Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 April 27 April >

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. I think there's enough opposition here now for a snow close. This is an obvious COATRACK that violates BLP and NOR. We are not going to leave this around for six months to 'see if anything of actual substance has developed'. Katietalk 23:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton donors in the Panama Papers[edit]

Clinton donors in the Panama Papers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A COATRACK article that attempts to tie Hilary Clinton into the Panama Papers by listing the misdeeds of donors to her campaign who may have been Mossack Fonseca clients. As far as I know the Clintons are not mentioned in the papers. The material should be moved to the relevant donor biography if it meets the normal criteria for inclusion there and consideration be given to a short section in the Clinton biography on her comments about the Panama Papers and the possibility that some of her donors may have been MF clients if that is supported by sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no, they didn't need to, since according to the many RS cited in the text they seemed to have used the Clinton Foundation for these things. Not mentioned so far (article moved about ten minutes ago after another editor removed it from the PP section, where there arguably was a weight issue due to the detail the BLP issues require) is the fact that the CF uses holding companies in Delaware -- irrelevant to the Panama Papers article. The PP article extensively documents associates of Vladimir Putin with ties to the Panama Papers and there is agreement on the talk page that this is a balance issue. And clearly these allegations are notable, and come from multiple reputable and authoritative sources in both cases. Hillary Clinton may not be personally mentioned in the Panama Papers but neither is Vladimir Putin, David Cameron, the Pakistani prime minister, or any number of politicians mentioned in the main article, and one wonders why THAT is ok but Hillary Clinton would somehow be immune. @Zumoarirodoka: Elinruby (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Everymorning these are more than minor biographical details. There seems to be a pattern of unusual policy decisions in close proximity to donations to the Clinton Foundation or paid speeches, and people are going to jail in Africa for less. Surely on Wikipedia we can at least mention it. Authoritative RS exists, here for example. Admittedly that's an editorial but it's a nice expert summmary for those haven't read the material yet. Elinruby (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Admittedly that's an editorial" is pretty much a straight up admission that no, "authoritative RS" do NOT exist. Just a bunch of opinion pieces, some of which attack a particular politician. And we don't use editorials for BLP except in exceptional circumstances.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of your comment ("there seems to be a pattern...") is just your own original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clinton is associated with someone who's associated with someone who's in the Panama Papers. As a well-connected politician, this is not exactly surprising. (See Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.) What's in the main Panama Papers article should be sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with leaving this around for a while and then say in 6 months see if anything of actual substance has developed enough for a full article. I think keeping this article alive will allow the main article to remain encyclopedic. Nergaal (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons Elinruby and Nergaal have given. This article is important as it is unique from the Panama Papers article, and hence the content cannot be moved there. Including this content on the main PP article would be undue weight (and in many parts not particularly relevant), yet there seems to be consensus on Talk:Panama Papers to mention the Clinton Foundation's relation to the PP for the reasons given by Elinruby above; the fact that individuals have not been mentioned personally hasn't stopped Vladimir Putin and David Cameron being mentioned in the article (although I personally think Cameron's section should be moved, but that's for another discussion...) Therefore, the creation of this article seems necessary, and it should be kept. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 15:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Clintons aren't connected to the Panama Papers as far as we know. The whole thing is completely speculative and a serious BLP violation to boot, implying some form of corruption for which there is no evidence. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
