Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 October	26 October >

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. czar 23:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stevens (soccer)[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined despite the fact that not much has changed in the last three years. The only thing that has changed is that he's played a few additional seasons in the second and third divisions of Finnish football. Since neither of these are fully pro, and he has not received significant coverage, the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since three years, there have been improvements. Clearly being an international rsoccer player after so many years in US soccer is significant and I have added a number of Finnish language references as well. werldwayd (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Moving from a non-FPL league in the US to a non-FPl league in finland is not inherently notable. No indication that any of these transfers gained any significant coverage outside of routine local reporting. Fenix down (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still no indication that enough coverage has been received to come close to passing WP:GNG Spiderone 13:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - still fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Not averse to salting the article until NFOOTY or GNG are met. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails NFOOTBALL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. fundamentally not a valid rationale for deletion. If there are genuine concerns that notability guidelines are not satisfied then the article should be renominated and those clearly stated. Fenix down (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bharathi Vishnuvardhan[edit]

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

almost entirely unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definetely noteworthy and also referenced now. Inwind (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. Jared Preston (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Miss Universe Ethiopia - though there are some inconsistencies on that page regarding this individual. But that's a matter for Talk:Miss Universe Ethiopia. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Lemma[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced (an external link is no source), fails WP:GNG, just slightly known from WP:ONEEVENT. The Banner talk 22:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. References do not have to be inline citations. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 05:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricard Cardús[edit]

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

Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced now. Inwind (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. References do not have to be inline citations. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 00:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oksana Kalashnikova[edit]

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

unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

referenced now. Inwind (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kalashnikova meets the criteria set out by WP:NTENNIS. She has played in the main draw at multiple Grand Slams and has represented her country in over 20 rubbers for the Georgia Fed Cup team (see profile). Jared Preston (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Agree with Jared Preston Keroks (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skarlatos[edit]

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

Delete per WP:DENY and WP:G5 - user is now blocked as a sockpuppet of User:CookieMonster755. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no benefit to WP readers from this being deleted, it's a valid page. Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- There's no benefit in keeping a disambig page created by a sock and allowing the sock to believe they got away with something and encouraging them to sock again. That's the point of WP:DENY and WP:G5. Recreate the page yourself once it's deleted if you want {Boleyn, but it should not have the sock account noted in the history as the creator. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:G5. We aren't supposed to let articles stay when made my sockpuppets of blocked/banned users. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's silly to remove a good page and have to recreate the exact same info with a different "author". WP:DENY states "Information on vandalism should be critically appraised for its genuine value, and if that value outweighs any detriment from the publicity of that vandal/vandalism." It's not clear what "information on vandalism" means, but if it's trying to refer to content, then it applies here. Regardless, DENY is only an essay. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: no controversial views, nothing objectionable, just a standard surname page (now I've tidied it up a bit). Wasteful to delete, even if the original creator was a sockpuppet. PamD 14:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page now lists another couple of names, one of whom is redlinked in 3 articles. CSD G-5 does not apply. PamD 15:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Clarityfiend. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 20:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep G5 no longer applies to this page because it has been edited by others. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly valid DB page. There is no requirement to delete or undo all edits made by socks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Winkelvi and SNUGGUMS, what do you think of the comments above and the changes to the page, which now rule out G5? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence as to how substantial other users' edits have been. G5 is for articles created by sockpuppets in violation of a block/ban without substantial edits from others regardless of how "valid" it seems at first glance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Snuggums regarding the edits and G5. Further, G5 is about curbing behavior rather than encouraging it. If you can't why Gg5 exists, I can't help you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G5 is about articles. A disambiguation page is not really an article and nobody cares about them much. (Note they are called disambiguation pages and not disambiguation articles.) Additionally, G5 states categories created by socks or banned users may be kept if they are useful. I would say the same criteria applies to a DB page. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. References do not have to be inline citations. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 00:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Coetzee[edit]

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

unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Player passes WP:NTENNIS, has played for South Africa Davis Cup team. Jared Preston (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

articles about living people require references. As it stands it is not verifiable.Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. References do not have to be inline citations. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 03:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xu Yifan[edit]

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

Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Again, another notable tennis player. See WP:NTENNIS. Xu Yifan has won a large number of notable tournaments and even reached the quarterfinals of the 2014 US Open – Women's Doubles. Jared Preston (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

articles about living people require references. As it stands it is not verifiable. Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article already had {{refimprove}}. Please read and understand WP:BEFORE. Jared Preston (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - clearly notable tennis player. Article already has two reliable sources (although not inline). The nominator, who has made a number of frivolous AfD nominations, needs to read WP:BEFORE. -Zanhe (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think Wikipedia's policies about biographies of living people w#should not apply to tennis players?Rathfelder (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you waste people's time with your non sequiturs? You claimed the article is unreferenced, and I pointed out that's untrue. Who said BLP should not apply to tennis players? -Zanhe (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not even worth redirecting. Newly created content fork. KTC (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Powerpuff Girls (season 1)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically a repeat of List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes#Season 1 (1998–1999), not notable enough for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe redirect? - Clearly not notable for a standalone article but perhaps could be deleted & redirected to List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes#Season 1 (1998–1999) –Davey2010^Talk 12:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom hasn't even bothered searching for sources so thus BEFORE wasn't followed, No objections to renomination by anyone else (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gyakuten! Ippatsuman[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A common outcome at AfDs is that "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." This one fulfills both as it was broadcast by Fuji TV and produced by Tatsunoko. Plus, the Japanese Wikipedia version has sources; the first one indicates that it was extended for six episodes because of its popularity. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The first two sources [1] show some notability. This needs to be looked into though, the main issue is third party coverage. It doesn't matter how notable a network is, we cant use all primary sources as it can also be seen as WP:PROMOTION. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Listed in Anime Encyclopedia [2] for third-party, among other related Time Bokan series, all of which have independent articles. Media Arts DB has a listing for the show, but no detail on episode titles. [3] and this book mentions a director on that show [4] It can be restructured to be like a season-level show under Time Bokan. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. References do not have to be inline citations. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 05:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junri Namigata[edit]

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

Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: you don't create an AfD just because the article is unreferenced. There are links at the bottom of the page as well as claims to notability in the article's text. Really poor show. Keep, because Namigata has played at Grand Slams as well as winning other notable tournaments. Jared Preston (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about living people are supposed to have proper references, and this hasn't got any.Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It was tagged for that just a couple of weeks ago. If in doubt, just google quickly. And see WP:NTENNIS. Jared Preston (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policies about living people apply irrespective of any claims to notability. I'm not suggesting Namigata is not notable. Articles about living people must be verifiable.Rathfelder (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating WP:BEFORE. If you're not suggesting she is not notable, then tag accordingly, or add some references yourself. Rather than AfD numerous notable tennis players due to their lack of references, ask for help at WT:TENNIS, it would save everyone a whole lot of stress and structural bureaucracy and could actually help articles to be written and sourced better in the future. Jared Preston (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I know nothing about tennis. But I do know that the policies around biographies apply just as much to tennis players as everyone else. I don't understand how these articles managed to evade initial scrutiny. Rathfelder (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With three grand slam appearances, she clearly meets the presumed notability requirements. I have started sourcing the article. Rathfelder, would you like to withdraw this nomination now? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley Horton[edit]

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

I can't find sources on how this person is notable enough beyond being in a Northern Arizona University hall of fame entry and winning the Joseph C. Rolle Award (itself lacking enough coverage perhaps). Alleged to have COI issues. TheGGoose (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also cannot find the sources to meet WP:GNG (he also meets neither WP:NHOOPS nor WP:NCOLLATH). I searched Newspapers.com wondering if he received significant coverage when he played, but all that came back were game summaries, which are expressly not useable to establish GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For someone who apparently had such an illustrious college basketball career, there is surprisingly little content available online. I came up with no mentions in reliable sources. Even if someone could produce some reliable sources, this page is a mess of OR and should be blown up anyways. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is the best and most I found aside from some passing links at Books and browser. Given this was a family personal page, there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement. Pinging taggers The-Pope and Eeekster. SwisterTwister talk 15:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Traboulsi[edit]

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

Requested by articles namesake on privacy grounds. Amortias (T)(C) 20:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question re "Requested by articles namesake on privacy grounds."
This is quite unclear.
@Amortias — is there no evidence of this from OTRS? Quis separabit? 13:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this came through an OTRS ticket. For those with access [5]. Amortias (T)(C) 19:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have access, but I believe you. Delete, therefore. Quis separabit? 21:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: even if the bit "Requested by articles namesake on privacy grounds." is unintelligible, there is no ground to assume notability here. --Denidi (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete questionably notable and not a must have article that is an apparent deletion request Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. References do not have to be inline citations. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 05:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

