Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 April	13 April >

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 Speedy deleted A11 Peridon (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Space boats[edit]

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

Test article Xx C00l G$Y x#^t@lk 23:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears that way, I'd bet it probably qualifies for CSD as well --Cameron11598 (Converse) 23:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A11; thus tagged —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Glasgow. Consensus is to emrge (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

School of Psychology, University of Glasgow[edit]

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

Academic department in a university. No indication that it is especially distinguished. We normally do not make these articles except in the veryrare cases where the university is famous. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With University of Glasgow. Not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Edwardx (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Quite clearly, as per the others. -- RM 02:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steer (Tweet song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It might belong in its album, but for now, deleting is the best option. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Nothing notable here apart from the album, this is a pretty textbook case of a single off the album simply needing to being listed with other singles, as in numerous examples. Example: Step Up to the Microphone includes a song that charted at #1 but still only has an article on the album. -- RM 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable song.*Treker (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Jackson[edit]

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

Does not appear to be independently notable of her famous relatives and cases. References give only trivial coverage of the subject because she happened to be the judge involved with those cases but do not say anything specifically about her. --Michael White^T·C 22:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable, agreed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She appears notable to me, and just because the article isn't well written or well referenced, there are other reliable sources available, like an article solely about her and her appointment to the NY Supreme Court in the NY Daily News. Anyone reading about those other cases want to know who Jackson is. Keep with a banner asking for more and better references.VanEman (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is a local justice, not a member of the "New York Supreme Court", she is a New York City judge. One indepth article in a local paper is not enough to put her over the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is indeed on the NY Supreme Court, see [1], but New York has a rather ironic way of naming its courts. The so-called "supreme court" is actually just a trial court, the lowest level on the court hierarchy other than lowly municipal courts. It is what most states call "superior court" or "court of common pleas." What most states call the "Supreme Court", New York calls their "Court of Appeals"; that's the highest court in the state. And just to make it more confusing, what most states call the court of appeals (the intermediate appellate court), New York calls "Supreme Court, Appellate Division". Anyway, this all goes to say that being on the "supreme court" in New York means only that she's a plain old run-of-the-mill trial judge. Yes, she's had some notable litigants in front of her, but what judge hasn't? Notability is not inherited from the cases you try. TJRC (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the necessary improvements and I'm not seeing solid notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Jackson[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable independently of her notable relatives. Highly probable article was created by subject. --Michael White^T·C 22:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. However, the remark above by Michael White suggesting who might have written the article is inappropriate. Wikipedia strongly discourages insulting any living person here, and it is truly a violation of Wikipedia standards to try to "out" any Wikipedian. I hope he removes the remark. Here's from our etiquette section: "avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool.

Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor." VanEman (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The page's creator's account is a single-purpose account editing this article and a handful of her clients, so it is indeed highly probably autobiographical, which is generally frowned upon and also often indicates a non-notable subject. It's worth noting and not against any policy to do so. --Michael White^T·C 05:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources that demonstrate she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hixxy[edit]

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

There currently are no references or citations on this page. This also indicates a lack of notoriety as reputable sources seem to be lacking to find these citations. Thus it fails GNG due to a lack of "Independent of the subject" since any citations that can be found all seem to be self promotion. Apriestofgix (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has over 300k hits on google. I'm pretty sure this is a notable person, remember, WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. If there's no sources, fix it! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally agree, however this is a biographical page, and thus should be subjected to more scrutiny when it comes to unsourced material. Apriestofgix (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of hits on Google does not show notability. However, since you seem to be interested in fixing it, see my !vote below. Perhaps you could start with those links, and prove notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of reliable third party sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete but draft-ify if anyone is willing to adopt it. BLPs really, really need to have sufficient reliable sources. This article currently has no sources (the one source specified is to Wikipedia itself, and thus invalid). This also means that, were this article to be kept, it ought to be stub-ified, since any claims are unreferenced. My problem is that I have a feeling that Hixxy might actually be notable. I found some information about him in a Google books listing for Drum n Bass The Rough Guide. I've also seen passing mention of him as "happy hardcore royalty" (for example, at this link). Lacking more proof, the article should be deleted; even with more a little more proof, virtually everything in the article should be deleted until sources can be found. If anyone is interested and knowledgable in the area, this would be a great time to request a move to draft space. Barring that, it's time to delete. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not finding anything better and the current article is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. Also, the page is presently not an unsourced BLP, nor was it at the time of the nomination (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Styles[edit]

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

There currently are no references or citations on this page. There has been talk prior about removing this page, and asking for cleanup to references, but no updates have been made in quite a while. Due to a lack of citations I am nominating for deletion. Apriestofgix (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources on Google Books and Google News, If one puts the time in I'm sure this can easily be sourced. –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Renzetti[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no reliable independent sources that cover her. Does not appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, not notable, doesn't meet WP:BIO. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a columnist for a major national newspaper is certainly a thing that should constitute sufficient notability in principle, though of course an article ultimately lives or dies on how much reliable source coverage can or cannot be found about her role as a columnist. I'm completely stymied by this, however — while she gets over 2,000 hits in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database, I can find almost none in which she's the subject, rather than the bylined author, of the content. The fact that the subject is a journalist does not and cannot confer an exemption from having to be the subject of media coverage — a journalist does not get a freebie just because readers of the paper know her name from her own bylines, if other journalists haven't published stuff about her journalism career by which we can properly verify the content. And I'm just not finding any of that. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing at all convincing of solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-one-dimensional models[edit]

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

Procedural nom for IP address: "This article is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. It only refers to 1 academic paper submission into a relatively unimportant journal. It has not been published and remains uncited until today. It does not mean the criteria of relevance or multiple independent citations that validate the importance of the topic." freshacconci talk to me 20:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The person who created this page's username is the name of one of the people who discovered this... COI editing, also not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't create wikipedia entries for your own papers. Particularly not for subjects not as-yet well established. Riventree (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Word (newspaper)[edit]

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

The article sites no references, with the website leading to a crowdfunding website, suggesting that the publication is in its early stages, and possible little notability. AxG / ✉ / 10 years of editing 20:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For one it hasn't even printed a single copy yet (Still 6 weeks away!) Also, this is a crowd-funded paper. While that doesn't make it non-notable in it's own right, it doesn't help with this. Trying to find sources for this has been tricky and I don't see where this paper meets WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Difficult to look for coverage due to the generic name but the crowdfunding project currently has only £770 pledged and I couldn't turn up anything better. —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as has not been published yet. Case of WP:TOOSOON. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement with above, not yet notable. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 13:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chikayo Nakano[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with one supporting role in Madlax. VADB does not show any entries. Can someone look into this and check whether she is notable? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Japan search comes up with no good sources, from the lack of hits this is an easy decision. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, delete. When I originally created the article, I kinda thought she'd have more notable roles, but ten years later, she seems to have left the industry with no impact. --Koveras ^☭ 07:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ANN only lists one lone role, and 81 Produce does not have her listed on their website (at least not anymore). As the final nail in the coffin, she doesn't even have a Japanese Wikipedia page, which is surprising considering it tends to have articles even on stuff that wouldn't be considered notable here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ratkali[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unble to find sources that demonstrate notability, and the article provides none. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same findings as Cordless Larry, nothing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searches produced nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not establish the notability. Mhhossein (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonu Lal (actress)[edit]