my friend, do you see the references on this and on the Panama Papers article? There are *buckets* of evidence, some of it already in the article and more that is not, and you are trying to delete the reliably sourced material that is. This article spun off the Panama Papers due to length; it can't go back there. I am probably going to have another on Vladimir Putin, since *his* section is long and omits big chunks of data. I think you just WP:DONTLIKE it; speculative it is not.Elinruby (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My sense after reading the article is that there is a lot of original synthesis (WP:SYN) involved in fleshing out the article. Only a couple of references explicitly make a connection between Clinton and the people in the Panama Papers (esp. footnote 5, which appears to serve as the entire basis of the article). If some of the material is retained, the material on the main Panama Papers page is sufficient. (Noteworthy, in the version of the article I viewed, there is no link to the Panama Papers articles itself.) So, although there are RS for the details of each individual in the article, this subject is not. Enos733 (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comparable article of this type exists for any other political figure who is only tangentially connected to the Panama Papers, which suggests that this is very clearly a misplaced original research attempt to discredit Hillary Clinton by synthesizing sources to tar and feather her with guilt by association. You're free to think whatever you want, on your own time and dime, about what the business practices of some of Clinton's donors says about her credibility as a presidential candidate — but per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, it's not Wikipedia's job to be your platform. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bearcat and nom. This is a very clear WP:COATRACK and possible WP:POVFORK, and I think that any material on the whole matter should be dealt with in context of each donor's own article and perhaps Clinton's, but a whole article on this alone gives me pause for thought. It's not really a BLP violation per se, but there's a strong implication of guilt by association, as Bearcat correctly noted. GABHello! 22:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POVFORK, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK. Also seems to be somewhat WP:OR AusLondonder (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK. Graham (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per AusLondonder: this is a classic WP:COATRACK article, and may also be a WP:BLP violation as well. 11:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom et al. (especially Clarityfiend) as a COATRACK and POVFORK, wrapped into a game of Six degrees of Friends of Hillary. Also, this is a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because Prince (singer) wore a purple suit, it does not mean that purple suit is a notable thing. Nor would the fact that Barack Obama once lived around the corner from me, or that 93rd Street (Manhattan) has an article, make 94th Street (Manhattan) notable. At best, by trying to link this, that, and yonder source into a single article, it is little more than WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is now SNOW, can we zap it please due to the BLP issues? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons Elinruby has given. [And the detail around the people mentioned in the Panama Papers article should stay there, in that article.] Boscaswell talk 20:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an involved editor obviously I think we should keep this. I'd like to mention a couple of other points though.

