Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 April	25 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 Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design to Renourish: Sustainable Graphic Design in Practice[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on a non-notable book. Article created by one of the authors, who contested the prod without explanation or improvement. Author also created an autobio article. --Finngall ^talk 23:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of independent, non-trivial coverage that I can see, seems to fail WP:BK - Basement12 (T.C) 22:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A completely promotional article. The article has no sources that support notability. The book isn't even published yet. It's due out in December 2016. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, nothing likely to convince the necessary independent notability, certainly the listed sources are not enough to support this article by itself. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted as CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exitmusic[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable musical group. Googling them only turned up self-published sources (Facebook, Soundcloud) and an album on Amazon with 17 reviews. Pianoman320 (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kyle1278 (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyvio of https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/exitmusic/id266721214 Pburka (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, I had a hunch it was copied from somewhere. Pianoman320 (talk) 17:13, 28 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. No evidence of potential for notability at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Go Park Resort[edit]

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

Not yet opened or built theme park Jac16888 ^Talk 22:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unsourced and falls under WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggesting the necessary notability improvements, at least basically. SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Crazenovski[edit]

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

No indication that this individual (or indeed anyone with the name Crazenovski) ever existed in reality. Appears to be a character in a 2010 BBC production, A Passionate Woman. It's unclear whether the page is an intentional hoax or (perhaps more likely) a misinterpretation of the drama's story as factual, but no references can be found to support the article's claims. Calamondin12 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional character, falsely presented as if the person actually lived. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a non-notable fictional character. Even if he were real he wouldn't be notable, though his fictional wife may stand a chance - Basement12 (T.C) 22:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bio of fictional character portraying them as factual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only a subject of 1 TV series, nothing else for any applicable notability such as WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as although still about a day early, there's a clear consensus to keep and I see no likeliness of it changing with another week (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krista Franklin[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and artist, which asserts her existence but fails to demonstrate or reliably source her notability under either WP:AUTHOR or WP:ARTIST. This is based entirely on primary sources and WP:ROUTINE event listings, with no indication of reliable source coverage shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which creative professionals are entitled to have articles just because they exist -- real reliable source coverage, supporting a proper claim of notability, must be present for her to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As Bearcat says, all sources are either interviews, stock biographies or event listings.Please come back in five or ten years, with reputable sources. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, following the flurry of truly wishy-washy references added by some editors. To update my "ten years" comment, which I made when I thought the poet was actualy much earlier in their career... why is it so hard to find references stronger than student newspapers, event announcements for a poet who has been publishing for 17 years or more? After 17 years there should be a LOT of in-depth reviews and critical mentions in siginificant sources, and they should be easy to find. This article has become a classic example of how to make someone notable enough through forensic reference excavation and archaeology. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi @Bearcat: and @HappyValleyEditor: I’ve rewritten the lead for this article and was hoping either one of you could answer as to why one of the most celebrated, and published, modern day African-American female poets has her article nominated for deletion? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Picomtn:I rewrote your rewrite, which was really just puffing things up by an appeal to authority (The Poetry Foundation say so, so she must be notable). Published secondary sources are weak, which is why I voted to delete. In essence, not enough people are writing about her. To wit, the seciton you added with publications is referenced by primary sources (the publishers) rather than independent third-party book reviews, critical essays or media mentions. Have a look at WP:RS.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to assert that a person is "one of the most celebrated, and published, modern day African-American female poets" — reliable source coverage in media has to demonstrate the truth of the assertion, and nobody ever gets an exemption from having to be properly sourced just because the article (or an AFD discussion about it) makes unsubstantiated assertions of notability. Anybody can claim absolutely anything about an article topic — I could easily start an article about myself which claimed that I'd won the Nobel Prize, for example — so it's not the claim itself, but the quality of sourcing that's present to support the claim, that determines whether an article is keepable or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe it was very constructive to delete the new lead I worked very hard to create and thoroughly referenced. With so many references being available to prove the notability of this African-American female artist, only some of which I included, anyone taking part in this discussion will now not have these references available to see for themselves. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note After the deletion of the lead I rewrote this is what it says now: Krista Franklin is a poet and visual artist with no references being citied. In the interest of fairness though, the rewrite that I did using reliable sources can be viewed here. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, solidly. The Poetry Foundation profile is short but a perfectly good source. It is perhaps a summary drawing on multiple good longer other sources that exist. There are 5 published interviews of her (linked from that section of her website). The long interview dated June 2010 at examiner.com (The Examiner?) establishes her notability on its own. There is significant other press about her (see links from that section). The only problem with the article is that it is not yet developed far enough, it should describe her visual art work, etc. --do ncr am 22:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion of this article would remove all contribution to mainspace by the article's creator, a new editor who created this apparently at an Arts and Feminism Wikipedia meetup, from a list of suggested articles needed. The prod 6 minutes later appears unfortunate in context: it may have stopped further development at that event and turned off a potential contributor. Also it appears wp:before was not performed. And sarcasm like "come back in 10 years" is rude, does not belong here, makes me feel a bit ashamed. I have commented elsewhere that guidelines for AFD should be changed to take new contributor factor into consideration and reduce likelihood of this kind of stuff happening; I expect to use this case as an example in future discussion.--do ncr am 22:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aside from the poetry foundation profile (which seems to me like it should count towards her notability), there is also this, this, this (all reports on different works by her in local papers); this interview (JSTOR Daily). More mentions here and here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Bearcat did a fine and proper job of nominating this. As to my "come back in five or ten years" comment, artistic careers can take multiple decades to fully develop. Who created the article is irrelevant. The refs Caeciliusinhorto has come up with are only slightly better than the ones I saw in my own search but they're pretty weak overall: an unreliable interview, a student newspaper, a paragraph in this one, another interview] (which fails the independent source test), an event announcement and finally another student newspaper. There is frequent mention of interviews in the comments above. Interviews are not independent sources-- they are a direct interaction with the article subject. The Poetry Foundation ref is decent, but it's not a critical review, it's a republished bio with some accolades. Organizations get these bios from the artists- they phone them up or email and say "send us your bio so we can publish it." Finally, there's nothing to be ashamed about here. This is just a plain old AfD that is examining the notability of a subject for a Wikipedia article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re. the Poetry Foundation bio: there is nothing in GNG which says that notability must be in the form of critical reviews. I am also wary of dismissing a bio published in an independent source as coming from the subject with no evidence beyond "this is the sort of thing these sorts of organisations do". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have taken the time to add the mentioned sources by Caeciliusinhorto (thanks) as references to the article including, [1], [2], [3],[4] and [5]. Many of the references include full page spreads, not just mere mentions. I also found several other new references in reliable sources. Such as, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]. The some 17-18 references contained in the article as of now have significant coverage across multiple reliable sources WP:RS, and therefore this article subject meets WP:GNG easily, and has crossed the threshold of notability. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your list there, you repeated three links twice. Softlavender (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to pass WP:GNG. Regardless of what types of sources they are, they are sufficient to provide an encyclopedic biography.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can understand why this was nominated in the state it was in at that time: [12]. I was fairly dubious about it until just now. I've now noticed enough significant coverage and notability to convince me that she passes GNG. The sad fact of the matter is that black artists, especially black female artists, especially black female underground artists, do not have the same kind of corporate-owned media coverage that other more "visible" artists do. Especially when they work in two completely different fields: i.e., art and poetry, which divides the focus of visibility. That's why one has to scrounge around a bit more to get sources and assess notability. But I am convinced by now that she passes. Softlavender (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that the HappyValleyEditor question as to why is it so hard to find references...for a poet who has been publishing for 17 years or more? was legitimatly answered by Softlavender who correctly pointed out that American American (especially) female artists do not have the same kind of corporate-owned media coverage that other more visible artists do. Going forward though, and in the hope that this AfD can provide a sort of framework for this issue, what exact WP guidelines/polices/etc. should editors use in this type of evaluation? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As to the comment about female poets, Picomtn and Softlavender, the sections above where you moan about opportunitees for certain groups are large exaggerations. Poets, publishers of poetry and the poetry consuming public are in geenral the most erudite, lef-leaning, politically correct non-discriminating group around. Also, we are not taking about finding references for a 19th centruy powet here-- we are talking abotu the last fiteen years. Let's remeber that those who are in the literature-promotion business are perhaps the MOST left wing and MOST sensitive to discrimination of all the professions. The reality is that this person is just not that notable. The discrimination claim is hyperbolic. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with political spectrum. This is about corporate-owned media. If you believe poets and black female artists are well-represented in corporate-owned media, then I simply disagree with you. Softlavender (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Softlavender and Picomtn, women are still poorly represented in media as this study shows. While women authors made slight gains, for example, overall, coverage still lags behind coverage of men (see page 95). HappyValleyEditor, you can't assume that poets are "left leaning" or even unbiased in their selections. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references now included in the improved and expanded article are sufficient to establish notability. I find the theorizing and hypothesizing in this debate to be unproductive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Softlavender. I'll see if I can add any other references from the databases, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl, late yesterday I added a couple of references to the bottom of the Talk page that haven't been used yet. Softlavender (talk) 00:03, 28 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 WP:SNOW deleted by User:Orangemike. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 03:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Weaver (American Revolutionary)[edit]