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

Article with no references about the subject - all are about the film industry only. No evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With Velella's approval I'm adding Sidra Noor (actress) to this afd as well as they are essentially in the same boat. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a case of focus on English-speaking countries. Doing a quick google search on google Afghanistan shows that she is notable in her own country. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both fail GNG. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both as have appeared in a number of films with coverage in the Pakistan press to enable WP:BASIC to be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharfadin[edit]

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

Nothing in the "sources" (which are randomly Googled pages anyway, including a blog) indicate this religion exists nor that it is a specific religion of the Yazidis, as the article claims. Next to zero hits on Google Books for this term as well. Dorpater (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as either hoax or non-notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No educational use and unverifiable. A name for a religion does not warrant an article anyway.--Zoupan 20:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Yazidis. The name doesn't merit it's own article and some reliable sources just call it Yazidism (or Yezidism). Doug Weller talk 11:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then mention as needed as that article as none of this actually suggests the necessary separate improvements. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Beats The Drum[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete isn't notable enough, doesn't meet WP:NBAND. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability (indeed, no sourcing whatsoever in the article). NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a Dutch page about the band, and generaly the Dutch policies with keeping pages are more strict than on the English Wikipedia regarding to notability. I'll ask over there for some suggestions. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 07:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all actually convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peechoho[edit]

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

I could find no evidenc that they meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After extensive searching, a couple news articles but not enough sources to keep. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it is easy to find people with this surname (both spellings), I cannot find sources (except mirrors of this old article) supporting the idea that they are a tribe/clan, let alone that they are a notable one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this might someday achieve requisite notability, but for now not enough for it to be here.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 20:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy to User:Glane23/Drafts of Articles/Childress_Vineyards. As we have a user who is happy to work on this article and bring it to the required standard, this would appear to be satisfactory concensus here PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Childress Vineyards[edit]

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

Other than the fact of it being owned by a celebrity sportsperson, article has been cited for lack of sources since 2013. Searches turned up a number of hits, but all in the trivial mention category, for the most part, or in the local paper (which doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I was actually surprised, as I was going to add citations, at the dearth of available references. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed this nomination using Onel's rationale from this diff. The original nomination failed due to a script error. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a case of inherited notability, a concept that Wikipedia doesn't accept as a valid criterion for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding a number of references in gBooks that focus on the wines and the winery rather than the namesake NASCAR driver-owner, such as this example. There are quite a few travel guides and also wine reviews, some of which are only snippets, but whose summaries satisfy notability for the vineyard, the winery and the wines. I'll get back to the article and add some of the better sources when I free up a bit of time. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should the ultimate decision be to delete, please userfy for me as I think, given time and some offline research, I can locate additional sources. I may not be able to get that all done in the timeframe of this discussion, so this note is just in case. Thanks. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches are not actually finding anything better. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to ~~User:Glane23/Childress_Vineyards~~ if Glane23's happy with that, It looks like it could be saved and improved so if Glane23's happy to work on it still then could be userfied, If not then delete. –Davey2010^Talk 22:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy to work on it, but if you do userfy, put it into User:Glane23/Drafts of Articles/Childress_Vineyards, if you don't mind. Thanks, Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D'Arby Myers[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Being related to a notable person does not confer notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. Prod removed without any explanation given. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I could see using some discretion if it looked like he might play in MLB soon, but he's entering his 11th professional season and has only played six games at the Class AAA level. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Muboshgu.--Yankees10 18:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing any evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He received quite a bit of coverage. Alex (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor league players are rarely notable, and this one isn't an exception. No coverage to support WP:GNG either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He received considerable coverage in the Los Angeles metropolitan area for his feats as a high school player. He was equated to Dave Winfield and was once the most scouted player in the nation. I hope the closing administrator considers these facts, in addition to the plentiful sourcing on Myers' page, before acting. Alex (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is some sourcing but most of it is essentially local human interest coverage.. and not particularly in depth. The Dave Winfield quote mentioned by Alex is attributed to one local baseball official.. not a professional scout. Spanneraol (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - No valid reason has been presented and I'm assuming WP:Before wasn't followed, Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low Kay Hwa[edit]

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

non-notable SuDongWan (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as according to this newspaper source the Strait times he is one of the most popular authors in Singapore [2] , also this source says one of his books was the top google book download in Singapore [3] Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as is famous in his own country, search on google Singapore confirms this. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG – rather niche but Google does turn up multiple feature-length articles in independent sources ([4] [5] [6]). This news piece referenced in the article also states that he is "known for his teen romance novels", and although it's pap astrology he's also gotten a section here. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Atlantic306, I would say satisfies WP:AUTHOR as he seems to be one of the most popular authors in Singapore. The article however has come COI issues and some of the facts may need verification. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily satisfies WP:AUTHOR. Also, see WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Smartyllama (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete I an deleting this article without consensus on the basis that the pageant itself has been deleted as non-notable, and the articles for every other year have attracted adequate delete consensus.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1968[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and also Delete Miss Asia Pacific 1971, Miss Asia Pacific 1972, Miss Asia Pacific 1973 and Miss Asia Pacific 1974

Annual pages of Miss Asia Pacific which has been deleted at AfD along with the list of titleholders page. Delete daughter pages of non-notable parent page. Legacypac (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge - my understanding is that competitions like this on the international level are generally notable. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bakerloo line extension. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old Kent Road tube station[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Not a formal proposal, this is simply WP:CRYSTAL". None of the sources indicate that construction of this station (or even of this route) has been formally authorised. Of the six sources used as references, the first explicitly states "no final decisions have been made", and also says "if a decision is made to progress the scheme, and the necessary funding is secured"; the second states "The exact locations of the new stations ... are as yet undefined ... there could be two new stations along the Old Kent Road (option 1a) or new stations at Camberwell and Peckham Rye (option 1b)"; the third is about a petition; the fourth is about a disagreement between two local councils; the fifth is a dead link; the sixth is a press release about the publication of a summary report for the proposed route. At best, these show that the scheme is at the consultation stage, none of them describe any firm proposals or indicate that funding has been allocated. Redrose64 (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bakerloo line extension. ~Kvng (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bakerloo line extension. There is a serious possibility that the Bakerloo line extension will bring one or more tube stations to the Old Kent Road, and so the article about the extension should discuss the proposals for it/them. Equally the proposals mean that this is a likely search term, and so it should lead to our content on the subject. However, as all the proposals currently exist in the context of the extension and there is not enough firm to say about individual stations at this stage we only need the one article with redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bakerloo line extenstion until such time as construction starts. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as this fails WP:CRYSTAL. Blythwood (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Adenauer Foundation – Country office Namibia and Angola[edit]

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

While the Konrad Adenauer Foundation is notable, its local office does not seem to be. Hard to search for sources specific to it though, so I bet AfD is better than a PROD. Note also that the German article this is linked to points to the article about the general foundation. Tigraan (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: without references, how can we even know if this is true, let alone notable? ubiquity (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and completely unreferenced article about a non-notable country office. Article boils down to, "We are doing very good things on our own initiative." FeatherPluma (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ASG-Cypress[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT, I could not find any sources for notability. (Plus, the page is a mess) Tigraan (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Using wikipedia as a platform for advertising. Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 15:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spamming. –Be..anyone 💩 17:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 as the article is "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." It looks like it fails NPRODUCT and GNG as well. Rebb ing 19:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: there is a comment on the article's talk page, as well as on my user talk page. Both are by Lasherbr (talk · contribs), the page creator, and neither seem convincing to me. I copy the second one below for the sake of fairness.