João Domingues[edit]

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

No sign of notability. Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Played for the Portugal Davis Cup team (see here). Notable per WP:NTENNIS. Jared Preston (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

articles about living people require references. As it stands it is not verifiable.Rathfelder (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a reference for his participation in the Davis Cup. Regards, SOAD KoRn (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SOAD KoRn: thank you! Rathfelder could have done the same, but obviously has some other game plan. Jared Preston (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no game plan at all. I am happy that someone who knows more about tennis than I do has stepped in.Rathfelder (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom hasn't even bothered searching for sources so thus BEFORE wasn't followed, No objections to renomination by anyone else (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MasterChef Canada (season 2)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Unreferenced. Rathfelder (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:BEFORE clearly hasn't been followed. Early closing this along with the many other AfD discussions started by the same nominator. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 05:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Le Coq[edit]

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

unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - then REFERENCE it..stop being lazy..always try to save or salvage articles before you nominate them for deletion..you did neither..--Ste moc 18:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

articles about living people require references. As it stands it is not verifiable.Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Le Coq has won a César Award (French equivalent to Academy Awards), therefore deletion is out of the question. If a ref is missing it is probably just the same amout of work (and less hassle for others) to add it. Inwind (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've told Rathfelder that "unreferenced" isn't a reason to take an article to AfD, as per WP:BEFORE. Stemoc and Inwind know what they're talking about, this discussion should be closed. Jared Preston (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 05:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Schipper[edit]

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

unreferenced. No evidence of notablity Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly notable. Passes WP:NCOLLATH, prong 2, inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame. Also one of the winningest college football coaches in history with 287 career wins and an .808 winning percentage. See List of college football coaches with 200 wins and List of college football coaches with a .750 winning percentage. Cbl62 (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a no-brainer. The statistics mentioned above are only relevant if they generate significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Statistics are not the equivalent of notability. That said, the subject coach was a member of the College Football Hall of Fame, which is clearly contemplated by the criteria of the specific notability guideline for college athletes and coaches per WP:NCOLLATH. Furthermore, the subject also arguably satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant coverage as described, e.g, CBS News. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep clearly notable, significantly exceeds requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. The lack of sources cited when the article was nominated is an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62 & Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Passes WP:GNG + WP:NCOLLATH. JTtheOG (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to keep the article now its got some references.Rathfelder (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. As noted below "Unreferenced" isn't anywhere near a valid reason for deletion, Clearly BEFORE wasn't followed. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Édith Scob[edit]

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

unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

referenced now. Inwind (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 09:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 09:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 09:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, unreferenced is not a valid reason for deletion, obvious lack of WP:BEFORE. Also obviously notable (two times César Award winner, among other things), passes WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. --Cavarrone 09:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for sad lack of WP:BEFORE. Notable awards meet WP:ANYBIO. Career meets WP:ENT. Coverage meets WP:GNG. It is really incredibly easy to quickly find coverage for this notable person. IE: The Guardian, NJ.com, Sydney Morning Herald, Les Inrocks (French), RTL (French), Ecran Noir {French), El Pais (French), and many, MANY more.[6][7][8]. I appreciate the nom having a great concern that the BLP was unsourced, but it would have been far better to do just a little work himself than to bring it to AFD to force it be done by others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

El Marino (online newspaper)[edit]

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

Article fails general notability guidelines and Internet notability guidelines. Most of the references are links to the El Marino webpage, so there is a lack of independent sources. The author of this article is also owner of this website, so is a clear case of self promotion (and COI). War ko ^talk 18:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I won't vote since I am related to the subject, however I think it passes the Internet notability guidelines. You are incorrect when saying most of the references are links to the website itself; 9 of 19 are, and there are some references that may be used, in the article's talk page, I think that should be enough, given that the criteria for similar websites (news sites) is not that high. The article is written in a neutral way, I don't see the problem. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient secondary source coverage independent of the subject is amply demonstrated already, as noted by Diego Grez-Cañete, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Want to try repairing the article? You've done that before. John Nagle (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This article is a WP:REFBOMB of local sources, brief mentions, and conflict of interest. Most of the sources are directly related to Diego Grez-Cañete who is the owner of this org and the creator of this Wikipedia article. The non-local sources are not about this website, and 2 are actually op-ed pieces written by Diego Grez-Cañete. Fails WP:GNG and is a gross violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:COI. Vrac (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 1st: Coi was disclosed long ago. 2nd: Refbomb is just an essay, and primary references only serve for things that haven't been covered elsewhere. 9 of 19 are related to the website, that is clearly stated before, I still don't see the problem, given that Wikpedia does not forbid people related to subjects from editing their articles, it is discouraged, but not prohibited, I haven't done anything wrong absolutely. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a Wikipedia article yourself, about something you own, sourced with stuff that you have written. A better question to ask yourself is what have you done right. Of course you don't see the problem, because you have a conflict of interest, which is why the WP:COI policy exists. Sources that are related to you and that you have written don't count. What's left? Vrac (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate you, I did not write these articles, except nine used for very specific things, that Wikipedia's policies permit anyway (WP:PRIMARY). Got a proof the non-El Marino sources are all written by me? Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all of the puntillazo references are op-eds by you, like this. Vrac (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is little independence of the subject from the sources. Pichilemu is a town of 13,000 inhabitants so obtaining a cross-refernece by another local newspaper is very easy if one has, as Diego do, a good network of contacts. Sietecolores (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Only speculation. Please WP:AGF Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you want us to believe you have no contact with other newspapers and journalist in your tiny town? Sietecolores (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local online-only newspaper of tiny village. Promotional article COI-created by the newspaper's editor. Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might qualify for speedy deletion as the recreation of an article deleted at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memoria Pichilemina. There is not sufficient independent coverage of either incarnation of this newspaper to meet notability. Fences&Windows 16:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. References do not have to be inline citations. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 05:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Nováček[edit]

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

unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and stop wasting everyone's time. Ranked #8 in the world at one time. It took me very little effort to reuse one of the three strong ext. links as a reference. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. "Unreferenced" is not a valid criterion for deletion. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 05:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Wilson Security Sandown 500[edit]

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

unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Sandown 500 is one of the most significant races on the V8 Supercar calendar each year, and articles exist for every race in the lineage of the event. Unreferenced - yes, but that can be fixed. Not notable - no. ^Kytabu _Talk 01:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. "Unreferenced" isn't a valid reason for deletion and BEFORE clearly wasn't followed. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of former TheCoolTV affiliates[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FullTimeDevils[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't an advertisement service, which this article reads as. Terrible sources which do not highlight notability RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party independent sources that are significantly ABOUT the subject. What we have here are short news articles that mention the site's content related to some sports news. I don't see anything substantial. LaMona (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does get some trivial mentions from reliable sources but nothing significant enough to pass WP:GNG although I'm happy to be proved otherwise. Spiderone 19:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG/WP:ORG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. there has been some minor coverage of a couple of episodes, but no real coverage on the channel as a whole. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. "Unreferenced" isn't a valid reason for deletion and BEFORE clearly wasn't followed. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana State University Athletic Hall of Fame[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Unreferenced. Rathfelder (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there were some independent sources the claim of notability would be more convincing.Rathfelder (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. "Unreferenced" isn't a valid reason for deletion and BEFORE clearly wasn't followed. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 Drexel Dragons men's basketball team[edit]

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

Unreferenced. No sign of notability Rathfelder (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSEASONS and the evidence that college sports seasons in basketball and football are proliferating and being kept encyclopedia-wide. Jacona (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:NSEASONS supports this being a stand-alone article. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Szolnoki Vízilabda SC[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems obviously notable, has won numerous national titles. Fenix down (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs references to demonstrate this.Rathfelder (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the links in this article to the seasons they one. There are sources there. Per WP:V statements need only be verifiable. The claims to notability are verifiable, the club is notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fenix down. Smartskaft (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They have won 7 Hungarian Championships, they play in LEN Champions League and their roster is world-class, full of Hungarian international players. Gtrbolivar (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom hasn't even bothered searching for sources so thus BEFORE wasn't followed, No objections to renomination by anyone else (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constellation Brands – Marvin Sands Performing Arts Center[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) – Previous name of the venue. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If not independently notable, this could be selectively merged to Hopewell, New York, which presently only mentions the venue. This would improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom hasn't even bothered searching for sources so thus BEFORE wasn't followed, No objections to renomination by anyone else (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juichi Wakisaka[edit]