  • 1) the UK section of the Panama Papers will eventually spin off a David Cameron article very similar to this.
  • 2) The entire Panama Papers article is full of people who are mentioned because their father founded Namibia, or is the prime minister of Pakistan or whatever, so why are the editors defending the honor of Hillary Clinton here not bothered about *them*, hmmm?
  • 3) Also, it is a given in investigations of campaign finance that large donors often circumvent donation limits by making donations in the name of employees and family members. There is a good explanation of this at Open Secrets. This is not to say that the prime minister of Pakistan is necessarily involved, for example, but on the other hand the daughters of the president of Azerbaijan almost certainly became billionaires due to daddy.
  • 4) The people who think this is SYNTH or original research haven't looked at the talk page of the Panama Papers. This was originally text plagiarized from the McClatchy article, with some strange additions. I fact-checked it, added additional references -- because I share the BLP concerns -- and rewrote for original wording. It's out there in reliable sources, people. Elinruby (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
please also note that the people saying keep have worked on the Panama Papers article, which deals with a large amount of very complex material. The other editors have not contributed on the topic and may not be very familiar with it.Elinruby (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To reply briefly to your points:
  • David Cameron is connected (loosely) to the Panama Papers because he was a shareholder of a firm that used MF services.
  • Those other people are mentioned in the PP. The Clintons are not.
  • This is completely irrelevant. We can't imply corruption by Clinton just because other people are corrupt.
  • No reliable source links the Clintons to the PPs and they are not mentioned in the papers themselves. Please quote the source if you have one. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @Philafrenzy: No reliable source links Putin to the PPs. It is "only" a cellist, Sergei Roldugin. For the Clintons there are "only" Frank Giustra (Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP) pioneering an innovative approach to poverty alleviation), Sergei Kurzin, the Chagoury-Clan, Marc and Denise Rich - Glencore International (!), Ng Lap Seng, ect. ect. ect. --91.10.60.58 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, this is a WP:OTHERSTUFF exists argument which is EXPLICITLY discounted for deletion discussions. Second, do we actually have "Putin donors in the Panama Papers" template or article? No, then what's your point anon IP? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a coatrack article, probably made by people in the opposing party. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as relevant to contemporary US politics, but shorten significantly and moderate the narrative. Neutralize the sensationalist subtitles ("The IPO specialist", "The fugitive billionaire", "The convicted kleptocrat", "The illegal contributor", "The friend in the diamond business") as well. Also, the last section, except for the last sentence, seems irrelevant to the topic. Asav | Talk 14:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Elinruby and Asav. Tobby72 (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ridiculous POV fork and a big WP:BLP violation. Voting "Keep" in the hope that this can be made neutral in some way is pipe dreamin'. There's also no sources which actually cover this as a topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
News coverage:
Panama Papers: Hillary Clinton Donor Benefits From Tax Loopholes While She Calls For Accountability, International Business Times, April 6, 2016
The Clintons’ connection to the Panama Papers, New York Post, April 17, 2016
Hillary, the Panama Papers, and the death of American kleptocracy, The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 18, 2016
Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection, The Observer, April 7, 2016
Inside Panama Papers: Multiple Clinton connections, McClatchy Newspapers, April 16, 2016
With Saudi and Russian ties, Clinton machine's tentacles are far reaching, according to Panama Papers, Salon, April 17, 2016
Hillary Clinton Campaign's Ultra-Rich Donors Implicated In Panama Papers, Inquisitr, April 24, 2016
The Clintons’ Connection To The Panama Papers, Fox News, April 17, 2016
-- Tobby72 (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of sensationalist editorials and blog posts (no, this is not "news coverage" as you claim Toby).... seriously? I mean the "clinton's tentacles" should be a dead giveaway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
VolunteerMarek There are plenty of citations in the list above which are of very reputable organisations - they should definitely not be dismissed merely because they present an opinion. That should definitely not rule them out as being reliable sources. Please bear in mind that MSM sources present an opinion, which is the establishment view - but they disguise it as news. Boscaswell talk 20:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources describe "The Clintons’ connection to the Panama Papers". We report what reliable sources say. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTNEWS, what we do is more than simply regurgitate tripe like this from "reliable sources". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, so what? With a little effort, you could compile a comparable list of such donors for each presidential candidate still in the running; and you could just as easily compile a list of donors whose names somehow came up in some connection with Deflategate, or with companies responsible for the introduction of large quantities of dihydrogen monoxide into the food supply. bd2412 T 22:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork, guilt by association, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "guilt by association", it's what reliable sources say. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The implication (per COATRACK, POVFORK, etc.) is Hillary Clinton's guilt by association. Why else group the people who have ties as Clinton donors? The entire lead is Hillary speaking out against this kind of behavior, so the article is via SYNTH trying to suggest that she's dishonest and crooked. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How can a coat rack and BLP nightmare like this survive that long? It's election season.--TMCk (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of the worst guilt-by-association attacks I've seen. When the Panama Papers first came out, everyone was surprised by how few Americans appeared in them. So what was done here? Find anyone anywhere in the world who ever had any kind of tangential connection to any Clinton or any Clinton venture and who appears in the Papers, and create a section for them with a foreboding section title. And some of this stuff is thin gruel indeed: Take the six-paragraph-long "The administrator" section, which says that a friend of Hillary's campaign manager from 16 years ago has an offshore account with some of the friend's family members, the account has no money in it, and the friend has donated all of $250-to-1,000 to the Clinton Foundation. OMG! Wasted Time R (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this needs a WP:SNOW close soon or it should be simply blanked as an attack page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this AFD is falling under the radar and needs some attention from AN.--TMCk (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm of two minds - whether I should just start removing everything from the article because it's such a blatant over the top BLP vio, or leave all the junk in so that people can see that it's a... blatant over the top BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Left a notice at AN here.--TMCk (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was tempted to snow-close this as 'delete', but I concluded there are enough reasonable 'keep' !votes to preclude a snowstorm. So instead I will just say that I hope this gets deleted as soon as the seven days are up. I can't improve on what Bearcat said: "No comparable article of this type exists for any other political figure who is only tangentially connected to the Panama Papers, which suggests that this is very clearly a misplaced original research attempt to discredit Hillary Clinton by synthesizing sources to tar and feather her with guilt by association." I would add that there is virtually no INDEPENDENT reliable sourcing to support the thesis of some kind of notable association between Clinton and the Panama Papers. Most of the sources do not even draw that conclusion - they are about the individuals - and the few that do make a connection are clearly POV editorializing, not neutral news reporting. Note, too, that the article doesn't even attempt to disguise its POV; the section headings are a dead giveaway. And instead of a normal lead summarizing the article, the first paragraph is a collection of quotes from her - which I guess the rest of the article is then supposed to disprove or something? I agree with Volunteer Marek that the article cannot be improved; it is a BLP violation on its face, and only deletion will fix it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN Surely the egregious nature of the BLP violation overrides the need to wait seven days Melanie? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could agree with that if there was more of a consensus. But based on the two-sided discussion here (and I commend both sides for maintaining calmness and courtesy in what could be a very contentious discussion), I don't think I, or any admin, can close it early on our own. The discussion at AN might give a slightly speedier decision, but we are only talking about two additional days. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This subject is far too tenuous to merit encyclopedic coverage. The article fails to describe what the "Panama Papers" are, or what significance arises from being in the Panama Papers. In fact, the Panama Papers refers to a data breach wherein documents from a particular Panamanian law firm were accessed by hackers. There is, it must be noted, nothing illegal about doing business with a Panamanian law firm. The implication is that people are engaged in wrongdoing because their data was breached. Most people at some point in their lives have dealings with a lawyer or law firm for some reason; the encyclopedic significance of people having been among hundreds of thousands to have done business with a particular law firm, or having been mentioned by such people in some sense, is close to nil. The effort to connect some people in this group with an unrelated characteristic is much less so. bd2412 T 21:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Holy COATRACK, POVFORK with a dash of BLP violation batman! Can't really say anything additional that has not already been said above. So per nom. --Majora (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this reads like something from Conservapedia. It's a blatant attempt to smear Clinton by associating her with alledgedly immoral people, with, of course, material chosen so as to present a view which is as one-sided as possible while maintaining a veneer of NPOV. Synthesis, coatrack, what-have-you, it's here. BethNaught (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete, salt, and trouts to our admins and to oversight who should have been onto this in minutes, not days. This is patently a partisan attack page. COATRACK, POVFORK. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious POVFORK. Let's not waste any mote time on this. --McSly (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this POVFORK, COATRACK BLP violation per nom. Miniapolis 22:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there is anything important and factual here, this should be placed in page about Clinton Foundation. A POV fork indeed. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 05:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Trading Academy[edit]