This article is being based on a web search for Virtual Printers. The product ASG-Cypress is a precursor of Virtual Printers concept. It has millions of users and thousand companies around the world. In Brazil, for example, the most extensive payroll of the Country passes through ASG-Cypress. The article will have more research and more updates on next weeks. It would be great if you don't delete this article. Lasherbr (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2016 (BRT)

Tigraan (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mantain: I can safely say or change the article to apply G11. I had contributed with some fixes on wikipedia pages for a long time. However, this is my first article and I humbly apologize if its poorly implemented. Please, I ask you to consider it, since its pretty important software in industry history. It has more than 20 years of existance. Lasherbr (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2016 (BRT)

Please read the Wikipedia guidelines on notability, in particular WP:PRODUCT; it is quite a different thing to be notable and to be "important". "Notable" is a (relatively) objective standard based on coverage (basically press mentions). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger Nishioka[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail to meet WP:NACADEMICS, as discussed with the article's creator and others at User:Jcstanley/my articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PROF #5 as a named chair at a major institution (even though it is only an associate professorship). Also has an honorary doctorate from Austin College. St Anselm (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS citations negligible. Institution is too minor to qualify for WP:PROF #5. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hardly a "minor institution". It's one of the Seminaries that Change the World". St Anselm (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With only 450 students that's pretty impressive. But check the source. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hold the sarcasm, please. Small colleges, especially small, freestanding graduate faculties, can be significant institutions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the professorship, and news coverage found in a proquest search (oddly, far more productive than google news search in this instance). But especially impressed by hits on books google search (which, as you know, are by no means exhaustive, merely indicative), particularly persuasive are the citations to and discussion of his work and reuse of his preaching [7].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but only just). A named post as associate professor; 5 books and 5 articles; this is to my mind just about enough to keep, but it is at a knife edge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Azumah[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail to meet WP:NACADEMICS, as discussed with the article's creator and others at User:Jcstanley/my articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now -- Lots of books, but largest is 200 holdings in Worldcat, then 100, then in the 10s-20s; so not enough there. Books have attracted one review in JSTOR, in a journal that is of sufficient quality to add to the notion that this is an important book, but it is largely a negative review (Journal of African Studies, 2003), so does not help much for notability, considering that there are no followups. What seems to be the strongest pro-Keep argument is the headship of the Presbyterian church in London; but that might be deceiving -- Presbyterianism is not nearly so big in England as other English-speaking areas; so being the head of London might not be enough for a Keep. Would be good for someone with more domain knowledge about Presbyterianism or religious studies in Africa to weigh in. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he is on the Editorial Board of Transformation (journal), or, at least, was for several years. (“Front Matter”. 2011. “Front Matter”. Transformation 28 (2). Sage Publications, Ltd.. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43052838.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His scholarly articles include: (Azumah, John. 2000. “Controversy and Restraint in Ghana”. Transformation 17 (1). Sage Publications, Ltd.: 23–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43054955.), (Azumah, John. 2005. “Theological Foundations of Shari'a in Islam: Concerns and Reservations”. Transformation 22 (4). Sage Publications, Ltd.: 238–50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43052645.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Scholar, the first of those articles has been cited once and the second not at all. None of his journal articles have been widely cited, though his book has 40 citations. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the main problem with Google Scholar's citation counters -- it has no clue how to count citations and influence in humanities articles; and it's so bad that it can't even be used to count relative influence between two people. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow, Mscuthbert. Have those articles been cited more often than Google says? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His writing seems to be taken seriously [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC) For example, when he published a serious article in the serious if conservative Christian intellectual journal First Things, a serious intellectual took the time to write responding essay on Patheos, here: [9]. Again, I haven't actually read all of this discussion of Azumah's ideas, I haven't real him either. I argue merely that his work is being seriously engaged in serious places by serious people.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not pretend to have delved into the arguments Azumah makes, but scrolling past the first page in a google books search [10] it rapidly becomes clear that multiple authors have not merely cited, but discussed and engaged with Azumah's ideas at some length.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I consider that his output of publications is sufficient to merit retention. My initial reaction was the reverse. Citation indices do not so at all well on non-scientific subjects, because significant journals are often not included in their count. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Koehler (Koehler Books)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. President of a smallish book publishing company, winner of an award from the Advertising Federation of Hampton Roads, and boomerang champion. Nothing here rising to the criteria for inclusion. The lack of reliable sources argues for a WP:BLPPROD as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He may be locally notable, but he wouldn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Local notability isn't enough to justify inclusion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning a lifetime achievement award in Hampton Roads does not make him notable. ubiquity (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. Rebb ing 19:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there are insufficient reliable independent sources to show the notability of the subject. It is also noted that the tone of the article is promotional. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship Baptist College[edit]

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

No secondary reliable sources to assert notability, and written in a non-neutral style BilCat (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any RS to support WP:GNG. 'written in a non-neutral style' is a major understatement! Pincrete (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Reads like a donation solicitation brochure. Dkendr (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination and earlier commments. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being badly written is not a valid criterion for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TNT - As a degree-awarding college, it is notable per Wikipedia guidelines. However, the article tone is so promotional that it's best to either start over, or to reduce the article content to a short stub. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what AfD is for. We're here to look at the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - At this point, the article does not have any reliable published sources that show the school even exists, and several editors have been unable to find any to this point. Per GNG, it doesn't belong. - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al-Qumaish[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hasn't appeared in a game, no stats, thus not meeting notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this is an active pro footballer. WP:GNG not met. C 679 19:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tae Kwon Do Life Magazine[edit]

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

No independent sources. Too young to be notable yet. Does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Publications-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Niche publication that has not even appeared yet - this reads like a press release. Not sure this would ever have a broader impact -definitely WP:TOOSOON.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant or independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. There is no significant independent coverage to show this magazine is notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deletesingle year article about pageant deemed non-notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1975[edit]

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 13:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete kind of a page dependent on a deleted page. Normally we roll these annual pages into the main page but that is not possible now. Legacypac (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Legacypac. Pincrete (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete single year of pageant deemed not notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1976[edit]

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 13:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like the other one. Legacypac (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Legacypac. Pincrete (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof of notability....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete single year of pageant deemed not notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1977[edit]

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 13:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per deletion of the parent article. Legacypac (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Legacypac. Pincrete (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete single year result of pageant already deemed non-notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1978[edit]

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 13:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as parent article deleted. Legacypac (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Legacypac. Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete single year article about pageant deemed not notable.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1979[edit]