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

This person seems to me to fail the Wikipedia notability guidelines for people/bios, i.e. WP:PEOPLE. He did not serve in any great capacity in the revolution (he wasn't an officer), he didn't serve in any state or federal government capacity, and he is not notable. If we built articles for every American ancestor or soldier mentioned in a book, then the notion of "notability" lacks any real purpose. I'm a fan of "Wikipedia isn't paper," but Wikipedia is not one big family tree either (like, say WikiTree). I'd love to have a page on Wikipedia for my Revolutionary ancestor Paschal Tucker, but he really didn't do anything. This article is never going to be more than a stub, most of the article is not about the subject explicitly, the sources are a bit iffy, and the person is just not notable. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He served as a private and was present at one battle. He later got married. In no sense do those bare bones facts establish notability, and the rest of the article is about his family tree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I heartily support genealogical research, but it doesn't necessarily belong on Wikipedia; this is a good example. He fought as a soldier, got married, had a family with some history, etc. However, I'm not convinced at all of his actual notability. GAB^Hello! 22:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really don't have anything more to add. This is basically not very good genealogical research with no attempt to show notability. I removed some off-topic original research earlier. I see the editor created a similar article which was speedy deleted. Hm, perhaps I should look at my family tree again. I know there are articles here on a couple of entries in my family tree. :-) Doug Weller talk 16:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. If he had notable descendants, then I would change my mind. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 25 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" 16:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Political Science Review[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources (tagged for sources since 5 years). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well expressed nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable by standards of WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Also fails WP:OR.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is one of only two journals in the world dealing with this topic. It is not indexed because it is Open Access — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mi9cal (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of two is not something that meets any of the criteria mentioned in WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, please base your arguments on policy/guideliens or they are bound to be ignored. And being OA doesn't mean that a journal cannot get indexed in Scopus or the (Social) Science Citation Index, many OA journals are (such as PLOS ONE, or the BioMed Central journals). --Randykitty (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete as there's nothing at least for at least solid independent notability and WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this is clear enough consensus to at least close a day early (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lambu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The prod tag was removed by the creator Magipur. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good sources. very notable film. Magipur (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi GeoffreyT2000 I’ve rewritten the lead of this article but was wondering by what criteria a film starring one of India’s most popular actresses, and whose music was composed by an award winning composer, was nominated for deletion? I’m not saying you were wrong for doing so, I just think it would be helpful for this discussion to know this reason. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article has been linked to the filmography sections of both Suraiya and O. P. Nayyar articles where this movie was already referenced. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Picomtn: I have WP:PRODed this article but since that was removed, I have sent it to AfD instead. The article was tagged for notability by Wgolf with this edit. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GeoffreyT2000: Again please, I'm still not sure why you exactly nominated this article for deletion, and without knowing that I have no idea what kind of improvements you want to see have done to this article. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Film has four solid, notable, wikilinked actors, has three solid sources, a noted screenwriter, and a theme song that has legs into the 21st century. Nominating this film twice without following our deletion polices is a policy violation. Actually 2: WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. Yes, GeoffreyT2000, those are both policies. Follow the links, scroll up, then scroll back down and read them. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three solid reliable sources is enough to meet WP:GNG. Seems notable enough for an article. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 23:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking at the sources, the subject is surely notable. A Google search, especially for books, brings up many other credible sources to support this. But this article needs to use more sources, as inline citations, and copyediting. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've now added 4 additional book references to this article and was able to document the solo sung in this movie by Lata Mangeshkar too. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film is notable and the article is now well-referenced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:17, 30 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" 16:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D Grammar School[edit]