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

unreferenced biography Rathfelder (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Unreferenced biography" is not a sufficient reason to nominate something for deletion. As WP:NRVE states, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." As WP:BEFORE states, it is the responsibility of the nominator to check if there are sources before nominating. A simple Google search finds that he is in some major motorsports databases: [9], [10]. And has articles on his victories in English ([11], [12], [13], etc.) as well as many more in Japanese ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], etc.). I do not know motorsports, so I don't know for sure whether he passes either 1 or 3 of WP:NMOTORSPORT or both, but given that one of the news articles I found above says that Super GT is the most popular racing circuit in Japan, his championships probably count. Michitaro (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question of notability. The policy is very clear: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article." Biographies of living persons without sources are not allowed.Rathfelder (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it was not a question of notability, you should have done this through WP:BLPPROD, but you can't because you can't use BLPPROD when there is even one external link that confirms some of the information in the article. This article does have such a link, to the Speedsport magazine database. Even the quote you give here is not applicable. It only says to delete contentious material, not entire articles. Is there anything contentious here? Instead of diverting the discussion, can you offer any arguments other than "unreferenced biography" to propose deletion. I've just added one reference, so if you cannot, please withdraw the nomination. Michitaro (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no objective test of whether material is contentious. The question is whether it is verifiable, and I don't see that a reference to a database constitutes verification. The assertions in the article should be backed up by references. WP:BLPPROD does not apply to articles published before the institution of the new policy in 2010 and it must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. I have no desire to see the article deleted. I would like to see it improved. Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject appears to be notable, and the article is (minimally) sourced, so there is no valid reason for deletion. --DAJF (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle cooperative[edit]

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

This page contains original research, ambiguously defines a category of retail establishment, and has failed to prove its notability. I would like to see it deleted. Keithonearth (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would support if RS could be found, but I don't find them. Although bike shops of this type are a good thing, it doesn't appear that they have yet become an encyclopedic thing. With better sources, this article could stand. LaMona (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's one of these in my area - it's called the Bike Hub. Given that these enterprises go by a variety of names, searching for sources is not straightforward but it's not that difficult - see The Guardian, for example. Note that there may be historical and foreign language sources too. The German Rad- und Kraftfahrerbund Solidarität had over 300,000 members including a bicycle factory organised as a co-op. Andrew D. (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the Bike Hub in North Van? There are a couple of similar bike shops in my area too. Neither are co-ops -- though are often refereed to as such. Similarly, shops I've worked in have refereed to themselves by the term "community bike shop", despite not offering services like the article states they should offer, while other shops I've worked in just identified as a regular bike shop, but offered tools and work space for customers. The term is ambiguous, and the concept is ill defined, and inherently nebulous, making clear definition impossible. The problems with the article are long standing and haven't been repaired. Even if I'm mistaken about the impossibility to have a coherent definition, there is nothing in the article worth saving. Please reconsider. --Keithonearth (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we need are third-party sources. The guardian article is ok, but just ok, since it's a blog post. We need something that shows that bike cooperatives as a whole have been written about in a reliable source. LaMona (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok is ok. For such a topic, it is easy to find more sources; it is just a matter of looking. For another example, see Bicycle Times. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit. Passes WP:GNG. Sources abound, which include, but is not limited to [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Community bike shop to sidestep co-op dispute. Robina Fox (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable subject. 'The Next American City' article in the further reading section is significant coverage in a reliable source of the general concept, and there are many RS articles covering specific cooperatives/community shops that have some broader information about the concept.Dialectric (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fantom (programming language)[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Virtually all the sources offered are WP:PRIMARY and do not contribute to notability. None of the rest are sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. The best source is probably the Dulce article, Scala, Haskell and Fantom Programming Language on scribd.com and docslide but there's no indication this was ever published in a reliable source. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep So the sources as presently composed do not seem to support inclusion requirements for verifiability, reliability, notability,etc. That said, there seems to be at least 1 academic paper that may discuss it in more than passing (for those with academic access, it's behind the ACM paywall). There are also three articles about it that I would consider at the very least editorially independent, if not notable themselves. While I would never hold the software category overall to this standard, there does appear to be a book about it coming out, which could settle the debate. Overall, it's not a strong case, and very possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. There a short subsection on Fantom in the Related Work section of http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2481268.2481278, but that paper is itself uncited. —Ruud 18:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:02, 25 October 2015 (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/2015 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete - non-notable advertisement. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The InfoWorld article and the Dr. Dobb's article are independent, reliable secondary sources in publications that have been around since the 1970's. I can't see all of the SD Times article, but it too appears to be analyzing and comparing the language. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dobbs article is by the author of the language, making it WP:PRIMARY and thus unhelpful in establishing notability. The InfoWorld article is helpful but barely. I think we still need at least one more good (hopefully, better) source. Msnicki (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another Dr. Dobb's article to the page: "Top five scripting languages on the JVM: Groovy and JRuby lead a strong field, with Scala, Fantom, and Jython following behind". StarryGrandma (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those sources StarryGrandma. This may have been a borderline keep in 2011, but the fact there are no sources outside late-2010/early-2011 indicates this language failed to make any lasting historical impact. —Ruud 10:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That I speculate that this article may have been kept in a hypothetical deletion discussion occurring in 2011, does not mean that I claim that this language has at any point in time been the subject of the "significant coverage" that would confer it eternal notability. It's just an empirical observation that we tend to employ a healthy dose of recentism when assessing what counts as significant coverage and what does not. And as the paragraphs following those you quoted explain, that assessment can change over time. —Ruud 20:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now maybe as although the sourcing could be better here and I was going to suggest drafting and userfying. Pinging familiar user Czar. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. References do not have to be inline citations. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 05:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Maršíková[edit]

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

unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Tales of Alvin Maker. czar 23:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Master Alvin[edit]

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

does not meet WP:NBOOK, non-existent book which has been proposed for around 8 years but never written. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the relevant series article, The Tales of Alvin Maker. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persenche[edit]

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

Expired PROD. Concern was "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Eeekster (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Eeekster, was it expired or was it contested? If it was an expired PROD then it can just be deleted as such but if it was contested that's a different thing entirely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, as the history shows, it was prodded by Bgwhite and the tag removed the next day so it was contested, yes. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely or at least mention elsewhere as these articles are generally useful and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Usually don't have articles for "minor" colors. Merge to Shades of blue or Shades of violet if appropriate. Note all the other "minor" colors listed in those articles. Bgwhite (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only 339 Google results total. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The hyacinth page can list this slight color variation along with the others (including a visual representation, if need be). But it is not significant enough for a stand-alone article. Senator2029 “Talk” 04:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armorik[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) There aren't enough known reviews collected for this subject to write a meaningful article. It didn't have a single mention in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets (no list of Infogrames games). If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 14:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 15:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: If you look for "Armorik the Viking" you will find a lot of reviews of this game in almost every abandonware gaming website, either English, French or Russian. Other than those cited in the article, give a look to this: http://www.legendsworld.net/AdventureLegends/1988.htm#9118 http://www.old-games.ru/game/2877.html http://www.uvlist.net/it/game-207121-Les+8+Conquetes+dArmorik+le+Viking

Maybe it's not the most famous games ever, but it's prboably the oldest game (maybe even the first) from Infogrames, a company which just a few years later rose to celebrity with the famous "Alone in the Dark", so it's worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daimyo2 (talk • contribs)

Those abandonware sites are unreliable. We only use reviews from reliable sources. You can find a list of vetted video game sources here. czar 12:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of good coverage Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jumbleme (digital encryption service)[edit]

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

Email encryption company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Not sure how it made it through AFC, but was PRODed and refunded. Website now redirects to one that sells Twitter followers. Fuebaey (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and I would've notified the AfC accepting user and the PRODder but they seem to have since retired, my searches found links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam though not much so there's likely not much for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than a few brief mentions at News, Books and Highbeam, absolutely no in-depth coverage. Add to that the promotional tone of the article and it's a clear delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 12:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UD Alzira[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played in the 2nd division and the national Cup competition - that is notable for a football team. Giant Snowman 16:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (edit conflict) As per WP:FOOTYN, clubs which have played in the national cup are assumed to meet WP:N. UD Alzira competed in the 2008–09 Copa del Rey. This article definitely requires improvement. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in a national cup competition; the article needs improving, not deleting. Spiderone 20:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - cup ... WP:FOOTYN. Nfitz (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Los Angeles (Scott Weiland album)[edit]