My Trading Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whatever this is, it fails WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I myself would've considered speedy somehow and this itself has been tagged as such but unfortunately removed; nothing at all convincing the necessary improvements to keep. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nom should have saved us the trouble and left the speedy tag on - it's obviously promotional, and this entity has no claim to notability whatsoever, not even a far-fetched one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty NPOV to me. Adam9007 (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly self-promotional content created by the company's founder. Richard3120 (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single reference. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As article is unreferenced, reads promotional, and probably should've been speedied under G13 or A7. Omni Flames let's talk about it 23:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is entirely unreferenced and has a promotional tone. — Music1201 talk 01:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 16:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roadjammers[edit]

Roadjammers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"The Roadjammers are a fictional group of four humans in Marvel Comics' Transformers comic. They only appeared in one issue, number #46." Transformers minutiae of no real-world significance. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything but Wikipedia mirrors and fan sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply because only one issue has nothing convincing to suggest a better improved article. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 18:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Road Pig (Transformers)[edit]

Road Pig (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability and no third-party sources cited. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:16, 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.  Sandstein  18:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snapper (Transformers)[edit]

Snapper (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world significance. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Predacons or delete. The M&C citation doesn't mention Snapper, and I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Google Books results look mostly like novels and unrelated false positives. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this suggests the needed notability improvements. Still questionable unfortunately, SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 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.  Sandstein  18:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilder (Transformers)[edit]

Wilder (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional character from the Transformers universe with apparent real-world significance. No third-party reliable sources cited. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Decepticons#Masterforce or delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Google results are the usual fan sites and wikis. It doesn't seem to matter how many extra terms you put in the search string at Google Books; you still get a few false positives. He seems tied to another toy called "Fangry", so I tried adding that to the search terms, and there didn't seem to be any better results. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all for the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wingblade[edit]

Wingblade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor fictional character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bretton Cameron[edit]

Bretton Cameron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding evidence of notability, either via WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY Rlendog (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Another case of WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT, a NN undrafted career mid-minor league player with no accomplishments to speak of. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 02:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing suggesting the needed better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. — Music1201 talk 01:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything to support notability. JumpiMaus (talk) 16:08, 4 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 // 07:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Gorie[edit]

Brian Gorie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources do not assert notability of this person. - Safetine (talk) 21:22, 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 speedy delete. The article was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 by Mojo Hand (talk · contribs) at 22:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC). (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bianco[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Robert Bianco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please note that the Robert Bianco that tons of pages link to as well as the one from the first AFD is a different guy. Now with that said-non notable director. He did not direct the film Amanda that is listed here as its a short film it appears. And that seems to be his ONLY credit. Wgolf (talk) 21:22, 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 procedural close (mooted by page move).  Rebbing  22:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Late April 2016 Northern United States severe weather outbreak[edit]

Late April 2016 Northern United States severe weather outbreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per NOTNEWS, routine, albeit severe, weather patterns are not appropriate subjects for encyclopedia articles.  Rebbing  21:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gowanus Yacht Club[edit]

The Gowanus Yacht Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Brooklyn beer garden lacking both significant coverage and depth of coverage; it was mentioned exactly once by the NY Times, all other mentions are from local listings or blogs. WWB (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – NY Times coverage is only a passing mention. No evidence of major recognition, by or contributions to, the food service industry. Ibadibam (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches simply found nothing better and the current article is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. — Music1201 talk 01:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I wasn't able to find anything other than what Ibadibam mentioned. JumpiMaus (talk) 16:11, 4 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. per Engleham's comment. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 02:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endogamy in the British monarchy[edit]

Endogamy in the British monarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a list of all the marriages of British kings and queens and the degree of blood relationship of the spouses. There are no reliable sources that talk about "endogamy in the British monarchy", and the sourceable content is already covered in articles such as Royal intermarriage, and where the relationship is individually significant, in the individuals' articles. Therefore this page is an original theory that cannot be attributed to reliable sources, and since there is no similar coverage in reliable sources the article also fails to meet the notability guideline. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Celia. The great majority of people (royal and non-royal) marry within a social group... Firebrace (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well sourced article with multiple RS that talk about "endogamy in the British monarchy", clears GNG LavaBaron (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree that the concept of intermarriage in British monarchy can be generalized nto a general article. The intermarriage specific to Britaim is not reciprocated in mostother monarchies and not even in Europe. Furthermore, such relations were an import signifier of their status among several elite families such as ancient Egypt and Britain falls within that category. It is sufficiently important, especially as research on the topic from google scholar really seems to be kicking of concurrently. British endogomy is among the most well recorded, so this article is highly valuable. I also wish that we consider that our sources use a wide range of terminology such as inbreeding, exogamy, cousincest as well as various sum of parts that may skew search returns so keep that in mind when you wrongfully consider this article to be uncovered in reliable sources. Considering that the legacy of this form of thinking continues to affect Brits to this day through the the class system I feel like trivializing this concept means a disservice to Wikipedia since it is highly encyclopedic as well as relevant to this day. Hawaan12 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes it's an minor topic, but Wikipedia allows unlimited articles, and for those who take an interest in royal genealogy it would of great interest and informative. A helluva lot of work has gone into putting it together, and I think its deletion would be a loss. The question to be asked in such cases: would the article be of value to those have an interest in the topic. The obvious answer here is yes. Engleham (talk) 04:31, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 02:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phall-O-Meter[edit]