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 13:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like the parent article. Legacypac (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Legacypac (phew!! are there more?). Pincrete (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mormando[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist (self awarded high rank). Heavily promotional with a lot of unsupported hyperbole. Does not meet WP:MANOTE and has a few passing mentions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creating your own system and giving yourself a high rank doesn't show notability (and is far too common). GNG is not met by passing mentions and I don't see evidence he meets WP:NACTOR. Mdtemp (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly promotional and without the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. He also fails to meet WP:MANOTE and WP:NACTOR to support the claims of being a notable martial artist and actor. The fact that he created his own martial art at 19 and made himself a 10th dan, apparently after briefly taking some classes in different styles, shows a knack for self-promotion but not notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found some links but nothing solidly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Blood (YT series)[edit]

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

I originally tagged this for speedy deletion thinking it was a YouTube series as the article used the abbreviation YT, but I then noticed that it had the category YTV shows. This category was not added by the page creator, I can find no references to a show by that name on that channel and it has no entry on IMDB. I suspect that this is a YouTube series and clearly not a notable one. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable 3rd party sources, just another kid's TV show. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that your first instinct was actually correct, and the YTV category was a follow-up error — zero reliable source coverage, and even YTV's own website contains no indication of it airing a show by this title. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for at least minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete qualifies for speedy deletion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory McKelvey[edit]

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

Non notable autobiography, as yet nothing to stop it failing WP:BIO? Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 10:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wasn't sure it would meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but doesn't meet WP:NPOL and can't see anything to make it meet WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have speedied this if the AFD hadn't been open Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all requirements, really nothing that says why this person is notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable campaign manager with no significant accolades. Meatsgains (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per the absence of calls for deletion beyond the nominating statement. Editors are welcome to discuss a potential merger on the article's talk page. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Star (Nat King Cole song)[edit]

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

I see no evidence that this meets WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. SST flyer 17:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 17:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the number of sources for both versions of the song indicate WP:GNG In ictu oculi (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Notability is not inherited. If "Shine Like a Morning Star" meets notability, an article on that song may be created. This song may be merged and redirected to St. Louis Blues (album). SST flyer 01:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there were an article on the Handy song, I'd be inclined to support a redirect/merge, though.We have too many articles on contemporary musical ephemera and seriously deficient coverage of pioneering work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think your argument addresses the notability of this song. How about merging with the St. Louis Blues (album) article?SST flyer 01:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the song relates to numerous other topics, it's best to keep this page to tie them all together. Andrew D. (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed as Keep but was asked to reopen so have obviously reopened & relisted –Davey2010^Talk 14:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known. This one's easy.VanEman (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If not independently notable, this could be merged to St. Louis Blues. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the album on which the song appeared. Dkendr (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator – of the four sources in the article, only one is directly about the subject; the other three are used to cite a statement that does not establish the notability of the subject. If the other version of the song is notable, the correct approach would be to create an article for that version of the song, not to keep this song. Many arguments by voters here do not actually address the notability of the subject. SSTflyer 05:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 09:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Even if this is notable, it is still just a cover of a song. We usually include this with the article on the original (if it is notable). In this example, There_She_Goes#Sixpence_None_the_Richer_version, the cover is notable, but it does not merit its own article. It should also be merged into the article about the album. Since it does not inherit notability from its parent, I don't see how it is notable on its own. The references given imply that the original is more notable, not the cover alone. -- RM 01:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

}

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

The result was redirect to School District of Lee County (Florida). Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans Park Academy for the Arts[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third parties. We know from WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that elementary schools generally aren't notable. This one isn't really an exception. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Niteshift36 (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better for the applicable schools notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lee County School District, which is what we generally do with middle and elementary schools. Altho it isn't notable it is a plausible search term. John from Idegon (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose deleting and redirecting. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District of Lee County (Florida) as is the longstanding tradition with less-than-high-schools and is evidenced by the thousands of such schools in the category "Redirects from school articles". Jacona (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to School District of Lee County (Florida). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The current article as it is, does not assert notability, or more importantly, verifiability. No prejudice to recreation if new sources can be found. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rapha International School[edit]

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

Non notable school; currently unreferenced Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet WP:GNG, with no significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the long-standing consensus surrounding WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I believe that secondary schools in India are just as notable as those in the US. WP:GEOBIAS is on show here. Please start nominating American schools not Indian ones constantly. AusLondonder (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is a secondary school, AusLondonder. There's barely any material online to even confirm that exists, but the school's website features photos of infants, not teenagers. The bias here is against completely unsourced articles, not against articles about Indian schools. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The image used in the article suggests that the school is for infants through to 8th grade, implying that it is a primary school. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The opening sentence describes the school as "Rapha International Secondary School", Cordless Larry. AusLondonder (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not verified though, AusLondonder, as the article is completely unsourced. A bit of research using Google doesn't provide any support for this, and indeed suggests that it is a primary school. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to above. Photos of children don't conclusively show what kind of school it is. Indian secondary schools typically start at K-level. I found a link at Indiastudychannel.com indicating that the school is secondary, but I'm not sure whether the site's information is crowdsourced. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not familiar with the American school system, Gene93k, so could you clarify what K-level is? I'm not sure whether that source is reliable. I found another source, which states that it is a kindergarten and primary school, but I doubt that it is reliable. In fact, I don't think there are any reliable, third-party sources online. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K level is kindergarten, Cordless Larry. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is notable. This article is awful, but see WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi ThePlatypusofDoom. Thanks for your comments. I am aware that AfD isn't cleanup, and so I looked for sources before commenting. Can I ask which sources you have found that establish notability? I couldn't find any. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet WP:GNG, has no significant coverage in independent sources and little information in non-independent sources. Pincrete (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It says it's a secondary school on its website.[11] Its admissions page, however, says "Nursery to 8th",[12] which implies it's a primary and middle school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting find, Necrothesp. I don't think that site existed when this AfD started (it seems to have replaced this). The image on the admissions page was on the Wikipedia article before it was removed. I suspect that someone from the school has been building a new website and writing the Wikipedia article at the same time. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry, admissions was also not on their website a day or two ago nb 'Open from 1st April 2016'. Pincrete (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Without any cites, it doesn't even meet WP:V. Let's not get crazy folks in citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES, of which I am a staunch supporter. But we have to meet WP:V, and crappy one sentence articles are often not worth keeping.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is a non-notable private club. Opinions from very new accounts, very likely by people related to the topic (or all by one person), are discounted. Sandstein 10:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noctuam Society[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable, speedy tag deleted by brand new editor Melcous (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. There is no credible claim of significance. And that's understandable when you search for sources in an attempt to verify any notability and find there are none. --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as per nom. Only 51 hits on google, and most of them are not good sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Noctuam Society is a well known creative collective and private men's organization in the Ohio region and throughout the midwest. It performs many philanthropic functions and has fairly significant social outreach. --TimeKiller321 ^Talk! ~~05:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeKiller321 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: TimeKiller321 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