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

Non notable album that was never released. Koala15 (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally I would say Redirect to artist article per WP:AFDP#Music until the notability guideline for recordings is met and an article can be written, but looking into sources it appears to be correct that the album was planned but never released. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as above Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Trudeau (businessman)[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable primarily as the father and grandfather of more notable people (oh, just you guess). While there are marginal hints of an independent notability claim as a businessman, they aren't really substantive enough or reliably sourced enough to get over our inclusion rules for businesspeople — they amount to his being a shareholder in a few companies, and are sourced entirely to passing mentions in coverage of his son rather than to any substantive coverage of him. The only source here which, judging by the "1951" tag in the URL, might have been actually about him is a deadlink, incompletely cited and thus impossible to verify or retrieve whatever it was, to a document hosted inside a non-notable blogger's WordPress storage bin in likely defiance of WP:COPYVIO. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so having famous spawn doesn't give him an inclusion freebie — to qualify for an article of his own, he has to actually get over our inclusion rules on his own achievements and his own sourcing independently of his notable descendants. A prior discussion in 2006 leaned strongly toward merging this somewhere instead of leaving it as a standalone biography — but the merger simply never happened, as there wasn't a clear consensus established about where to merge it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pierre Trudeau's article or simply delete as I see nothing obviously better. Pinging Porturology, Martinp, GrantNeufeld, Samir, Peter Grey, JzG and Siva1979. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom's argument. Young Trudeau by the Nemnis and Citizen of the World by English both have info about Charles Trudeau, the former very little, and could serve as reliable sources, but neither offers any additional info to confer notability beyond that conferred upon him by his scions. The little content herein could be merged into the beginning of Pierre Trudeau but just as well could be deleted. Thanks for pinging me -- Samir 05:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Collect's point on NYT articles prior to PET being famous is compelling -- Samir 22:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy enough for several NYT mentions well before Pierre was noteworthy. [31] owned a baseball farm team noted in NYT. [32] noted figure in Canadian baseball history. Is the "side stuff" about Pierre important to his basic notability? No. The baseball and other factors are sufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG. Collect (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. In French, he's also cited as a propononent of Borduas, of all things, in in this book, and of course he owned the Champlain gas station chain. A true renaissance man! 14:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment, @Samir: mentions two books about Charles's son, Pierre, saying that while they "both have info about Charles", they don't have enough to establish notability.
Hmmm. I have two concerns with this dismissal.
First, there have been far more than two books written about PET. It wouldn't surprise me if there were hundreds. If Charles had led an uneventful life I'd expect all these books to cover the same small handful of details about him. But everything I have read suggests he too led an eventful life. Pierre is reported to have grown up in awe of him. So, I expect if were to go to a large library, where I could check the indices of a dozen books, or a couple of dozen books, I would find that the authors of those books selected different notable events from Charles's life, when they covered how he influenced his son.
Second, if Samir is relying on google books, we have to remember that few recent books let online readers read more than a fraction of books they haven't paid for. For all Samir and I know, in the parts that google books won't allow us to read, there is even more information about Charles. Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much Geo. The two books on PE Trudeau that I referenced are two of the few biographies that deal only with PET's early life, and consequently are resources that would have high yield in biographical information regarding his father when compared to other biographies, or the 100s of other books. I have both on Kindle along with several other books on PET, but admittedly just re-read the early sections -- Samir 22:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, Collect's points are compelling -- Samir 22:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is nothing in our policy that calls upon us to argue for keeping articles when our tools show people are reading them.
There has been a big spike in readership of all the articles of everyone related to new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Our tools show the article on Charles Trudau was read 21366 times mainly since his grandson's election. Justin's stats [33], and his wife's stats show the same curve, but 100 times and 10 times the readership. 1708 people read Charles's article in September [34].
So, people have been reading this article. Geo Swan (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above I too think Charles Trudeau would meet our notability criteria, even if he didn't have a son who became notable. Geo Swan (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can remember as a child being driven by the Trudeau family home on Cote-Ste-Catherine Road and Pierre's father was definitely a notable figure, in his own right, to my ears. His ownership of the Champlain gas chain (which doesn't have a Wiki article) and his involvement in the Montreal Royals was certainly high-profile. But of course none of that actually means a whit in an Afd. There has got to have been coverage of Charles in francophone newspapers of the day, yet I can't find those archives on line. And I see he doesn't even have a French Wikipedia article. So while I do believe he was notable, I can't cast a !vote. Just wanted to say why. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pour vous: L'Action universitaire, Volumes 1-2 Université de Montréal., 1935. Collect (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: his death made the front page of Le Devoir, on April 11, in a story running almost the entire length of the cover page. The only way to find it was to go into Google's News Paper archive and browse, as you would microfiche. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've added the feature story in La Patrie, on April 11 (see page 14). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I've added this Montreal Gazette cover story, "J.C.E. Trudeau dies in Florida: French Canada Loses Prominent Businessman," which continues on page 10, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, La Presse doesn't seem to have its 1935 issues online, and L'action catholique is missing the April 11 issue. But with major coverage of his death in the three cited dailies above, I do believe this easily meets WP:GNG. He was according to reliable sources a notable French Canadian lawyer, businessperson, philanthropist and sports owner in his day, and I wonder if Bearcat would consider withdrawing this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I should also emphasize that I chose April 11 1935 to browse likely newspapers, simply because it was one day after his death and I was confident I would find coverage. But this is certainly not a case of WP:BLP1E. The scope of his achievements outlined in the three cited articles clearly suggest notability in life as well as death. If we had had a way to search instead of manually browse, it would make this that much easier. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh and finally, I expanded a little based on the Gazette, Patrie and Devoir articles. But these are long pieces and there's much more info that could be added or at least referenced. And BTW, Le Devoir said he had three kids, not four - unless one had died? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was significant enough in 1935 -- long before PET became PM -- that his death was front-page news in multiple publications. If he was notable in 1935, he is notable today per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 16:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I see the Quebec government's "BANQ" digital database has a lot more Montreal dailies online, here. Unfortunately, one needs Flash in order to be able to view papers and I just don't want to download it onto this brand new Mac but one can add more major page coverage of Trudeau on or around April 11, 1935. I may do so, when I get access to a PC or browser with Flash installed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, but I suggest removing Joseph from the title since few seemed to call him that. (Joseph isn't in the title Pierre Trudeau, though that was PET's first given name.) Ribbet32 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wanted to disambiguate naturally, per WP:NCPDAB. And I saw that Gazette, La Patrie and Le Devoir all actually called him that, so I added "Joseph." No one ever called Pierre Trudeau 'Joseph Pierre' indeed, but every daily paper I could find for April 11 called him J.C.E. I don't mind if someone wants to move the article again. We have enough ways to precisely name the article without resorting to a parethentical, that's for sure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the way things work anymore, but the naming tradition among francophones in Quebec used to be that a child was almost always given a triple-barrelled hyphenated name: first part always "Joseph" for a boy or "Marie" for a girl, second part the common name of the appropriately-gendered godparent, third part the name that the child would actually be known by in real daily life (the only variation from this was that if Joseph or Marie was the godparent's name and/or the name you were actually choosing as the child's daily name, then you could skip the reduplication.) Another noteworthy example is Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien, obviously (and logically, once you know how the naming rule worked) far better known as Jean. We do still have some stragglers where an article was erroneously created at "Joseph/Marie-B-C Surname", and there were certainly also some people who used the B name and/or weren't actually named in that tradition at all — but for WP:COMMONNAME reasons the correct title for a francophone from Quebec in that era, if they have a hyphenated compound given name beginning with Joseph or Marie, is indeed almost always to elide the Joseph/Marie part and usually though not always the B name as well. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to see some additional sourcing improvement, because there's still a little too much of the "passing mentions in coverage of his son and grandson" type of "coverage" for my liking, but it's not resting exclusively on that class of sourcing anymore. So consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubi spring[edit]

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

Suspicious article. I searched for evidence that this plant actually exists, and can not find any. Antrocent (♫♬) 14:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find evidence of its existence either, and the medical claims are very suspicious. /wia /tlk /cntrb 15:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as obvious hoax. ubi is Malay/Indonesian for yam; the SPA that created this is called "Springyam", so knows what ubi is in English, but has left scattered words of Malay/etc in the mistranslation. (pengetulan for example, is just something that neither wiktionary nor google translate knows.) Compare the paragraph beginning "Medical" with this Google translation:

MEDICAL A study of ubi spring is showing that it has a high steroid that is important in the production of drugs and hormones which joined the sugar known as saponins that may prevent platelets in the blood pengetulan. (WP article)

"The study on the potato indicate where it has a high steroid that is income-ubatan important in medicine and were joined by sugar hormone known as saponins that may prevent platelets in the blood pengetulan." (blog translation)

This comes from a blog, here: [35]

"Kajian terhadap ubi tersebut menunjukkan bahawa ia mempunyai steroid tinggi iaitu penghasilan penting dalam ubat-ubatan dan hormon yang bergabung dengan gula dikenal sebagai saponin yang boleh menghalang pengetulan platelet dalam darah."

