MurielMary (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTAVOTE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This debate was re-listed twice and failed to gain anymore discussion after the second re-list - no consensus. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 21:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Pereira

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

WP:BIO1E. Known only for being involved in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, and all content is about this. Should be covered there, if at all. Sandstein 20:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of source spread across multiple countries, decades and languages. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not address the problem that the sources are all about one event, the Rainbow Warrior sinking, which should lead us to cover this person in the context of that article. Sandstein 08:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E has three required conditions, the third is not met. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough to meet notability NealeFamily (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps as he seems best connected to that, perhaps still questionable for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep household name in NZ, notable in his own right. MurielMary (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and then redirect as there is not much to merge (or plain simple redirect). The current article is all about the Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, not about Fernando Pereira. The very little information about him fits perfectly well in the other article. - Nabla (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 16 May 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) SSTflyer 05:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gérard Royal

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

WP:BLP1E. Known only for being involved in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, and all content is about this. Should be covered there, if at all. Sandstein 20:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of source spread across multiple countries, decades and languages. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not address the problem that the sources are all about one event, the Rainbow Warrior sinking, which should lead us to cover this person in the context of that article. Sandstein 08:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E has three required conditions, the third is not met. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough to meet notability NealeFamily (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Never heard of him, but looks notable enough Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps and if anyone wants to Redirect, still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 16 May 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. Nakon 02:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Musicologica Austriaca

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indexed in the DOAJ which (since March 2014) is highly selective.Boocan (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but DOAJ is not "highly selective". All they try to do is keep predatory journals out, but apart from that they are all-inclusive. --Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a matter of opinion, I would say. You'll have to go through a detailed application process at DOAJ which is selective in any case. Besides, it seems this journal is also on Ulrich's anyway... Boocan (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been concensus about this for years now in the Academic Journals WikiProject. Similarly, Ulrich's is not selective in the sense of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NJournals has no clear statements with regard to such journals in the humanities. It recommends to "look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries". I would say, the 63 libraries listed at Worldcat may be worth a consideration. If the music libraries of Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia and others consider this journal worth enough to be collected, it might be notable enough for Wikipedia to have a little article, particularly since we only discuss a floating degree of what might qualify this journal to be worthy a Wikipedia article. Given the matter, this discussion and this pseudo quality-control gets increasingly ridiculous. The Wikipedia I'm used to is an open system, not an excluding peer-reviewed academic journal... So please get down from your horse, calm down and let go. Nobody is hurt. This journal is obviously international. And the article is correct and adequately referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boocan (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start a WP-wide discussion that we abandon WP:N. As an aside, I'm sitting in an easy chair and I am calm. Sorry that I had to propose your article for deletion, but that's how things go. And you still have almost a week to come up with real evidence that this is notable after all. Not a paltry 63 libraries, though (for an OA journal, that's unbelievably low, as it doesn't cost anything to a library to provide a link to the journal and thus add it to their offerings). --Randykitty (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, it always is up to the editors to prove an article is worthless. Second, this is not only about an OA journal which of course does not need to be found in any library. Third, you rigidly and exclusively stick with Criterion 1 which you obviously can not find to be met. Although I believe you are 100% convinced that none the two other Criterions are met (since Google Scholar is not considered a reliable source for Criterion 1, you certainly reject the 500+ citations to be used for Criterion 2 as well), this will again be a matter of view... Boocan (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I do believe that a wide debate is needed, but not inside WP. We rather need a discussion about editors' ethical standards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boocan (talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, you cannot prove a negative. It's up to those that !vote "keep" to back up a claim of notability with in-depth sources. Second, that works both ways: so why do those 63 libraries you mention list it? Reality is that libraries will add OA journals to their "holdings" very easily, as it doesn't cost them anything. Third, 500-odd citations would not make a single researcher notable, let alone a whole journal. Finally, would you care to expand on your last comment regarding editors' "ethical standards"? --Randykitty (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say this but the statement libraries will add OA journals to their "holdings" very easily, as it doesn't cost them anything indicates that you are not really familiar with what you are talking about. There is not one library on the world that adds an OA journal to its holdings, because no one has to. Since an OA journal is "open access", you'll find it on the internet everywhere, so there is no need of a library to store it, whatsoever.Boocan (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries will add such journals to their websites, it will then show in WorldCat as being "held" by that library. They don't actually store the journal, which is why I put the word "holdings" between quotation marks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gotta agree with Randykitty here. However, creating Austrian Musicological Society and merging there would be optimal.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although this seems to be an academic journal with excellent scholarship, it is unfortunately not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:37, 23 May 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.