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

English sources of any kind are hard to find, and I can not verify that this should be an "independently accredited degree-awarding institution". Appears to be non-notable. As this was deleted as an expired prod in March (created by the same editor), I bring it here. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Article makes no claim to notability. Have done a google search and unable to find any reliable secondary sources (let alone two). If two do exist and the article is expanded will reconsider my view. -- Shudde ^talk 17:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Ditto on what @Shudde: said. Also, it looks like the author posted it like a listing on a directory. KgosarMyth (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as none of this suggests the necessary schools notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this school meets WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:29, 26 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Rising Stars[edit]

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

The name Kashmir Rising Stars is not mentioned is any of the sources and it is not confirmed that it will be added in the PSL. Musa Talk 16:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 16:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 16:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 16:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - a pure fiction as yet. This has been the subject of a number of fantastical attempts an insertion in one form or another at Pakistan Super League. As of now there is nothing more than speculation that a team may possibly be added to the PSL at some point, possibly even in 2017 and that the league administrator has suggested that it may be Kasmir based if it is added. Nothing more than that - and this follows on from a number of other invented PSL team articles dating back a few months. Frankly it's nothing but someone's imagination as of now. I'd suggest salting - no point doing anything to the editor as the same rubbish comes from ips. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously a newly founded group with nothing else convincing for the needed notability. Too soon, SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helen M. Radics[edit]

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

Has been once speedy deleted and once (by me) as a result af an AfD nomination. The article was recreated earlier this month, and I still do not see notability. Ymblanter (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The author states that the photo is taken by them meaning they are a sock of the author of two previous articles (previously warned about recreation of deleted pages). Suggest salting.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it — I came across this page on an uncategorized-articles tagging run, thought it looked iffy, and was planning to nominate it for AFD as soon as I got back from running to the store. I'm definitely not seeing any strong or credible claim to notability, as opposed to mere existence, here — "Hungarian Life Network named Helen M. Radics as their official spokesperson for "Walnut Roll" for the 2010 Christmas Season, during which she lead her Walnut Roll Team to victory in Life Network's annual battle between Walnut Roll and Poppy Seed Roll", in particular, strikes me as one of the oddest attempts at a notability claim that I've seen in at least the past few years. The number of subscribers a person has on YouTube does not count toward notability if reliable sources aren't writing about her presence on YouTube. The other notability claim here is that she appeared on CTV News, but no sources are cited for that in this version at all — however, the old version did reference it to a YouTube video which reveals that the appearance was not on a national CTV News program (which might have counted for something), but only on CTV's local newscast on CKCO-DT in Kitchener (which does not constitute a credible notability claim at all). The preponderance of ™ and ® symbols in the body text strongly suggests that the core intent was advertorial rather than encyclopedic, and this isn't actually making or sourcing a better claim of notability than the first version did, either. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody is entitled to have an article just because they can be verified as existing: it's an encyclopedia, on which an article is earned by meeting certain specific standards of notability and sourceability which have not been passed here. Speedy delete with salt. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable cookbook writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly noticeably unacceptable, nothing else, the "TM" marks are enough there and not to mention then the complete bareness of actual contextual sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Widr, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (K100unique) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhant Shirsat[edit]

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

does not have any significance or notability the sources are facebook and Internet Movie Database which is for actors not politicians also he is a corporater in a small town in Maharashtra. Article was deleted earlier [13] Fitindia (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Makes no claim to notablity and no sources that passes the WP:GNG threshold. Only thing coming even close is [14] and even here he is only mentioned in passing. Looks like it was created by a single purpose account and is an orphan article as well. So not a lot pointing to the subject being notable. -- Shudde ^talk 17:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 as being created by an obvious sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/K100unique. --Finngall ^talk 13:55, 26 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. Michig (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Kalish[edit]

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

Created by a WP:COI WP:SPA user (Ksenna19). Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, no reliable third party source to pass notability guidelines. This user should know that he does not own his own Wikipedia page (WP:OWN) Donnie Park (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Turns out he's not actually a race car driver at all, but rather a high school basketball player, and quite notable at that - lots of coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then in that case, WP:TOOSOON, in fact fewer high school basketball players are notable and in fact he is not in high school anymore. Donnie Park (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator has been blocked for socking since April 20. (non-admin closure) Eye snore 01:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lazaro Mangubat[edit]

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

Nothing known of person - no reference, or citations. Mary McAllen (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: reference is of little value to show notability. I would recommend a merge into Madridejos, Cebu#History, but the content already exists there, almost verbatim. Also see WP:ONEEVENT. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 10:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete few and brief references on topic. Agree with Crh23. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable person. I expanded and improved the article. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note The nominator removed all improvents of the article without any reason. See here Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 06:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your nonsense how no WP:VERIFIABILITY or WP:INTEGRITY. Blogs cannot be anything but WP:BLOGS. And you tried seem like hijacking, changing the name of the subject. Mary McAllen (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note All efforts over the last week to improve the article are removed by the nominator Mary McAllen. The version of the article I placed at the talk page (Talk:Lazaro Mangubat#Expanding) has better references compared to the article at the moment. Also the article is more in line with the WP style guidelines. Can people argue what is wrong with this version before adjusting the article again. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the user who nominated for deletion was blocked as a possible sock puppet. Eye snore 13:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SvG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would have thought that provincial governors were notable per se. It is currently a poor article, but that implies tagging it for improvement, not deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inadequate deletion rationale. Clearly there is something known about this person and there are citations. clpo13_(talk) 18:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reason for deletion is simply false, and the nom is a sock, to boot. It could be a much better article, but AFD is not cleanup. The subject appears notable, anyhow. GAB^Hello! 22:10, 24 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Under-16 Individual Speedway Championship[edit]

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

last AfD was no consensus but the keep arguments were far from convincing. This junior event gets no significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails WP:GNG and very little winners of the race have an article, pretty easy deletion. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The amount of red links is not a guideline for deleting or keeping the page. And it is not an easy deletion as the previous AfD did not reach consensus.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. Agree with ThePlatypusofDoom EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirict Merge prose and a list of the winners only into Australian Individual Speedway Championship. Redirect for incoming links. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply perhaps as still questionable for the needed independent notability improvements and I could've considered keeping the history with redirect but it's still questionable so delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 00:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DamonAndJo[edit]

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

No notability, speedy delete removed. Laber□^T 22:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I removed the A7 as the creator added a claim of significance, but only reliable source is [15]. The rest are blogs, press releases, and mentions. Esquivalience ^t 01:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found more sources:
- aol.com interview
- teenvogue.com interview

Looking at WP:ENT:

They have multiple productions
210,000 subscribers (which makes them top ~10,000 in the world, not exceptional, but nearly enough to make a living)
They have made unique contributions to the field.