I think these are fairly clearly the same claim, so guess this simply refers to the yam. It is not our job to trawl the literature in Malay trying to work out if there is anything more there.

So instant delete, I suggest. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete title is a botched translation of a Malay common name for a plant, apparently Dioscorea hispida (the scientific name appearing in the blog identified by Imaginatorium). Wikipedia could use an article on D. hispida, but there doesn't seem to be anything worth salvaging in "ubi spring", and a partial translation of the Malay name isn't an appropriate redirect. See here for Malay names for D. hispida; maybe some of them translate to "spring yam"? Plantdrew (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ewa Brodnicka[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if the person had been notable, the article is a one-liner and can hardly be qualified as one. Pixarh (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX and the article's only source is a link to her boxing record which is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forest FM[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches did not turn up anything to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding anything in the way of WP:RS offering significant coverage; hence the GNG problem. /wia /tlk /cntrb 15:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. JugniSQ (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a long list of UK community radio stations here, more than 50% of them have WP articles; is it the intention to delete them all? Broadcasting for nearly 10 years is notable in itself in the shifting sands of the radio scene. Deletion of the article has been assumed, there has been some presumptive editing and delinking Forest FM from other articles has already been carried out; is there an agenda here? If this was a small US station in a remote rural area this would not be am issue. Keomike (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that even existed but I disagree - If it was a notable station it should have much better coverage than what it has, Nope I admit I did delink Forrest FM from all articles but if it turns out this station is notable I will manually reinstate the link on every single article, There is no agenda .... I'm from the UK ?, and if this was a US station It would be here too, I don't nominate based on countries, I nominate based on notability (or the lack of!), Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 17:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another measure should be interest in the article itself. Wikipedia article traffic statistics - Forest_FM has been viewed 316 times in the last 90 days. Not One Direction traffic but still 1250 disappointed searchers per annum. However consensus is the guide. Keomike (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page views mean absolutely nothing .... , There is no consensus inregards to Radio stations ... either they're notable and are kept ... Or like this station they're non-notable and usually get deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P-Funk[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I could tell immediately that the nomination of trad jazz was absurd but I'd not heard of of P-Funk. But a search soon finds a book on the topic: George Clinton & The Cosmic Odyssey of the P-Funk Empire and so there's obviously something to this. This deletion spree doesn't seem to have done due diligence and AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pretty much all of these articles have been lying dormant for years. Some of them may end up being notable after a deep Google search, but it is a case-by-case basis. Wikipedia cannot just assume an article is notable because it has existed here for many years. It needs concrete sources and information. FWIW, you are right, AFD isn't a cleanup. But it does help your argument.--Coin945 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep the nom just went on a massive drive-by afd splurge, did zero background work. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament-Funkadelic[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article on a music collective may be long, but has insufficient sourcing which indicates it is not notable.--Coin945 (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Coin945 (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the nom just went on a massive drive-by afd splurge, did zero background work. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go-go[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deep funk[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonky pop[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish pop music[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This theoretically "could" be notable, but the current article in an indiscrete list of various pop artists fron Turkey, with minimal sourcing, and very little reasoning behind these people being collected into one article. Coin945 (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vispop[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sophisti-pop[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is well sourced. Why is this even being considered for deletion?--SabreBD (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are only actually two "sources". One from AllMusic, and something from Stylus: The Bluffer's Guide. Not sure of the notability of this publication.--Coin945 (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine pop[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Beautiful music, Furniture music, P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trad jazz[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Dubious nomination which doesn't offer a scrap of evidence or the vaguest of waves at policy. Here's an accessible paper which discusses the topic in detail. Andrew D. (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did the nominator attempt a WP:BEFORE check on this? For example use of Google Books? Gatling gun multiple nominations in a single minute suggest not, and just leave mess for others to follow-up. AllyD (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for engaging in this discussion. The article was created in 2004 and after 9 years has merely one citation... and that could hardly be called adequate sourcing. Wikipedia's coverage of music genres has been bad for a very long time (with many-a-bad article; I have even found a few that seem to have been created just to advertise a certain band that claimed to create a certain genre), and in this instance a keep may be justified, but it is a case by case basis. I am very glad that we have found sources to justify this particular article's retention on Wikipedia and hope to see the sources put to good use, rather than just bringing them out to save the article then leaving it in its current state for another 9 years...--Coin945 (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third stream[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Did the nominator attempt a WP:BEFORE check on this? For example use of Google Books? Or even look at the Britannica link on the page itself? Multiple nominations in a single minute suggest not, and just leave mess for others to follow-up. AllyD (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shibuya-kei[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Straight-ahead jazz[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Beautiful music, P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Livetronica[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austropop[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ska jazz[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncy techno[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the nom just went on a massive drive-by afd splurge, did zero background work. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabber[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite clearly notable. Did the nom read WP:BEFORE? Here's a ton of sources to help you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the nom just went on a massive drive-by afd splurge, did zero background work. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freak folk[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sung poetry[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiplife[edit]

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

Dubious music genre. Not improved much if at all since 2005 AFD. Coin945 (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hip house[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbia rap[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo Flava[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Low Bap[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Beautiful music, P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz rap[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cape jazz[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free funk[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal techno[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per evident idiocy. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refrain from using insults and instead let's discuss the notability of the article at hand.--Coin945 (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie (genre)[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the nom just went on a massive drive-by afd splurge, did zero background work. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skweee[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nu jazz[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghettotech[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore hip hop[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nortec[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious music genre. Coin945 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase (music)[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Debious music genre article Coin945 (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK funky[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2015 (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/2015 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark ambient[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No deletion rationale based on a policy has been presented. The article itself is clearly notable and sourced too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may potentially be notable, but the actual sources currently used in the article are not convincing. Three are dead links. 2 link to blogs. 2 seem okay, and then one links to a music interview where the artist is described as "dark ambient" without any explanation to what it actually is.

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid funk[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedcore[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andrew D. (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Neither is WP:ILIKEIT for inclusion. This makes me quesiton the validity of your Speedy Keeps on the other AFDs... Hmmmm...--Coin945 (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electro swing[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4-beat[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardstep[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tecno brega[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nu skool breaks[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broken beat[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breakbeat[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Beautiful music, Furniture music, P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the nom just went on a massive drive-by afd splurge, did zero background work. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big beat[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep known as such in many languages Zezen (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the nom just went on a massive drive-by afd splurge, did zero background work. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dance-rock[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article (as well as the other two articles mentioned above) are well sourced. Dance-rock genre is also documented in various music publishings (such as Spin, Allmusic, PopMatters, Rolling Stone, etc.) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indie folk[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpstyle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 19:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful music[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources.--SabreBD (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabrebd, I can't speedy close this discussion unless you retract your delete !vote. Do you still have a case for deletion considering the below and nom withdrawal? czar 16:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn--SabreBD (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator and !voter above clearly have no clue about the topic and haven't made the slightest effort to find out. Please see The Concise Encyclopedia of American Radio which explains this was a well-recognised category in the 1950s and 1960s. All the nominations in this deletion spree that I've checked seem like this. Andrew D. (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator music[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Beautiful music, P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture music[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources of any kind.--SabreBD (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabrebd, I can't speedy close this discussion unless you retract your delete !vote. Do you still have a case for deletion considering the below and nom withdrawal? czar 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it withdrawn.--SabreBD (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not so much a genre in the sense of the many other nominations today, more a conceptual term under which Erik Satie placed several compositions designated for a special usage. Anyway, while the article can clearly be improved, that is not the purpose of AfD and a Google Books search turns up various books immediately indicating its influence. AllyD (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can it be improved? Sourcing trumps speculation any day.--Coin945 (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per AllyD's sensible observations and the evidence from Beautiful music, P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As previous discussed, each AFD should be taken on a case-by-case basis. While some of these music genres may turn out to have sufficient sourcing after a deep Google search, that does not mean a Speedy Keep vote is justified for every other nomination.--Coin945 (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes but it is fundamentally each AfD nomination which should be prepared on a case-by-case basis. It is simply not possible to complete WP:BEFORE due diligence on 8 articles in the space of one minute. AllyD (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep the nom just went on a massive drive-by afd splurge, did zero background work. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardstyle[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Beautiful music, Furniture music, P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have previously discussed @Andrew Davidson: on other AFDs that saying "per [other article]" is not sufficient. Demonstrate the notability of "this" article.--Coin945 (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardstyle is referenced in numerous books such as Keyboard For Dummies. None of these nominations seem to stand close inspection and there's far too many of them. Per WP:BEFORE, the nominator is expected to do the initial work of evaluation. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis blues[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Louis blues (music)