Phall-O-Meter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about an admittedly satirical graphic, illustrating how to determine the gender of an infant based on penis size at birth. It was created by the Intersex Society of North America as a way of "challenging these arbitrary standards". The problem is that there is no evidence that this "Phall-O-Meter" is notable or even generally recognized. None of the article's references mention it. (see below) I recommend deletion, but if anyone thinks it is a valid search term, I would accept a redirect to Anne Fausto-Sterling#Sexing the Body, where it is indirectly mentioned. MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article, on the same day that I also created an article for Quigley scale. Similar pages exist for Prader scale and Orchidometer. All are scales that highlight medical norms in relation to male and female bodies. The satirical nature of the Phall-O-Meter lies in the manner of commenting on those norms, not the content of the scale. The device has been detailed (albeit incorrectly attributed to Anne Fausto-Sterling) on the Intersex page since 22 November 2013.[1]
Clicking the image reveals that it was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons on 11 October 2014 from the collection of the Wellcome Library, London. It comes from the Wellcome Images library of the history of medicine. Given that the Wellcome Library is situated on a different continent, and is a medical library, it shows that the image and the means of satirizing medical norms is one that has historical merit. It is a new article, so I have so far been able to add only a limited number of citations in support of inclusion of supporting text for an image in the Wikimedia Commons, but it's a start and I don't feel that deletion is warranted. Every one of the references cite it (or, in the case of the book by Kessler, is a source for the material in the meter) so I am not sure why it is suggested that the device is not mentioned. Two of the citations are paper books, however the others are available online.
The user Iridescent has deleted the talk page for the article as 'vandalism', so it may be that people are inadvertently taking offence to the subject matter or treating is as a joke. I don't think that's appropriate. Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, none of the cited references that are viewable online mention this graphic or whatever we should call it. It needs to meet WP:GNG with evidence showing that it is recognized by independent reliable sources. It isn't necessary for the confirmation to be viewable online but it helps if at least one or two citations can be seen to confirm its existence. This discussion will last a week, so you have plenty of time to come up with additional evidence for the existence/notability of this thing. You might try Google Scholar, I saw a few mentions there (although they may all be the same paper listed multiple times). --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MelanieN, thanks for your reply. I have already added additional citations. However, the initial ISNA, Dreger and Feder citations already listed clearly mention the device. Trankuility (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I do now see a significant mention in Dreger (it's apparently a blog; something published would be better), and a passing mention on page 4 of the ISNA bulletin. The Feder mention must be in the main article; the link only shows the abstract. But you may well be able to find more supportive citations - in addition to the books which presumably have information but we can't see it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another citation. There are now relevant citations from sources in three languages and multiple decades. The article is better referenced than Quigley scale, Prader scale and Orchidometer. Trankuility (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article as it stands right now looks reasonably well-sourced. Also, anyone who's been reading social and clinical articles relating to intersex will already be familiar with the term. - Alison ❤ 04:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Note: I wrote the similar Prader scale article)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If anything, wikipedia's coverage on physiological aspects of intersex are lacking. Hawaan12 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:09, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shylaja Chetlur[edit]