My gut tells me that they are borderline and it's too early. But the coverage is significant, the sources reliable (at least LA Times and TeenVogue), secondary, and independent, so it passes WP:GNG no matter what I think, so weak keep. -- RM 03:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now and wait for better thus a better notable article and therefore having confidently keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I feel a more thorough discussion may be beneficiary here. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:10, 24 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 Church of Light. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. C. Zain[edit]

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

Hi all,
This article was nominated for speedy deletion and I see merit in that speedy deletion request. It is currently sourced from

the Church of Light website
a book, "Volume XVI titled 'Stellar Anatomy' Copyright, 1947, Serial No. 197 Reprinted December, 1966 The Church of Light,Los Angeles, California"

Perhaps a review of the sources in previous version may be appropriate?
I note that article was created on 30 April 2006.

"because it's been here since 2006" is not a good reason to keep the article.
"because it's about an Occultist" is not a good reason to delete the article. Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not seeing a whole lot we can use as WP:RS either in the sense of books, newspaper or academic pieces. However given that this guy was around pre-internet, I think it is possible that more sources exist offline. I've seen a couple of works which have been cited which seem to discuss him (which I can't access, just to be clear) and he seems to have written a number of books and works which had a reasonable amount of influence at one time. So my instinct is to merge with Church of Light until someone is able to get to the offline sources which would be needed to show his individual notability (if those do indeed exist). JMWt (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Church of Light. I agree, there probably are sources, and this person seems notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the "Find sources -- Books" link above indicates, hundreds of books by other writers contain at least brief discussions of Zain, his church, and/or his influence on astrology and tarot. I went through the first few pages, and the most substantial such discussion that I found was this; other examples include [16][17][18][19]. A merge may be fine, but this topic is way outside my usual focus, and I hope that someone with a firmer grasp on the subject matter will have a look at these potential sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is a plausible search term so it should lead to the Church of Light article. The only mergable content is the primary sourced paragraph about the "21 courses of the Brotherhood of Light lessons", which can fit in the origins section. The other sourced content is already there. AIRcorn (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nothing actually suggesting the needed independent notability itself, seems best connected to the Church itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The snowball clause applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bartoli family[edit]

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

Total lack of sources for just about anything in this article (see talk) combined with some obvious hoaxes on Commons, e.g. File:NapoleonattacksVolterra.jpg which is Keith Rocco's The French Attack on Marengo leads me to believe this article is a hoax. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sourcing can be found. I just looked and found nothing. Hoax? Maybe. Regardless, the content must be demonstrated verifiable and the topic notable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete A search for sources by Sam Sailor (and by me) has found nothing except that Bartoli Family is the name of an Italian ice cream parlour here. And, this page goes into some detail in respect of the Bartoli name without including info. about this alleged family. Files at commons have been nominated for deletion. I agree it seems to be an invention. Eagleash (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't even verify that there have ever been any Dukes of Volterra, let alone that the Bartoli family were amongst them. If the title did exist, it looks like the Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana might be the place to look; I don't read Italian, though, and can't find a copy online, so I'm not the person to check. If someone could verify that the title existed, that would be a start, but that wouldn't be enough to show that the family meets the notability requirement. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the more I think about this article, the more dubious it seems to me. A town in Italy being ruled by the same Ducal family 1190-1530, and then again 1665-1797, and then again 1815-1860, all under the same name? Without the main line of the family ever ending? It seems to stretch the bounds of credibility somewhat to imagine that twice after being overthrown the same family would be able to just waltz back in and re-establish power without seemingly having any trouble whatsoever. When we combine that with the fact that the Medici's rule over Volterra for more than a century isn't mentioned in the article on the Medici, and that the Medici did not lose their power in Tuscany in 1665 as the article states... Well, there's no real reason to believe that anything in the article is particularly accurate... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax, in the absence of any references. Perhaps the article creator should take a trip to the depository of of printed and bound information for refs.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The number of redlinks in the article suggests to me, they are NN. The article on Volterra has notably weak history section, which implies that the town was subject to rule by Florence from the time of the Medicis. That does ot rule out local dukes or other nobles ruling under Florentine suzerainty, but the Grand Dukes of Tuscany were not royalty (though perhaps close to it); an inferior dukes certainly would not be. Whether it is a HOAX or not, it is such a bad article that it requires TNT. If it does have a genuine basis, the author would do better starting off with a History of Volterra, in which he could list the ruling dukes, similar to the articles on every British peerage, followed by biographies of any dukes who were notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone mentioned from Augusto Giovanni Bartoli to Claudio Bartoli can't be confirmed in reliable sources. This is probably a hoax and the author ought to be blocked for persistent disruptive behavior. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, also noting that previous editors think that this may be a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as total hoax.--Yopie (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, very likely a hoax. I'm a bit expert on Tuscan history and I had never heard of this family before this article. I have't found any source about this Bartoli family from Volterra (Bartoli is a common surname in Tuscany and other bordering regions though), not to mention that the title of Duke was extremely rare in Tuscany being that Tuscany was a Grand Duchy from 1569 led by the House of Medici, until the extinction of its senior branch in 1737, and then by the House of Habsburg-Lorraine untill the Grand Duchy ceased to exist on 1859. Furthermore Volterra was never a Duchy. On May 4, 2014 in the Italian Wikipedia an article dedicated to a Bartoli family from Volterra has been deleted for lack of sources and suspected hoax, it was very likely created by the same author of this article. [20]. --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and likely hoax. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, very likely a hoax.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revista Cubana de Física[edit]