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

Just one of many music genre articles on Wikipedia that have gone unsourced and that have dubious notability. This reads like a list of blues musicians from St. Louis without explaining what makes this a distinctive genre. Coin945 (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2015 (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/2015 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs. Also, I apparently linked the wrong article accidentally. Thanks for picking up on that @AllyD:.--Coin945 (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination is pointing to an article on an ice hockey team rather than its intended target at St. Louis blues (music). AllyD (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep AllyD's observation indicates that, per WP:SK, this spree is "so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question." Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classic country[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep One of a large batch of nominations made without competence or due diligence. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a bit shocked to see this one on a deletion list. Yeah, the article needs improvement, but there are entire books written about the idea of a classic county genre.Jacqke (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neotraditional country[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep One of a large batch of nominations made without competence or due diligence. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Música sertaneja[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep One of a large batch of nominations made without competence or due diligence. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dansband[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep One of a large batch of nominations made without competence or due diligence. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville sound[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep One of a large batch of nominations made without competence or due diligence. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chutney music[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep One of a large batch of nominations made without competence or due diligence. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rasin[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Also, "Chicago Tribune" source isn't actually Chicago Tribune. Coin945 (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep One of a large batch of nominations made without competence or due diligence. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bouyon music[edit]

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

Those stylistic origins and derivatives sections never seem to be sourced. Anyway, that's a side-problem to the fact that this "genre" doesn't appear to be satisfactorily sourced and is another one of those millions of music genre articles here that are not supported by the literature. Coin945 (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep One of a large batch of nominations made without competence or due diligence. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis blues[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Louis blues (music)

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

Just one of many music genre articles on Wikipedia that have gone unsourced and that have dubious notability. This reads like a list of blues musicians from St. Louis without explaining what makes this a distinctive genre. Coin945 (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2015 (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/2015 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs. Also, I apparently linked the wrong article accidentally. Thanks for picking up on that @AllyD:.--Coin945 (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination is pointing to an article on an ice hockey team rather than its intended target at St. Louis blues (music). AllyD (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep AllyD's observation indicates that, per WP:SK, this spree is "so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question." Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Texas blues[edit]

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

Just one of many music genre articles on Wikipedia that have gone unsourced and that have dubious notability. This reads like a list of blues musicians from St. Louis without explaining what makes this a distinctive genre. Coin945 (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep One of a large batch of nominations made without competence or due diligence. In this case, there seems to be especial confusion between Texas, St Louis (and ice hockey!?) Andrew D. (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel blues[edit]

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

One of many music genre articles with no sources and dubious notability. Coin945 (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep One of a large batch of nominations made without competence or due diligence. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit blues[edit]

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

One of many music genre articles with no sources and dubious notability. Coin945 (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep One of many nominations made without competence or due diligence. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 16:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Composition school[edit]

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

No sources. One in a series of music-related articles I'm nominating due to existing on Wikipedia for years despite highly questionable notability. Coin945 (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If we take GEOLAND to be the valid guideline for this article, then only criterion 2 applies: Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG (my emphasis). Whether the place exists or not is immaterial; if there’s sufficient reliable sources that talk about it as a concept or an actual place, then it passes the GNG. I don’t see why WP:USCITIES applies as it’s not an incorporated place. Besides, that’s a style guide, not a notability guideline.

This then means that it’s simply a question of whether the sources provided are reliable. Whether the place exists or not is immaterial; if there’s sufficient reliable sources then it passes the GNG. The article has four sources that talk about the concept or plan of Bellevue in great detail, and they certainly seem to be reliable. AfD precedence would easily say four is plenty of sources for the GNG. Ged UK 14:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bellevue, Mississippi[edit]

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

This place does not yet exist. It has no listing on GNIS, and media articles describe it as a "proposed city". It appears to be someplace around this location: 31°18′36″N 89°30′00″W / 31.309906°N 89.500093°W / 31.309906; -89.500093. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 05:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, is a proposed city lesser than the thousands of unincorporated communities that will never be cities? I hardly see any reason to say that this place "doesn't exist" - it obviously does, and it's got a name now. Even if incorporation fails, this name will almost certainly be remembered and used for this place, and will very likely become a census designated place. I hardly think it's absence from infrequently updated databases tells us much. There's a lot of good reasons why populated places are assumed notable. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Magnolia is correct about the location. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a reliable source (eg. census data or other US government source) to support the existence of "Bellevue, Mississippi" as a federally-recognized "place", be it a city, town, hamlet, unincorporated community, or post office? I wasn't able to find any source to support its existence, and even GNIS (the online database for the U.S. Department of the Interior) doesn't recognize it. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Who cares? Why should it matter? What about the various countries in the world that don't have an organized system of placenames? Seriously, the standard is reliable third-party sources, not listings in particular databases. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It matters because having multiple reliable third party references is what qualifies a place for an article, lacking one of the automatic qualifiers, that being a post office at some time, or listing in the GNIS. Every place that may be or wants to be does not get an article. Wikipedia would be overrun with real estate development articles if it did. What is needed are reliable sources that state it exists, not that it may exist or some folks want it to exist. See WP:GEOLAND. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, there's a huge difference between a real estate development and a city attempting to incorporate. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Searching via the handy links above turned up about a half dozen local articles about the politics surrounding the possible incorporation of this place. None, nada, discussing its existence. Never mind the basis of most deletion discussions, notability, which isn't here either; this fails what is probably our most basic policy, verifiability. If this is incorrect, Oiyarbepsy, by all means produce some reliable sources that verify that. But to be honest, your WP:ILIKEIT arguments are getting boreing. Cite some sources, base some arguement in policy, or please stop wasting our time. --John from Idegon (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It also is not on the official Mississippi state highway map.--John from Idegon (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to be a legitimate name for an unincorporated area which doesn't overlap another name. The incorporation effort has been going on long enough that it will be notable even if it does not succeed. If you look at this 1965 USGS Hattieburg SW map here [36], the community appears to be located near where the Bellevue Church is indicated. And this article [37] appears to show a picture of a Bellevue highway sign.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first article cited doesn't even mention Bellevue. The second article is about Bellevue, the city that doesn't yet exist. If the article is deleted, it can always be re-created once Bellevue becomes a real place. Likewise, Bellevue may be notable due to its frequent mention in reliable sources (like Atlantis), though I doubt there are enough sources to take this article to that point, and it won't be listed as a "place". Magnolia677 (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a notable community place name in the Hattiesburg area, in a growing section of that metropolitan area. As I noted, the one article shows a highway sign for Bellevue. Other articles refer to the existing community of that name.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the photo in the article found by Milowent shows an official highway sign, then the place officially exists which is all that is needed for a populated place to pass WP:GEOLAND. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:GEOLAND does it say that? Also, where was the photo taken? It looks like a Photoshop picture made for the article cited. Because there is so little to prove this place exists, surely the "official highway sign" would be visible in Google streetview. What are the geo-coordinates of this sign (for a place that doesn't even appear on Google maps)? Magnolia677 (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can give reasonable proof that the sign is a fake in regard to this community, I will withdraw my !vote. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The photo credits show it was taken by a photographer employed by the Hattiesburg American. I am sorry Magnolia, but you are simply ignoring the actual available sourcing showing that a "Bellevue" community currently exists; there is also a proposal to incorporate a city for an area greater than, but including, that community.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding link to WHLT article, [38], "For years the Bellevue area has identified itself as a community within Lamar County. Now a group is looking to make Bellevue the Pine Belt’s newest city."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You stated: "if the photo in the article...shows an official highway sign, then the place officially exists which is all that is needed for a populated place to pass WP:GEOLAND". Again, where in WP:GEOLAND does it state this? Magnolia677 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable". Are you saying that being legally (it's by definition illegal per the highway department to put up a fake sign) recognized fails WP:GEOLAND? Please explain. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Every article written about "Bellevue, Mississippi" acknowledges that this place does not yet exit; it is a "future city". Even the website for the "City of Bellevue" calls it "the future City of Bellevue", and that website also includes a link to a petition to create this city and "the name of the municipal corporation shall be City of Bellevue, Mississippi".