— Of course TimeKiller321 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. The contributor is allowed to defend their post. —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as a non-notable club. At best there is some local notability, but that's hardly enough to meet WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is precedence for clubs with a more regional scope of notability located on the List of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States page. This group has a social and economic impact within a fairly substantial region of the country. Although this organization doesn't date back to antiquity, it is a very valid source of interest for a great number of people.66.193.17.93 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 66.193.17.93 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page is of great interest to those of us in the midwest and members of the creative community. The NS is actually something of an elitist club but is notorious for funding very elaborate installations in Columbus, Cleveland, Philly and Cleveland, while keeping their involvement very subtle. As mentioned above, not only is there precedence for regionalized organizations on the List of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States page, but Wikipedia is rife with very similar examples. To delete this burgeoning page would be a disservice to the community who has an interest in private clubs, such as this and as well, the creative community as a whole.2602:301:77F0:7350:106C:A277:ECEB:F1A6 (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC) 2602:301:77F0:7350:106C:A277:ECEB:F1A6 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal input below - brief note here that the problem is that no reliable source backs up any of these claims - not the claim it's elitist, not the claim it's notorious for funding very elaborate installations in Columbus, Cleveland, Philly and Cleveland, and not the claim for keeping their involvement very subtle. No sources, just original hearsay. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I for one am very interested in the subject of secretive clubs and am very interested to see how this page continues to develop. The page wasn't particularly well written but has more than enough merit on its face to remain live. And to cut directly to the chase, yes, I created this account specifically to comment on this page. Just because someone is new to a forum doesn't make their POV any less valid than any other. Frankly, the level of snobbery taking place here is shameful, although not wholly unexpected.Stop Fighting Trolls (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Stop Fighting Trolls (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - new users may be unaware that Wikipedia has specific rules for inclusion. In this case the relevant issue is that of "notability", that is, basically, coverage of the topic in independent sources. (There is more to it; please read the link I provided.) Can any of you arguing to keep this article point to such sources? If not, the article will be deleted. LadyofShalott 02:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is more than enough precedence for the continued existence of this page and I believe the argument for the group's "notability" has been very well established by myself and others above. This page has already been shown to be of great interest regarding a notable and seclusive organization. Ashram321 (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Ashram321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — That is correct, Melcous (talk). I've decided to make a new profile for each page edit I make in order to prove this point. Again, "Just because someone is new to a forum doesn't make their POV any less valid than any other. Frankly, the level of snobbery taking place here is shameful, although not wholly unexpected." Ashram321 (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Comment Let me just make sure I understand this. "I've decided to make a new profile for each page edit I make in order to prove this point." By this admission, you are saying you are practicing in WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, which is highly frowned on, and could lead to your account be blocked for this. Also, doing this to show that there is more of a concensus to your viewpoint is cheating the system. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Absolutely not. I'm not pretending to be anyone else. It is just to prove the absurdity of the level of snobbery, bullying and trolling that takes place on WP's back end. So much for 2 of the 5 pillars upon which Wikipedia claims to operate. (Neutral POV & Civility) Rather than being a neutral place for information and learning, unfortunately pages like this are looking more and more like the comments section of a cheap YouTube video. Ashram321 (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to make things clear, I wasn't trying to break any Wikipedia policies. I was just trying to create a page (mind, my first page) regarding a group which I find fascinating and about which little information is available, likely by design. The group does have a very notable presence in the midwest region of the country and within the creative community. And the reasons given above, in favor of this page continuing are very compelling. I'm sure that if this page were to be left active, it would soon grow in both content and more verifiable references. Whereas, if it were to be deleted, the little information that does exist publicly about this group would have no place to coalesce. (Perhaps, this is also by design...) That being said, I do believe strongly that this page deserves to remain active and I greatly appreciate the support but I really don't want anyone to be harassed or to lose their accounts over this. TimeKiller321 (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - policy-based decision-making here is quite clear - this is not a notable topic, as defined by the guidelines: the single potentially relevant reference that would help notability is a non-specific link to a portal page, is attached to bizarre article text claims, and does not show up on a site-specific secondary search of the portal page. A further search using the usual tools comes up empty. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No credible claim of either significance or notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for at least minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryuji Utomo[edit]

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

Challenged PROD, reason for deletion was "No evidence this footballer meets WP:GNG or has played in a fully pro league." C 679 09:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 09:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article says he played for professional clubs in Indonesia, and Bahrain, which, if true, would give him inherent notability. However, the infobox shows he never played for them. It's possible author just didn't add that to the infobox, but it's also possible he signed for the teams and never played for them. Could someone with more knowledge of the Indonesian and Bahrainian leagues look into this? Smartyllama (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article shows him playing for a club in the Indonesia Super League which is fully professional. At least I think it does. The translation wasn't very good, but it appears he played in a game for them, the text is right, and the infobox is wrong. Therefore, he has inherent notability. Smartyllama (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: However ... if you read that article, it doesn't describe a regular season match for the senior club (which would be notable), but something called the "Bhayangkara Cup." This isn't even a league cup (such as the Piala Indonesia, Indonesian Community Shield or the Indonesian Inter Island Cup) but is apparently an exhibition competition, of the sort that academy players, loaners and folks far down the roster often play, and which isn't commonly held to support notability. It's mentioned in neither the ISL article, the Football in Indonesia article, or in the numerous competitions listed on the Football in Indonesia template. I'd like to see some evidence that the subject has played for the first division team in league or league cup competition, or else that he has international caps. Ravenswing 21:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing yet suggesting the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete lacks sources. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IHF World Coach of the Year[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable award. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. - Mr X 01:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Music1201 ^talk 01:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, lack of good sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm seeing very little coverage of this online, doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. I'd suggest merge but this feels like trivia, with so little coverage. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Be A Nepalese[edit]