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

I can't verify any of the content of this article, which was apparently created at the request of the editor of the obscure journal in question. One directory says it started in 2012, the article says 1980, it doesn't appear to have its own web domain and the official website, which is also the page linked in most directories, is effectively a university user's personal page, and is in any case 404. I suppose this probably existed, but evidence of its significance, impact, or coverage in other sources, is lacking. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain ~~Delete~~ [changed vote, per my comment under Randykitty's section]. I've edited the article, entering what I believe is the new url for its web site -- but that doesn't mean much of anything, other than to give some credence to the description in Wikipedia's article. I also found reference to its existence in WorldCat, but again that means little. I tried fumbling my way through some of the Google hits as to importance of the journal. I'm admittedly ignorant in this area, but the sites seemed to indicate that the journal has little importance. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have updated the links in the article and added another database in which the journal is indexed. I have also added two independent sources. The journal is indexed in Scopus, meeting WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Saying it is indexed by SCOPUS and referencing this to the index listing is not an independent source. There are still no sources about the journal, we can't even authoritatively answer the question of whether it still exists. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It still exists, all links in the article have been updated to the new website and these substantiate the info given in the article (I can include that as references, but in a short stub like this, I find using repeated references to -different pages of- a home website mildly promotional). The reference for Scopus goes to the page where the journal listings are linked. Click on them and you get an Excel file that lists all journals included in Scopus. I used to link directly to the Excel file, but that's not good, because the name of the file changes each time they update it (and the Excel file then pops up without any explanation of what it is). Scopus only includes journals after a committee of academics has vetted it and deemed it worthy for inclusion, so it is one of the "inclusive databases" mentioned in NJournals. Academic journals are rarely the subject of articles in other media. That does pose a problem. If you delve into the history of NJournals (still only an essay), you'll see that it stayed an essay because people objected to making it a guideline on two mutually exclusive ground: one group thought it was too inclusive and that we should rigorously apply GNG (incorrect, I think). Another group though it was too discriminating and that any journal that can be used in WP as a reliable source should be taken to be notable (also wrong, I think). NJournals takes the position that a thorough examination by a committee of academics (as done by Scopus) constitutes in-depth coverage an indicates notability. Note that "selective" here means that perhaps one in 5 journals or less makes it through the application process, so journals listed in Scopus (or in the even more selective Thomson Reuters databases - but not the Emerging Sources Citation Index, BTW) are really the top journals in their respective fields. --Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, thanks for that carefully thought out response. I had seen the essay WP:NJournals, but was worried that there was no consensus that it should be a guideline. However, I think you've made a fair point. I'm going to change my !vote to 'Abstain', in the hope that other more knowledgable people will chime in. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added (22:15, April 22, 2016): Keep as DGG's commentary is convincing enough to suggest keeping. Before I comment, I'm inviting DGG for his familiar analysis with these subjects. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I consider the actual situation a little ambiguous. There is agreement that WoS establishes notability ,except for its related database ESBI, which does not. The question is whether Scopus does. I used to think so, and nowI am not so sure, because it seems to have much less discriminating coverage. But outside of Western Europe and the US, its coverage has always not just more inclusive but probably more realistic than WoS, so I would tend to accept it for such areas. That's all that's needed to estalish notability for a journal. Personally I am one of those who would prefer to change our rule to accept any journal usable at WP, but , as Randykitty says, that does not have consensus. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 24 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 Deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Projects for protection of animals in India[edit]

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

unsourced list of random projects Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - any useful content could be added to Conservation in India. PamD 15:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 27 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. Article is currently unnotable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra (2016 film)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NFF. Charles Turing (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

looking further:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Ezra Movie Jayakrishnan Prithviraj Sukumaran Priya Anand E4 Entertainment

Delete for now. While production plans are receiving coverage, I have been unable to determine if filming has actually begun. The moment we have such verification, we'd have a meeting of WP:NFF... but until then this is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon, not an actual release date at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 23:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Central Jail[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NFF. Charles Turing (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Welcome to Central Jail Sundar Das Vyshakh Rajan Dileep Vaishaka Cinema Benny P. Nayarambalam

Keep per filming having begun and the project itself receiving coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). All it took was a little WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources that Schmidt has found mean that the subject of the article now satisfies GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the starting of filming establishment is enough. SwisterTwister talk

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

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

The result was Already deleted vis BLPPROD. Michig (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Holliday[edit]

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

Although I think he may be notable, this article is written by an user with the same name as this article and the quality is really low Sports Devotee (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Holliday apparently plays for Whitehaven RLFC, which is a Championship side, and therefore does not meet WP:RLN. I cannot find any coverage of him sufficient for WP:GNG, either in Google News or on a general search. Therefore does not appear to be notable. (it is worth noting that simply being written by a user with a COI and being of low quality are not valid reasons for deletion, but reasons for improving the article) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon as this is basically unsourced and there's no other context to suggest otherwise convincingly keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gombak (federal constituency)[edit]

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

Seems very similar to Gombak District, maybe could be merged but I'm not sure. Also has no references. Sports Devotee (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done put official sources from the Election Commission as references. You should access this link for data verification.

Gombak District (Daerah Gombak) should not be confused with Gombak Federal Constituency (Bahagian Pilihan Raya Persekutuan Gombak). Gombak (federal constituency) should has its stand-alone article because the article will elaborate more about election result. Take Category:Canadian federal electoral districts as example. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the district and the constituency are coterminous, I believe they are worthy of separate articles (this is certainly what happens in the UK sphere). Number 5 7 22:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Generally constituencies have separate articles, even if they are coterminous with other entities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at best as similar articles have been started and this is convincing enough, no serious needs for deleting. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are 2 separate entities, even if boundaries are coterminous. One is an administrative subdivision and another is an electoral subdivision. The WP:SCOPE of Gombak District is the administrative district while the scope of Gombak (federal constituency) is about the elections in this electoral division. The current article titles are WP:PRECISE and merging both under the name Gombak would introduce nedless ambiguity. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nextwave. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Corporation©[edit]