"Bellevue, Mississippi" is not found on the state map, on Google maps, or on topographic maps, and it is not listed in GNIS (which already lists over 50 places in the United States called "Bellevue"). It is not listed with the United States Census Bureau, and "Bellevue, Mississippi" is not found on any federal or state record.

User:Milowent has stated that this photo of a sign for "Bellevue" validates the existence of this place according to WP:GEOLAND. This random photo was included in this article which also described "a push to create the City of Bellevue". Inquiries about the location of this sign were deflected. Could it be here, in Bellvue, Colorado? Or was it taken here, in Bellevue, Texas?

If Bellevue, Mississippi does indeed exist, provide some proof besides a random road sign and bunch of articles that each state this place doesn't yet exist. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath, friend! A photographer for the Hattieburg American did not fly to other Bellevues to take this picture to defeat your AfD nomination. I noted earlier that a Bellevue Church exists at the main intersection of the proposed city does appear on a 1960s USGS map. "Every article written about "Bellevue, Mississippi" acknowledges that this place does not yet exist" Wrong; it is an existing unincorporated community, there are at least 20 articles that could be cited to show this. Businesses don't move [39] to imaginary places.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Twitter nor a road sign are the reliable, published sources required to show notability. And again, per geoland, without incorporation, some official recognition is required. A sign (there is nothing to indicate it is any sort of official sign, but even assuming it is.....) is not official recognition. By that logic, every DNR boat ramp should have an article, as they are officially recognized by a sign. Neighborhoods, which is the best you can argue this is, are taken on a case by case basis. This one is TOOSOON. John from Idegon (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND never uses the words incorporated or unincorporated. Places recognized by the state as unincorporated are by definition legally recognized. Many unincorporates have their own zip code and post office. This appears to be a legally recognized unincorporate on a highway significant enough to have road signs for the community. Its incorporation status is utterly beside the point. What we know from the sources is that this unincorporate is working hard to become a corporate. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a GNIS listing for Bellvue Cemetery (note spelling variation). A published reference is included therein: Slade, Leonard L., Sr. Lamar County Heritage. Baltimore, Md. Gateway Press, 1978. p11. That should satisfy the call for a reliable source. Woodlot (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fails WP:GEOLAND, which states that "populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable". Bellevue, Mississippi is not found on the state map, on Google maps, or on topographic maps. It is not listed in GNIS (which already lists over 50 places in the United States called "Bellevue"); it is not recognized by the US Census Bureau; and is not found on any federal or state record. A search of the Forrest County official website yields only this.

Furthermore, there is no historical mention of this place "Bellevue" (or "Bellvue") in any authoritative texts about Mississippi history, including Dunbar Rowland's Mississippi: Comprising Sketches of Counties, Towns, Events, Institutions, and Persons, Arranged in Cyclopedic Form, or Goodspeed's Biographical and Historical Memoirs of Mississippi. In Mississippi: The WPA Guide to the Magnolia State, a plantation called Bellevue is mentioned here, though it is several hundred miles north in Madison County. That same Bellevue is also the only result when searching the Mississippi Digital Library. A search of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History yields nothing about this putative settlement.

WP:GEOLAND also states that "populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include...unofficial neighborhoods". Reliable sources each state that this neighborhood does not yet exist; it is a proposed settlement. The website for Bellevue calls it "the future City of Bellevue". That same website also includes a link to a petition "to create this city" and "the name of the municipal corporation shall be City of Bellevue, Mississippi". On this map published in a reliable source, the place is described as "the proposed city of Bellevue".

Fails WP:USCITIES which suggests that a lead section to a US settlement article should contain:

Name of city and location in state.
City proper population (US Census figures should be used. When appropriate, other reliable estimates may be included as a supplement to Census figures.)
Metro population (US Census figures should be used. When appropriate, other reliable estimates may be included as a supplement to Census figures.)
Brief note about historical roots/founding.
Nicknames, if notable.
Primary industries supporting its economy (e.g. service, manufacturing, tourism, etc ...).
Notable unusual characteristics and characteristics commonly associated with it.

I have been unable to locate any of these for Bellevue in reliable sources.

Furthermore, if an infobox settlement template were added to this article--as is typical of settlement articles in the United States--it would be empty (really, try it!).

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and a cemetery or unidentifiable photo of a road sign does not a place make. Only when Bellevue is created should it get an article. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, about the lead section, I'll give it a shot, with zero research whatsoever:
- Bellevue, Mississippi, location stated earlier in this very discussion (sourced in many recent news articles)
- Reliable sources establish a population of around 10,000 (sources in several recent news articles already discussed on this very page. You clearly weren't looking very hard for sources)
- Part of the Hattiesburg metro area (again, sourced in many articles referenced on this very page)
- Don't have an answer to history (but remember, zero research for this list)
- Doesn't seem to have any nicknames
- Industry supporting economy - mostly a bedroom community (no sources, but of course, this is a zero research post)
- Unusual characteristics? Don't really know, but again, I've done no research
So, with zero research whatsoever, I've been able to fill in most of what the lead should contain. As far as "populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable", it does not anywhere say that places without such recognition are never notable. Bellevue will be a notable place even if incorporation fails. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I take it you are unfamiliar with 5PILLARS? If it isn't published somewhere, it can't be used. To write a proper Wikipedia article, research must be done. There are 0 verfiable facts about this place, because it is a plan, not a place. Hence it fails WP:V, WP:GNG and WP:NOT. No one will object to this not yet place having an article once the effort to incorporate succeeds. Until then, it's WP:CRYSTAL. John from Idegon (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep named geographical feature. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This place doesn't exist yet, so fails WP:V. We do, on occasion, write about things which haven't happened yet. Super Bowl 50 is a good example, but the bar is pretty high. The attempt to create this city may happen in the future, but it's nowhere near that bar. None of the people arguing to keep have provided the WP:RS we need (and, no, a photograph of a highway sign doesn't do it). -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are plenty in the article. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article show that some people are thinking about making it exist in the future. They do not show that it exists now. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we have loads of articles on things that don't exist. We even have articles on things that have never existed and will never exist! --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the unincorporated community commonly called Bellevue does exist, right now. It is mentioned in local Hattiesburg press all the time. There's a local road sign, church, cemetery, etc. Population rise caused by urban sprawl is what is driving the incorporation effort.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Milowent has spoken! Seriously though if there is a sign, it's obviously a place. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 07:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep The nominator's concerns have been addressed, and the consensus is overwhelmingly headed in the direction of keep. (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benjie Paras[edit]

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

Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK#3. This BLP is appallingly sourced but it is not unsourced, and it clearly meets WP:GNG. sst ✈ 13:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per SSTflyer. I'm sorry to say this but did the nominator do the search engine test before nominating the article for deletion? Israel's Son 16:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

articles about living people require references. As it stands it is not verifiable.Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. See WP:BEFORE.--RioHondo (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Unreferenced" is not a reason to take an article to AfD, per WP:BEFORE, as RioHondo points out. Rathfelder does not understand this. Very frustrating that he doesn't look for a source himself. Jared Preston (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously meets GNG as a 2-time MVP of the PBA and one of the top players in the league's history. Somebody add some references, it's unforgivable for an article of this length not to have any. The nominator is probably just trying to make a point. Rikster2 (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just recently added reliable sources. It now has nine references. --Jojit (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 1957 San Francisco earthquake. czar 16:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1957 Daly City earthquake[edit]

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

Their is already an article 1957 San Francisco earthquake. Ninney (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to' 1957 San Francisco earthquake. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected it. Sorry about this, can the discussion be closed now? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! for the efforts. - Ninney (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead News[edit]

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

News website started this month. The article was created by one of its founders. The only references that actually mention the site are the site itself and its whois information. As for the "Founders" section, the references don't actually mention them; the article says that they "famously challenged the chairman of Royal Bank of Scotland"; a Google search didn't return any relevant coverage in connection with their names, so the event doesn't seem to be very famous.

Borderline speedy deletion candidate (criteria A7 and G11). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~speedy delete - DangerDogWest (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The A7 speedy-deletion notice was removed by the article creator [40] but should have been allowed to run its course. I've notified the article creator on that and on this AfD. AllyD (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches return no evidence that this new website is notable. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG; also fails WP:CSD #7. AllyD (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability adduced; I can't find anything either. Big WP:GNG problem as a result. /wia /tlk /cntrb 15:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a number of reasons, including WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROMO, and perhaps sheer chutzpah. LaMona (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surdophobia[edit]

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

Not notable. Mathglot (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Society-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because:

Not notable in the slightest. This is a neologism by a single individual that has not caught on.
Virtually no reliable sources. Of three occurrences on the internet, one is Wikipedia, another may be derived from it.
Possibly move to wikt:Surdophobia but imho does not reach the notability required to do that, either.