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

Author of the article contested the PROD on the basis that he states there are sufficient resources to prove notability. I say there are not. The only sources provided are two biographies (one from Yale's communications department, the other from the publisher) and the book's listing on Goodreads. A Google search turns up where I can buy the book - Google Books and the Publisher. A news search turns up nothing relevant. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails NBOOK. Bishonen | talk 20:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, there is a review in South Asia Research - "this publication is very welcome for the insights it offers into the current challenges surrounding identity construction in Nepal.",[13], although not enough for a standalone article, a possible merge/redirect to C. K. Lal? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem likely. As a listed publication, it is most definitely something to be incorporated into that article, with a redirect of the title to the author's page. But beyond that, I'm not sure there is really that much to merge due to the notability issue. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched, and found zero secondary, reliable sources. No reviews. Nada. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Grace[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Grace's career has not yet reached the point of notability. Reaching #2 on the Upcoming100 chart doesn't meet WP:MUSIC as that is not considered a major or official chart, and the reviews appear to be in non-mainstream publications and blogs. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have done a bit of research and I now believe the singer to be notable enough. She has a good amount of coverage in various news sources that are used to reference many other articles here. She has also contributed to a sound track for a documentary. The original problem with the article in question is like some of the others here that are put together without the proper referencing and sourcing. I've spent a couple of hours working to improve the article. I'll do some more till I think it doesn't need any more. Karl Twist (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Karl Twist: Thanks for finding more sources. Unfortunately, all of the coverage is either of the local variety (Grace is from Winona, Minnesota, and many of the sources are from Winona media) or is not significant coverage (press releases, festival lineups, etc). I don't see any significant evidence of anything more than local celebrity in the sources you've found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Hi WikiDan6, yes there is a lot of referencing from Minnesota. She is known wider now and through the Christian networks she has the exposure now as well. Her 2015 single "Los Angeles" has now gained her a wider audience. Karl Twist (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Karl Twist (talk. Just needs a banner asking for more references.VanEman (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @VanEman: If more sources are needed, but are not available (which I contend they are not) then the article should not be retained. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to Draft instead as I've been watching the AfD and believe this may be best until there are better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 01:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I think that the article as it is can attract others to improve. That's another reason why it should be kept. There are many Christian publications that are not available online that could have her in them. Often an article when kept active will prompt others to remember articles that they have read in books and magazines. OK, I'm speculating here on this one about what may be in print. But, in other articles I have seen references that are not yet accessible on line. Just hang out at the library on a Saturday afternoon and you'll see what I mean. I'd say that Amanda Grace is in at least 6 that are not yet accessible on line. I still maintain the singer is notable enough to have an article. Deleting it will slow down the chances of prompting others to delve into books and mags I believe. Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @Karl Twist: You're relying on the fact that sources might appear. Whether that is true or not, we must judge the article on the basis of the sources that are available. If we let this article remain, poorly sourced as it is, then it will fall off the radar and could remain for years as a poorly sourced article, which would call into question why bother having an AFD process at all? The project has guidelines, and articles must meet the guidelines. In this case, if sources are found in the future, then the article can be resurrected, but for now, it should not be allowed to remain. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the article to be notable enough. It makes the grade so to speak. But for those who are strict with these articles (And we do need strict folk), the longer the article stays, the more it is bound to improve and will statisfy those with the strictest views on what should and shouldn't stay. Karl Twist (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relies too much on hyper local coverage that is indiscriminate. Playing in a local café is nothing special. Not enough outside that. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply : Duffbeerforme, yes there is a lot of local coverage. That can't be helped. She has a high profile in her state. You say "Playing in a local café is nothing special". Well, that may be so, but she has played a lot of other places. That was just one of the many venues she has played in. BTW: Her single "Los Angeles" was in the Top Five of the Upcoming100.com’s "Emerging Artists" category[14]. Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BADCHARTS. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: To be fair, Upcoming100.com is not on the WP:BADCHARTS list. Perhaps it should be? In any case, according to the cited source, Upcoming100.com's "Emerging Artists" chart is essentially a popularity contest among the website's visitors to see which emerging (read non-notable) artist should be included in their Upcoming 100 chart. The contest allows the artists to bypass the normal requirements for sales volume. Nothing in this description smacks of "notable". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Duffbeerfomre, She was televised in California, appeared on a local station there, being interviewed. (BTW: Sorry about your sig. Not sure what happened there, possibly when I went to C&P your name. That was strange) And again I say that the Local café is just one of the many venues this artist has played in. Karl Twist (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Alekhine[edit]

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

Though she is the wife of a notable chess player, notability is not contagious and Ms. Alekhine is not notable of her own accord. She was mentioned in two reliable sources as an above-average painter, but I would disagree that such coverage could be called "significant", and she appears not to have done much else with herself after those mentions. Besides those two sources, the article's references consist largely of genealogy links, which do not establish notability, and sources about her husband. Pokajanje|Talk 23:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject seems to have had a somewhat notable career as an artist under her birth name, which should therefore also be searched on - (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Her artistic career seems to have been at its height between 1903 and 1914 - she was best known as a painter of theatrical scenery, but was also a miniaturist who exhibited at the Salon de Paris at least twice. Also, she was in her late 50s when she married Alekhine, and seems to have had three or four husbands before him - I have not traced any further sources under any of these names, but they may exist. She definitely has some notabiliity independently of Alekhine, though, on what I have seen so far, I feel unable to come up with a definite !vote either way yet. PWilkinson (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just add a banner asking for more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanEman (talk • contribs)
Keep, nice source coverage for Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL when combined with Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Grace Wishaar, she had already achieved notability, as is evidenced by sources provided in the article. Mduvekot (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extra sources found and added to the article by User:Mduvekot show notability. PWilkinson (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Additional sources show notability. People need to stop using AFD when all that's necessary is cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrius "Hook" Mitchell[edit]

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

fails WP:NBASKETBALL Joeykai (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep: Passes WP:GNG as there are multiple, reliable, independent sources about him, as well as others mentioning him. He seems to have been notable enough to have a documentary made about his life, as well as a few independent articles. crh23 (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC), Edited 19:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG with substantial coverage over a period of years in the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, San Francisco Chronicle, two documentaries and associated coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems notable enough, meets WP:BASKETBALL ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. This AfD will need to stand or fall on GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I planned to comment earlier and this is convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC), based on the argument that the sources in the article provide substantive coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Handling[edit]

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

My searches are finding nothing at all to suggest this can be better notable and I would've PRODed but it may be removed. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Handling is a very well know chef in the UK, a regular on TV and winner of several awards. Not clear what the nomination 'can be better notable' means? Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 13:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News coverage includes Gdn, Telegraph, 'Indie' + others in UK + catering professional journals. Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Plenty of coverage, plenty of awards, and I don't even know what the nominator is saying by "nothing at all to suggest this can be better notable". Smartyllama (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Hospitality Professionals Summit[edit]

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

Series of non-notable events. Apparently intended as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggesting any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the event has been covered in such reputable media as Shanghai Morning Post (printed version, Sep 09, 2015), Shanghai Daily (printed version, Sep 21, 2015), China Daily (March 01, 2016), Hospitality Net(September 02, 2015) and The Hotelier Awards which makes the article valid in terms of applicable notability. Moreover, the author is not anyhow related to the event organizer/company, is not aiming at any sort of promotion/advertisement and acts purely out of the intend to help Wikipedia qualitatively expand. AnnaVdovina (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: YHPS 2015 has been covered in many social media, such as Hotelers, Hotel Zhang and 新华网 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juneziix (talk • contribs) 07:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Juneziix (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nb both AnnaVdovina and Juneziix are recent editors with no edits outside this topic.. Pincrete (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literally no third party references are available to verify the information. The first instance of this event happened last year and only 1 source has a passing mention. Add to that the fact that a new account Evalema was registered to remove the speedy deletion tag while another new account Juneziix was created to vote "keep" at this AfD. This looks like a well coordinated attempt at promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nb per Lemongirl's comment above, Evalema's edit history includes modifying Juneziix's vote!. Pincrete (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lacks 3rd party sources. Might be notable one day, but not yet. Edwardx (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaylene Clark Owens[edit]