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

Unsourced article on fictional Marvel corporation. Search returned little coverage, none from reliable sources that I could find, and therefore fails WP:GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Nextwave. BOZ (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nextwave. Not independently notable and not used much outside Nextwave. No prejudice on recreating this if they suddenly get traction and coverage in reliable sources. Emperor (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nextwave. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nextwave, can be recreated if another title picks them up. Artw (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this was the result of the previous deletion discussion. Not sure why it was nominated for deletion again instead of just being merged... Argento Surfer (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nothing for a solidly independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete qualifies for speedy deletion A10; name is miss-spelled in article. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bowles[edit]

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

Article about supposed murderer which is too old to be eligible for BLP PROD. Completely unsourced and a quick search revealed no independent coverage by reliable sources, no coverage at all, in fact. Fails WP:CRIM. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person's name is actually Eric Volz and an article about him already exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point of redirecting when the name "Eric Bowles" was just made up by the article's creator, and is therefore not a likely search term? Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 23:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I assumed this was some well-known alias. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a demonstrable alias, it seems more likely a misspelling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for the necessary improvements for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory Schaffer[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as yet to play in FPL Seasider91 (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was a drafted player who never saw time in the NWSL. Hmlarson (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ucoin[edit]

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

I declined a CSD because it did not exactly fit any of our predefined criteria, and PRODed it instead (Reason: Unsourced. Essay or original research (WP:OR) ). DePRODed by author who added some external links to sites that while describing the theory, are not 3rd party independent articles about it of the kind that assert notability. A search for RS has proven unproductive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As the subject is slightly covered in reliable sources, giving it some notability. Meatsgains (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Move to Draft for now as my searches are also finding nothing else outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could be simply mentioned at List of cryptocurrencies. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cryptocurrency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. The Vice ref is the only independent RS ref that actually mentions the subject, and does so in only 1 sentence. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also in agreement with SwisterTwister about moving to draft, maybe it will be notable if someone is able to find other sources. st170e^talk 01:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Internet meme. Favonian (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dank memes[edit]

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

There was an RfD about this article last year, with the result of "keep for now". Since then, at any point in the article's history, it's either consisted entirely of vandalism or short unsubstantial content. It's more or less a neologism used in the subculture that could just as easily be mentioned on Internet meme or List of Internet phenomena. ProtossPylon 08:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Internet meme or Delete - It's obviously a neologism without substantial coverage. Some individual memes may be notable, but the term "Dank meme" clearly isn't. I have no problem with mentioning it at either of the two above pages, but I don't believe it could even be sourced adequately. GAB^Hello! 14:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. The concept is not distinct enough from internet memes in general to warrant a separate article. πr² (t • c) 18:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason to even have a redirect for this one type of meme, but I would not argue against a redirect. It has more going for it than Living meme did. (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Living_Meme)

Redirect Hmm, there are enough reliable sources now using the term that a redirect is probably warranted. I'll reverse myself and say Redirect, but I wouldn't argue against a deletion. This seems to e an unnecessary fork that would be adequately covered by a sentence or two in Internet meme. Meters (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Internet meme. No independent notability indicated. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Not independently notable, either redirect to Internet Meme or delete. Bakilas (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . The culture and community of Dank Memes have grown to something more than a regular internet meme and should be allowed to stay. For instance the subreddit community r/memes has 64,500 subscribers the subreddit r/dankmemes has 22,400 subscribers. The 35% is definitely a big enough subculture to remain a wikipedia articleDogoMan900 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC) — DogoMan900 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect to Internet meme - page was previously a redirect to Internet meme and I see no reason to make an article for it as it is a non-notable subtopic of Internet memes and a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 13:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dank memes have become a key part of modern-day internet culture, it is essential we keep and improve this article. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 14:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The_Rim_of_the_Sky (talk · contribs) I'd have to disagree. They are not a "key part" of any culture, and often serve to annoy. The page is a joke as it is anyway. HarryKernow (talk to me) 16:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Internet meme or Delete. Does not expand upon the idea enough, does not establish notability of the subject, does not fully explain what it even is, does not explain the point of them, does not explain who makes them, who views them, does not show critical reaction, and is too general. HarryKernow (talk to me) 16:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internet meme. As stated above there is not enough inherent notability to justify a separate article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - At this time according to google trends, Dank Memes has more internet searches the Dassault Rafale, but Dassault Rafale remains a wikipedia page. Also google searches for Dank Memes has been climbing steadily and most likely will keep doing so, even if you make the argument that Dank Memes is not a key part of the internet culture, it will be sometime in the near future. DogoMan900 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Double vote struck. Favonian (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC) — DogoMan900 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see WP:OSE. GAB^Hello! 19:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete the subject has significant overlap in concept with Internet meme, plus this isn't knowyourmeme; we don't need a page on every term reddit and 4chan decide to beat into the ground. IF this page is kept, then it should be rewritten with a more serious tone, and then protected from vandalism. Discant X 02:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internet meme as a plausible search term. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete Dank memes should be a short section on Internet meme, as most of the sources for content about Dank memes will be unreliable/unfindable. Dank memes are also very complex in nature and require first hand experience with them to understand the whole story about them, and it would take a very well written article on them (including sources!) to be acceptable for Wikipedia. Jaym29 (talk) 8:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep I think it should be kept because this incredible moment in history when Wikipedia made an article on "dank memes" should be preserved forever. 172.101.152.13 (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a serious vote to actually consider not to mention how to improve the article itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps an actually applicable search. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Redeeming[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, nor does it meet notability for films. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; maybe the film will be notable once it is out, (though I doubt it considering none of its directors or cast already have articles), but as of now it is not. It should also be noted that the article was created by the film's production company Osmium Films. Opencooper (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Opencooper[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete for now per failing WP:NF. While I have no doubt that the project has completed filming and is in post-production, its production lacking coverage in reliable sources has it fail WP:NFF (paragraph 3), thus making this one simply TOO SOON. The article can be resurrected upon release AND upon the film receiving independent coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no actual release date established, nothing yet convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Ibe[edit]

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

There's no secondary sources on Google, and seemingly only one reliable source used on the living person biography article. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All information on the page was given to me by John Ibe personally and the rest was collected off of interview with him and 718 Magazine that retrieved information directly from John Ibe and/or his Twitter Kevin.chickun (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:30, 24 April 2016 (ETC)