As the article itself acknowledges, this word was coined by a Dutch social worker. The word was accepted by a deaf researcher and was used in one work in 2003. Other than that, the word has seen very little usage. A competing word, Audism exists.

WP:AFD part B checks:

Google books: 69 results, but only the top 3 snippets actually contain the term. A search-inside-the-book on Result #4 shows no occurrences. Of results 1-3, #1 is the WP article, #2 has one reference to it on p 109 as a neologism, that is, the word is not used in running text for its meaning, but rather as "here's a word that's similar to this other word". Result #3 is from the Cram 101 series, which imho often consolidates inforemation from Wikipedia.
GG Archive check: zero results.

Finally, and perhaps not relevant other than to forestall any question about motivation, a personal note: I have studied ASL and worked with the Deaf community for a number of years and can vouch for the fact that discrimination against deaf people is real. The word, however, is not real.

Mathglot (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC) edited by Mathglot (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC) to remove delete reason 4; there have been a couple dozen article edits since the first one in 2012.[reply]

Notified: Users Belfastshane, Clr324, OttawaAC. Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - neologism. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, thanks to Mathglot's research. A word used by only two or three people, with no significant discussion about the term, is not suitable for Wikipedia per WP:NOTNEO. /wia /tlk /cntrb 15:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Discrimination against the deaf/Deaf is a thing, I have experienced it myself, but I agree with Mathglot's reasoning. Mabalu (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of Belgium in Chennai[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. coverage merely confirms the consulate exists. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I'm not seeing much better. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Fails GNG Jbh ^Talk 11:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no in-depth coverage to show it passes the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may be of use or interest to people, especially travellers, but also diplomats and the like. The deletionist culture of "non-notable subjects" should not trump a pragmatic approach, especially in the face of wikipedia beauracracy. Ljgua124 (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've made zero attempt to demonstrate how a notability guideline is met. WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is small, but sufficient coverage listed in the references (5 newspaper articles) to claim notability and keep this article included. Wikipedia is not paper. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "small but sufficient" is not, by definition, "significant coverage", as required by WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Consensus has been that these embassy/mission articles don't get a free pass; and this article's sources don't get it past WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Day of the Sirens[edit]

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

Non-notable rock band. Natg 19 (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure because there are at least some reviews and coverage but there may not be much else and the best my searches instantly found was this with a few links. In any case, this could be drafted and userfied (the author is no longer active if it is not obvious). SwisterTwister talk 17:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reading through the article, looking at the sources and what else is out there it seems that someone at Rock Sound (best coverage = [41]) wants to give them a push but that's about it. The others are either blogs or webzines that fail WP:RS or are trivial. In the absence of any charting, awards, releases on major/significant indie labels, etc. it comes down to coverage and it just isn't there. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be notable now nor likely to be in the future, their social media accounts are no longer active so I assume they aren't either. Also appears to have been started by a member of the band. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting that if the need arises, this article can be merged to the appropriate article in the future. (non-admin closure) Ya sh! 04:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farm to Market Road 1417[edit]

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

Citations in article all prove that this road exists, but none provide evidence of its actual notability. Article requires evidence that the road had been the topic of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Also, Google Maps urls are not viable as references. KDS4444^Talk 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—per WP:ROADOUTCOMES, most state-maintained highways are considered notable enough for stand-alone articles on Wikipedia. Also, the aside in the nomination statement regarding Google Maps is faulty. I can list dozens of Featured Articles that use Google Maps as references, in addition to using similar levels of citations for their sourcing. Given that FM roads in Texas are a class of secondary highway, in the future this could be merged into a list article similar to List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (1–99). That is and on-going project, so deletion now would just mean a WP:REFUND for a future merger. Imzadi 1979 → 05:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 06:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 06:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable subject, but can be merged into an appropriate RCS list as mentioned by Imzadi1979. Dough4872 17:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with similar rationales as above, but to be sure that it is actually merged, with the appropriate templates for articles pending a merge. --Rs chen 7754 20:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; per WP:OUTCOMES, this is notable as a component of a state-level highway system. The potential to merge as previously stated exists in the future. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: Either keep the article or merge it with the appropriate list page. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ROADOUTCOMES as a notable state-maintained highway. Perhaps in the future a case could be made for merging it to List of Farm to Market Roads in North Texas but as that article isn't even a complete shell yet merger now would be inappropriate. - Dravecky (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three of these "Keep" votes reference WP:OUTCOMES. Ironically, that page states, "Avoid over-reliance on citing these "common outcomes" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion. While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources." What would be nice is if someone could actually identify such sources for this article rather than suggesting that it seems notable but offering no evidence of it. Also: I mentioned Google maps as not being a viable source because everything can be found on Google maps. My mom's house can be found on Google maps. That doesn't make it notable. KDS4444^Talk 01:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your original comment was: "Google Maps urls are not viable as references". Funny though, but they are. See any of the dozens of Featured Articles on various state highways in the United States that almost all use Google Maps as a citation. If they weren't viable, then why would those FAs use the mapping service? As for WP:ROADOUTCOMES, we've been through dozens of AfDs over the years, and nearly universally, the community has kept articles on state-maintained highways; WP:USRD/P also documents these past deletion discussions. The line, for better or worse, has been drawn at state-level maintenance in the US. County- or city-level maintenance does not enjoy the presumption of suitability for articles. To borrow an example, Michigan State Trunkline Highway System is a clearly notable topic, but to give that topic justice without running into WP:SIZE, we've created List of Interstate Highways in Michigan, List of U.S. Highways in Michigan, List of state trunklines in Michigan and Pure Michigan Byway. Because those lists would then run into WP:SIZE-related concerns, individual highways have articles. This keeps with our mission under WP:5P to be a gazetteer, since gazetteers document roads. Imzadi 1979 → 01:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carey Spear[edit]

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

Since he did not actually play in any NFL game, he does not qualify under WP:NGRIDIRON. Likewise, under WP:NCOLLATH, is not notable for his college career. I am willing to consider a contrary opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable per WP:ATHLETE, including WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. He was an undrafted free agent in the NFL and never played in a regular season or post-season game. In college, he was not a prominent player (no NCAA awards/records). I cannot find any other condition that would qualify him for notability either. Czoal (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above. The Madden bit (which was mentioned in a Bleacher Report article) is interesting, but it didn't lead to anything that would be considered significant coverage for a football player. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JonTron (web series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Again, no sources that are credible and the page about Jon Jafari has been deleted 6 times at this point (see JonTron for deletion log) and has even been SALTed, and from what I can see, no sources have come up since the last deletion TheMesquito^buzz 00:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would watch this AfD for canvassing, as the page is currently sticked at the top of the JonTron subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/JonTron/comments/3q1iii/i_made_a_jontron_wikipedia_page_please_do_not/) TheMesquito^buzz 00:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I know why you want this page to be deleted so bad? The page was made not even a day ago, so of course it is not completely polished. The page is stickied because the subreddit is acting really strange, making low effort content and overusing jokes, and we don't want it vandalized, as we strive to provide accurate and relevant info. 173.78.238.132 (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fall within the inclusion policy for Wikipedia, plain and simple. And before you say "Arin/GameGrumps/Ross has a page though" i would take a read of Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. TheMesquito^buzz 00:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Now, I like JonTron and his show. But I know there isn't enough reliable sources to back up his notability. This just needs to stop. GamerPro64 03:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually the wiki entry snaps in two... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.101.165.214 (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Shitpost struck out ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tried to dig up some independent sources on JonTron, but pretty much all I can find are articles about his split with Game Grumps. There's this review from Tubefilter, but that's about it. It's not looking good per WP:WEBCRIT. clpo13_(talk) 03:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been moved to draftspace before coming to AfD. The mainspace title, JonTron, is salted so now this discussion is happening without its prior history intact. czar 04:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per last 3 AFDs. Lacks significant coverage from reliable, third party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or move to Draft space. No significant changes since the last several AFDs, still has a sourcing problem as before. -- ferret (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly salt, fails WP:WEB. The only source that comes close to passing WP:RS is the Kotaku link, which still isn't great, is arguably trivial, and isn't enough to support an article on its own. The others, as far as I can tell, are links to YouTube, reddit posts, personal websites, and blogs, none of which qualify as reliable published sources. Also note that JonTron is salted, so this title is possibly an attempt to get around that. --Aquillion (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Jon Jafari is also salted. -- ferret (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 09:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable for an independent article, and lacking sources. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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