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

None of this amounts to notability. The roles are minor, and the reviews just mentions. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP and watchlisted it for attention later as this suggests nothing better for WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage per above editorEهեইдအ😎 03:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gets as much google hits as an average person, lack of coverage. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Rlendog (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Martenet[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he's still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN amateur player with no accomplishments to speak of, fails NHOCKEY and the GNG going away. Of the sources presented, all are either primary from the organizations with which he's played, blogsites, or routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly barred from supporting notability per WP:ROUTINE. One of several such creations up at AfD of a semi-SPA who focuses on a handful of junior league teams, and writes in a rah-rah fannish manner unsuitable for the encyclopedia even if the players met notability standards. Ravenswing 04:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Kafati Díaz[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, specifically coverage by independent sources. A Google search yielded no results. A news search provided just two articles, both of which are in Spanish and appear to be lists of Honduran politicians who voted against a particular issue. The only mentions of him in English are on mirror sites that appear to have copied and pasted this article onto their own pages. Amccann421 (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the deputy of the National Congress of Honduras. I believe that this makes him notable and it seems inconceivable that he has not had significant media coverage given his senior position in the Honduran government. It is hard to find material on him, but this is common for even quite significant people in non-English speaking countries. I say that the article be left until someone who knows more about Honduras can advise. We shouldn't just delete articles out of ignorance. Ross-c (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, member of a national legislature easily passes WP:POLITICIAN. --Soman (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:SKCRIT Part 3. WP:NPOL states: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are inherently notable. AusLondonder (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of a national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NPOL per above. I'll see if I can find more sources to add. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But better sources need to be in the article. It looks like there are some available, more as a politician than businessman.RockyMtChai (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Members of national congresses are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed member of the national legislature of a sovereign country, WP:NPOL #1 passed on its face. Keep and flag for reference improvement. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Almanza (skateboarder)[edit]

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

Non-notable skateboarder. Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted above, non-notable skateboarder lacking coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all suggesting any better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above points. :Layla, the remover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Layla, the remover (talk • contribs) 17:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete agree with above points. Really no coverage at all, so safe to delete this one. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no coverage on him. Corn cheese (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage, article says he's a notable skateboarder but barely even mentions his skateboarding. Smartyllama (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. None of the keep !votes put forward policy based reasons for keeping the article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vocapia Research[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and improve This article is somewhat informative but I agree it misses some links and external view. I will see if I can improve as I know this company.192.44.78.123 (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better at all thus I know I can at least expect no obvious improvements and the article is still noticeably questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like the article is going in the right direction. I find this above last comment (which is difficult to parse) a bit harsh. Why not allow some time to improve the article.Jlcaune (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article provides useful information about a French SME which offers an alternative to the solutions offered by giants like Nuance, Apple and Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biancaxl (talk • contribs) 21:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Biancaxl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Vocapia Research is a French PME which is providing commercially reliable applications in speech recognition and is also close to the academic world. It is an opportunity to have other standpoints that the ones from well known big companies.Ioana Vasilescu (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)— Ioana Vasilescu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any subjective claims in the article. It actually refers to external links showing that the company has some visibility in the field. Therefore, I don't see why it should be questionable. The article may need some improvements in the History section. Thfraga (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)— Thfraga (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please add new comments below this notice.

Delete A company such as this gets an article when it receives substantial coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy WP:GNG. It does not get a Wikipedia article just because primary and directly affiliated sources or passing and trivial mentions verify that it exists. None of the sources in the articles pass muster and nothing like substantial coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject can be found on Google either - all I get are primary sources, press releases, passing mentions and the like - I'm not finding good, reliable sources where the company is the subject of the coverage. The company's automatic speech-to-text transcription software on the other hand might meet the inclusion criteria if it has been covered in depth in independent research papers in academic journals. So delete this article about the company without prejudice to an article being created about the software if good, reliable source coverage about it is brought forward.

Finally, if any of those who have argued to keep the article are employees of the company or have a close affiliation with it, then you should know that you have a conflict of interest, which is strongly discouraged as it undermines public confidence in Wikipedia and risks causing public embarrassment to the companies (or individuals) being promoted. You must disclose your conflict of interest on your user page and during any discussion about the topic, including this one. You can do this now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I've partially suppressed, and discounted as off-topic, one opinion in favor of deletion. Sandstein 08:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernstein Center Freiburg[edit]

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

No evidence of independent notability. Redirect to University of Freiburg. SSTflyer 14:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 14:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added into Science Fiction category by mistake. Apologies. Nordic Dragon 14:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, I'll remove it for you. Thank you for your efforts at delsorting. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent notability is given by the independence of the center. Even though it is established as a central facility of the university in terms of teaching, it has the status of an independent research center which is organised in the national Bernstein Network (hence the name). Independence is further established by third-party funding. MichaelVeit1987 (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC+1) — MichaelVeit1987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I would also vote to keep the article. Integration into the page University of Freiburg may not be a viable option as there is no place in the current structure to include information on Freiburg research centers that are affiliated to the university (of which there are several). Centers like the Berstein Center Freiburg (BCF) act with a great deal of independence when it comes to research. Just adding their content to the University of Freiburg article may seem irrelevant to most people reading about the university. On the other hand, as a person interested in the research center BCF, I would not be looking for it under the university entry. I believe the proper way to do it would be a very short paragraph in the university article with a link to the main article on the BCF. (In the interest of full disclosure: I do work at the BCF.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.177.160 (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC) — 132.230.177.160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, [Comment removed by administrator as potentially libelous, Sandstein 08:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)]; Be..anyone (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Some odd comments above. @MichaelVeit1987: the point here is to determine independent notability, not factual independence. Either way, a scan of relevant search engines didn't turn up any non-trivial third-party coverage, only statements of the form "X at the Bernstein Center Freiburg said/discovered/etc Y". —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wikipedia has also independent entries in many very similar cases. For example: The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_the_History_of_Science,_Technology_and_Medicine which belongs to King's College.The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCL_Institute_of_Neurology which belongs to University College London to mention two examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.174.231.204 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC) — 84.174.231.204 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This is "Articles for Deletion", and is for articles that cannot be improved, not a forum to load down with redirection arguments. Editors who want a centralized discussion forum for redirects should create one. Otherwise, the relevant forum is the talk page of the article, and if needed, RfC. Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect if needed as there's nothing yet suggesting the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of tallest buildings in Wisconsin. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of the tallest buildings in Wisconsin[edit]