Delete The creator admits that his editing is COI. WP:PRIMARY applies here, and he doesn't seem to be notable. Use reliable sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete college student involved in rapping who has not yet made an impact in the music field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Şevval Sam[edit]

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

Both the English and Turkish Wiki articles have nothing convincing to suggest noticeably improving this and my searches have only found expected mentions at News and Books, so unless convincing coverage can be found, there's nothing to suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article has nothing but a list of her films and albums. You can tag it for stub. But she is certainly notable. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources using the Google News and other search links atop this discussion in the Find sources template. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11. Article was just cover for WP:REFSPAM. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love spells[edit]

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

Seems like a dicdef. Bordering on a CSD but has one ref so not sure. Sports Devotee (talk) 06:55, 24 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. including the possibility that this is a hoax. —SpacemanSpiff 08:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhabhipedia the film[edit]

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

This appears to be an as yet non-notable unreleased film. This seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. LadyofShalott 04:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now and wait for better as nothing is convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking more:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Bhabhipedia Saumyy Shivhare Bizarre Media Nitin Sharma Hrishitaa Bhatt Gireesh Sahedev Rajkumar Kanojia

Delete per failing WP:NF. I gave the article a face-lift, and while it may well be completed and awaiting release, It has no coverage in reliable sources. If it ever gets coverage, the article can always be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Bhabhipedia was previously deleted as a blatant hoax. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 25 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. Article's subject lacks notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oontini[edit]

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

TV show with questionable notability, the cast that was deleted for the most part were made by separate single purpose accounts (one page said "age 11, writer of a tv show" that alone sounded fake.) anyway, I can't find any info about this (apparently only one episode aired) And I'm not even sure if this is real or not! Wgolf (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, that these 2 other shows are in question made by the same person: Munkareen-e-Haq and Raajkumari, both of there refs are just for the channels, not anything about the shows at all. Wgolf (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all minimally convincing, delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources whatsoever found (although there may conceivably be some in Urdu). GAB^Hello! 22:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-BTW can someone check out the other shows I mentioned? They might need a AFD also. Wgolf (talk) 22:52, 24 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. — ξ ^xplicit 03:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance of K-pop[edit]

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

I don't really understand the scope and purpose of this article. It seems redundant to other existing articles, including List of K-pop on the Billboard charts and List of Oricon number-one albums. Random86 (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list of a list of compilations of a single genre. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the reason stated above. There is no clear reason behind the article, especially when there are other pages (as noted by the nominator) that cover the same ideas. Aoba47 (talk) 23:14, 27 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. The arguments for keeping are both the majority position and better argued. Michig (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M. S. Ramaiah[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete as advertisement Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The page needs heavy copy editing to make it according to Wikipedia standards however person was very notable. Mr RD 17:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Endorse the argument above by @Mr RD:. AusLondonder (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft at best because this is still noticeably unsourced and would need better improvements, none of which I see happening. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This has clearly not been written on the basis of what reliable sources say about the subject and would need a complete rewrite to become compliant with our sourcing and verifiability policies. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 04:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this again, as it still hasn't had a lot of attention. Last relist. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 01:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 01:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the nominator for deletion of this article stated for their doing so was speedy delete as advertisement, I’m not sure where to begin other than stating the fact that this articles subject has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. And without this deletion nomination pointing exactly towards what material is being challenged, or likely to be challenged,, again, it’s hard to know where to start for an article that has existed for 7 years and now finds itself here.. Anyway, I’ve rewritten the lead for this article adding references (and added the reference section to contain them) and believe that it should be remembered by everyone that the bar for providing actual citations for deceased people is lower than that required for those who are living. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note This articles subject has been linked to the Oregon State University and List of Indian entrepreneurs articles. Picomtn (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Hi @Omni Flames:@Anthony Appleyard:@AusLondonder:@Sportsfan 1234:@David Eppstein: (cc @Titodutta:@MichaelQSchmidt:@Checkingfax:) Please note that there are unique issues dealing with this articles subject matter that that is referenced in Wikipedia:Points to note while debating in WikiProject India related AFDs that should be a part of this discussion. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And through WP:INDAFD: M. S. Ramaiah Dr. M. S. Ramaiah

Keep and encourage imrovements through regular editing. I find the wide and in-depth coverage of this man and his works meets WP:N and WP:BIO, and as he passed in 1997, it is not a BLP issue, just one for editorial attention, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I agree with the views of Mr RD and MichaelQSchmidt, but the article will need a lot of work to change the highly positive (and nearly promotional) tone to a neutral view on the subject. ~~A heads up, Earwig's copyvio detector detected close paraphrasing to this site [21]; this content seems to have been added by Webmaster.cg, and might be a major copyvio.~~ Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That phrasing has been here since 2013 and the spammy blog link is dated 2015. So I think the copying went the other way. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the clarification. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Exactly what Schmidt has said. Passes GNG, I think. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:49, 30 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Montero[edit]

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

Vanity page for a non-notable person. Article creator has but two edits: the one to create the article and another to link to it from a name page. Three of the four references are primary sources, fourth is trivial. Can't find any other coverage other than things like LinkedIn profile. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of this article's username is "Fmontero1", I think there's a bias here. Also cannot find any sources besides things such as the law firm's page and his LinkedIn, I'd say Delete. I also looked for news articles, couldn't find any. Sheepythemouse (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not currently convincing for his own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is in doubt. and the subject most likely doesn't pass GNG. GAB^Hello! 22:38, 24 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. The subject is presumed notable per meeting aspects of WP:NCYC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Graf (BMX rider)[edit]

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

Non notable person. Few sources listing him are brief and most are simply rankings of his place in his sport EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Bad nomination as many sources can be found and the person meets several times WP:NCYC: 1) competed at UCI world championships, 2) competed at UCI world Cups, 3) won a UCI category race (Echichens 2015). Besides of is one of the best BMX riders over the last few years after winning bronze medals at World Championships (2012 & 2015) and the European Games. I also don't understand the nominator that there are only a few sources about him. A quick Google search found many articles, 5 random of them:1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 06:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep very clearly based on WP:NCYC. If the world #3 isn't notable, then we have a problem with our guidelines. -- RM 03:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why relisting Northamerica1000 while the cyclist obvious meets WP:NCYC?! What is otherwise the function of WP:NSPORTS?? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 07:42, 24 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. This article's subject has been found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Malta[edit]