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

I don't think a "List of the tallest buildings in Wisconsin" is a large enough topic to be listed in an encyclopedia. Wisconsin is a relatively small state and only three buildings have been added to this list (I assume no more will be added). Also, there are no references. — Music1201 ^talk 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of tallest buildings in Milwaukee covers the topic of tall buildings in Wisconsin well enough; Madison is height-restricted due to the Wisconsin State Capitol, and outside of there and Milwaukee the tallest building is usually either a bank or hotel in a Wisconsin city. Too broad a topic with a deep plunge after Madison. Nate • (chatter) 01:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not enough for a solid article, certainly conceivable including with the name but still questionable at the end. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect [to older, more complete List of tallest buildings in Wisconsin that was found by User:Jay. Changed from "Keep"], as the topic of "List of tallest buildings in STATE" is valid for any state, unless there is some clear standard, although it would also be fine to merge this to a Wisconsin section in a combo list, say something like "List of tallest buildings in the United States by state" (distinct from List of tallest buildings by U.S. state which gives just one per state). Fix its grammar and tag it for more references, sure, but we don't need separate AFDs for lots of separate members of Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United States. --do ncr am 16:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, this is a valid search term and there is content available for it, so it should lead readers to that content. It could be redirected to a long list by state, be redirected to the Milwaukee list, or the Milwaukee list could be moved to this title. Siuenti (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For list articles that are part of a closed set, it shouldn't matter how many elements there are, provided there is at least one. It would be different for "Tallest Buildings in {City}," which is an open set.Ma^t_chups 13:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Redirect per JayJay, below. I agree with Doncram and Matchups on this one. From an encyclopedic point of view, our goal here should be to have some kind of referenced list for every state. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Redirect as below – Plausibly useful list with objective selection criteria. Obviously it's going to overlap with the Milwaukee one, but they are separate topics and WP:NOTPAPER applies. Does need improvement, as doncram says (maybe a dedicated "outside Milwaukee" section), but that can be dealt with at the article. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Did anyone care to see if there was a similar article pretty much the same as this one. I did and there is, the title is similar. Article name is List of tallest buildings in Wisconsin. I suggest redirecting to that article JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did look, but for whatever reason I didn't find it. Thank you. I agree that the existing article is superior, and have changed my !vote accordingly. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch User:Jay, but the 2015-created List of tallest buildings in Wisconsin was not in categories where it should have been, where I looked and User:Arxiloxos probably did too. Its only category was Category:Lists of buildings and structures in Wisconsin. It should also have been in Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United States. (The Alabama one is in Category:Skyscrapers in Alabama, Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United States, Category:Lists of buildings and structures in Alabama) while some others, like the Kansas one, had only the "Lists of buildings and structures in STATE" category.) It was perhaps not found by User:Listmaker319, who created the new one created recently that is subject of this AFD, for the same reason. The new one was not put into any categories at all. (It happens to anyone, that we create an article and later find that the topic exists under a different name. But Listmaker319, please make a point of adding appropriate categories to any new lists that you make! Doing so might help you find your way to pre-existing lists....in this case you might have found the pre-existing one in Category:Lists of buildings and structures in Wisconsin...and you would have redirected your new list, yourself, avoiding this AFD.) I am going to add categories now. --do ncr am 15:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed on both counts. Changed !vote accordingly. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to User:Listmaker319, User:Grayamari, User:MainlyTwelve and others, there is need for Lists of tallest buildings in the United States by state (currently a redlink), different than List of tallest buildings by U.S. state, to link to the state lists like the navigation template {{US tallest buildings lists by state}} does. That list is needed so it can be included into template {{Template:US tallest buildings lists}}. And there are other states where the state lists are needed, as can be seen by review of what's linked in template {{US tallest buildings lists by state}}:

"Alaska" is linked to List of tallest buildings in Anchorage, rather than to List of tallest buildings in Alaska (which is currently a redlink)
"Arizona" is linked to List of tallest buildings in Phoenix, rather than to List of tallest buildings in Arizona (which is currently a redlink)
"Arkansas" is linked to List of tallest buildings in Little Rock, rather than to List of tallest buildings in Arkansas (which is currently a redlink)
California and Connecticut are okay already
"Delaware" is linked to List of tallest buildings in Wilmington, Delaware, rather than to List of tallest buildings in Delaware (which is currently a redlink)
etc.

Hope this helps! --do ncr am 16:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Teo[edit]

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

A WP:BLP1E, but the event isn't particularly significant. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's true that Wikipedia isn't a news service, but mentions in articles [https://www.google.com/search?q=Dave+Teo&oq=Dave+Teo&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.239j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=%22Dave+Teo%22 after 2007 suggest the event has been a lot more than just one news event. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known event in Singapore with broad coverage in reliable sources; notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY and in any case Google indicates coverage continued well after the event. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was a major news story, notability is Not Temporary as mentioned above. Smartyllama (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject of this article only seems to be known for one thing (i.e. going AWOL with a wpn in 2007 and being arrested), hence, WP:BLP1E per the nomination. Just because it was a major news story 9 years ago in one small part of the world (i.e. Singapore) does not mean he meets the notability standards of an encyclopedia with a global scope. All the references seem to be local news items from 2007-08 so I can't see any evidence that this has resulted in significant and lasting coverage per WP:SIGCOV. If there was more recent international coverage in non-news sources maybe, but there really is very little available, therefore not "broad coverage" at all. Claims of "WP:NOTTEMPORARY" are wrong-headed as he wasn't notable by our standards in 2007, and he still isn't notable in 2016. That is not to say that the incident doesn't have its place on Wikipedia though, as it would seem to me that a short summary could be included at National service in Singapore. As such a merge and redirect to this article could be a viable alternative to outright deletion. Anotherclown (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about "one small part of the world" and asking for "international coverage" seems like WP:BIAS to me, fwiw. The Straits Times (syndicated on asiaone) is Singapore's newspaper of record and therefore national rather than local in scope. It was covered regionally: here's a Chinese article on sina.com half a year after the event; in fact there's a reference to him almost a decade after the event in Vietnamese here (not a significant reference in itself but indicative of continuing notability in view of the range of feature-length articles). There's an article on him on a major Singaporean Buzzfeed-style website (cite) almost a decade after the event here, which even states that "anyone who has been through NS in the army would know about Dave Teo". NOTTEMPORARY is relevant since part of the reason it's difficult to find English sources now is just link rot; the Straits Times archives from 2007–8 don't seem to be available, for instance, though there are still snippets available online. But decade-long coverage should easily meet the requirement of persistency in BLP1E. Most Singaporeans know about this person; he's more than an everyday criminal news event. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BLP1E: this person is known only for a single incident, and it wasn't even a particularly significant one. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I can see a lot of work has been done to fully reference the article for which its editors should be commended, I really don't think the subject is notable enough for a stand alone biography article. Would such an individual be covered in a biographical encyclopedia (for instance, does Singapore have an equivalent of Who's Who, such as the New Zealand Dictionary of Biography or the Australian Dictionary of Biography? If so, would they qualify for appearance in that? If not, then I suggest perhaps we are reaching in our inclusion.) The subject appears to have received quite a bit of coverage in the context of that one incident, but otherwise they will likely remain a low profile individual. As such, it seems to me like BLP1E applies here, although as Anotherclown suggests perhaps the topic could be covered as a small part in a wider article (if a suitable one is agreed upon, and obviously being careful not to breach WP:UNDUE). Beyond this, surely the other consideration is the subject's privacy and not impacting upon their ability to rehabilitate on release. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The incident is notable and meets WP:GNG. Rename this article to something like "Dave Teo AWOL incident", to reduce its biographical focus. SSTflyer 05:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best and Restart and Rename later if needed as this is all still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is essentially a news item, see WP:NOTNEWS. Incidents or offenses of this sort happen all over the world all the time and the media cover them; that's their job, not ours. But I don't see the lasting importance of this event for Singapore, its military or anybody else that would justify article-level coverage in an encyclopedia. Sandstein 09:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although the work done on this article is to be commended, I feel that this is essentially a news item. I can see no evidence that there is a lasting impact on the locality or the armed forces. As such it appears to be BLP1E case. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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