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

Newly formed pageant with no independent reliable source coverage. Search for sources yielded 3 copies of the same press release. Unrelated to Miss Malta. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is likely too soon and thus there's unlikely enough to suggest confidently keeping. Delete at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can understand why the article creator created this article, as Malta has been away from this pageant since 2001. Here is a reliable source that I found that tells about Malta's return to the Miss Universe, a source that was not yet included by the article creator: "Malta at Miss Universe". Times of Malta. April 10, 2016. Retrieved April 24, 2016. (By the way, the first sentence of this article does not do an adequate job summarizing the article subject.) However, I cannot find other reliable sources about this role who ends up representing Malta each year at this pageant, so I do not believe this article's subject is notable. Note: I feel the need to play devil's advocate and say that, under Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, there are other Wikipedia article about others who represent their countries at this pageant, such as Miss Universe Great Britain or Miss Universe Vietnam or even for specific years like Miss Universe Slovenia 2003, however I strongly suspect many of these should be nominated for deletion as well. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 18:48, 24 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. Michig (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Fukuhara[edit]

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

Essentially a Repost of a userfied article with none of the reason for the original AfD (2 months before) decision being addressed. Still as per WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing much addable to the article. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Verified principal role in a major release DC/Warner Bros. film. To say its too early to tell if this person will have major coverage is willful ignorance. The essays, not guidelines, WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING are for unverified speculation and personal opinion as to the future potential of a person, not verified confirmation of her principle role which is already in post-production. --Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not willful ignorance - that was reflecting the opinion in the first AfD. Even after the movie comes out she would not meet WP:NACTOR (also as pointed out in the AfD 2 months ago). Assuming coverage is WP:CRYSTALBALL.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There will be zero question of her notability when the movie comes out. The only ones who would attempt to delete the article on her, which will be either still around or re-created, are the Wiki Lawyers who will hang on the word "multiple" in the sub-clause of a clause buried in WP:BIO as if that somehow will negate the barrage of coverage on this person on the approach of the release of that film. --Oakshade (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's on all the posters and marketing material for a film that could probably be one of the biggest super hero movies of the year. People will wonder why she doesn't have a Wiki page when the time comes.--Jonipoon (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additions - With no surprise, since this AfD started there has been a great amount of new coverage of this person, internationally no less. [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] This is only the beginning. The TOOSOON train has already left the station. --Oakshade (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now perhaps as this seems enough. My next alternative would've been to Redirect. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Connecticut College#Athletics. Michig (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut College Men's Soccer Team[edit]

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

Non-notable collegiate sports team, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG, even for sports teams Donnie Park (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I'm not seeing any signs of actually merging and there's also nothing confidently keeping, still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Connecticut College#Athletics. Giant Snowman 07:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Connecticut College#Athletics. Looks like it fails GNG on its own and no sourced, useful content in the article. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 17:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Connecticut College#Athletics. Fenix down (talk) 11:10, 28 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 Wings of Tomorrow. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lyin' Eyes (Europe song)[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Europe (band)~~ Wings of Tomorrow per WP:NSONG. clpo13_(talk) 16:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wings of Tomorrow, the album containing the song. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect as not convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album article for now per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for songs is met. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:50, 24 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 clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Troon F.C. season[edit]

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

Troon don't play in fully professional league therefore fail WP:NSEASONS: Dougal18 (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for the needed separate notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is a crafted compendium of detail on Troon FC's activities in the current season, sourced to the team website. However the Junior league in which they play is some levels below fully-professional football in Scotland, which means the article fails the primary WP:NSEASONS criterion. (Note too that the second paragraph of WP:NSEASONS says articles should be text-based rather than statistics.) The key information on the players is already featuring in the main Troon F.C. article. Note too that there are a significant number of other seasonal articles: [30]. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have many past articles of the individual seasons of this team. While not professional league anymore that isn't reason enough to discontinue it. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "While not professional league anymore" - not sure what you mean by that? Troon have never played in a professional league, and the league they currently play in has never been professional?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear WP:NSEASONS failure. Not sure how any season article on this club would satisfy any guideline. Fenix down (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, club does not (regularly) play at a national or professional level. All of the other season articles should be nominated for deletion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:28, 28 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) — Music1201 ^talk 20:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Robert Murray[edit]

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

I'm not certain this is still ready for a separate article. Conrad Murray (the normal naming convention) was created and then fought over and finally redirected in 2010 and has remained protected since then. A move to this page seems like gamesmanship almost of the prior version but nevertheless, evaluated as a separate new article, I think this is still basically a WP:BLP1E situation that should just be deleted and if kept rather than a redirect to California v. Murray like the regular Conrad Murray page does, that page should be restored and the history merged or something. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and move to Conrad Murray) - I'm seeing years of coverage in numerous reliable sources. It's true much of his notability is likely because of his relationship with Jackson, but it appears he's had plenty of coverage from beyond any single event. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be kept as is or moved to Conrad Murray? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it should be moved. Amending my vote. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. simply.BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as convincing enough for his own article apart from Michael Jackson's own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one condition of deleting under BLP1E is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Indeed, Michael Jackson's death was highly significant, and Murray's role is both substantial and well-documented. GAB^Hello! 22:32, 24 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. Michig (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intro sequence[edit]

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

I recently AfDed Outro (video gaming), and I think all the same reasoning applies here. This is a thing that exists in video games, sure, but it's not covered as a separate entity. The best you'll do is find mention of particular intro sequences, not a discussion of the concept itself. Essentially, it fails WP:GNG in the same way outro did. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not finding anything confidently better. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, with my same rationale: there are intro sequences, but without reliable sources writing about them, this is just WP:OR. A quick search on the custom WP:VG/RS search engine brings up some results, but nothing in-depth about the actual concept. Notable intro sequences can be mentioned at its respective game. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons that Outro was deleted. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article isn't prepared to do much better than a dictionary definition. czar 07:39, 29 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 Chaos magic#The gnostic state. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 20:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excitatory gnosis[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sources are anything but reliable. Edward321 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chaos magic#The gnostic state, where it is discussed. I haven't found multiple independent RS for this aspect of the occult, but basic facts about it are verifiable. Best to merge back into the main article, and since I think there is little to merge, redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as still questionable for a better improvable separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 24 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.