Shylaja Chetlur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have been searching for reliable sources in order to build a little stub, but I believe Ms Chetlur currently does not meet WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor Talk! 18:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 18:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 18:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – One source does not establish notability. KSFTC 19:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all suggesting better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 00:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find enough coverage to meet GNG, and there's no other claim to notability. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. — Music1201 talk 01:23, 4 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 CSD A7 by User:Sphilbrick (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaka Nanten[edit]

Yutaka Nanten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Known for the manga adaptation of Cowboy Bebop, but not sure if any of Nanten's other works are notable (11 or so in MADB?) or if even the manga is that notable. Recommend redirect to Cowboy Bebop page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article section Cowboy Bebop#Manga explains that Cowboy Bebop is a 1998 anime, adapted in 1997–98 into a manga by Cain Kuga and then into a second manga in 1998–2000 by Yutaka Nanten. The manga is being republished this year. I notice the manga series is not notable enough for an article (except for a list of chapters). I notice first manga artist is not notable enough to have their own biography article. As the reliable sources remain thin, I see that this second manga artist is also not notable enough for an article, especially one that is only one sentence long and completely unreferenced. The anime is of course notable, this biography is definitely not. Prhartcom (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think eight years is more than enough time for the article to expand and demonstrate notability. That it hasn't, seems to say it all. Ja.Wiki has a better article [2] in so much that it summaries all their works at a glance compared to the understandably convoluted nature of MADB, but aside from a 7 volume and a couple of 2-3 volume series most of their works seem to be one-shots. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:58, 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.  Sandstein  18:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transmetal 2[edit]

Transmetal 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a grouping of characters that fails to establish notability as a group. There is no need for an article at this time. TTN (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:21, 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 speedy delete. The article was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 and G11 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) at 06:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC). (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J Naresh Babu[edit]

J Naresh Babu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:46, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3D printer manufacturers[edit]

List of 3D printer manufacturers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wy do we have alist of 3D printer companies when about 60-70% of the entries are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages? The redlinks could be removed to list only the companies, but then we would have a directory of 3D printer manufacturers . HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LISTCOMPANY, the list could be cleaned up to only include entries with WP articles, with the presumption that those with articles are notable. Companies without articles would need to be properly sourced or deleted from the list. --Mark viking (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment HappyValleyEditor, it depends. If it is worthy of an article, fix the red links, but if it isn't, don't make it a link. It really depends on the situation. If you have a good source on any of them, keep it. Find good sources though, don't delete everything that's a red link. See WP:LISTCOMPANY. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:37, 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kids for Character[edit]

Kids for Character (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability or importance. Article has been tagged as unreferenced since 2011, and things do not seem to be getting any better. Also, the page has become a magnet for vandalism and hoaxes - [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 16:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's no assertion of notability, and without references no justification for retaining article.TheLongTone (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While being a magnet for vandalism is hardly a reason for deletion (or we'd hardly be able to have articles on anyone from Betsy Ross to George W. Bush), there are zero reliable sources for this. Yes, it seems to exist (I'll trust IMDb that far, at least) but there is virtually nothing else we can say about it. The cast currently shown, for example, is far less expansive than the anonymous IP SPAs would like us to show, but is far more expansive than IMDb indicates. IMDb reports it won the "Parents' Choice Gold Award" which might be a "major award", if this is referring to the same award, but the website for Parents' choice seems to be unaware of this video. While there are several routes to argue for the presumption of notability here, the complete lack of reliable sources trump them all. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. — Music1201 talk 01:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:40, 4 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. Subject lacks notability and is written about in an unacceptably promotional manner. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Detensor Method[edit]

Detensor Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:42 Zad68 15:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage in the relevant literature (e.g. no PUBMED hits). Seems promotional/fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree. It's promotional and doesn't seem notable enough for an article here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sets a new bar for craptasticness LeadSongDog come howl! 16:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is exactly what I've been seeing rather often at NPP and it's troubling because it could be accepted but needing better improvements....thus Delete until and if ever better is available, best restarted at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Article carries a promotional tone and thus unencyclopedic. — Music1201 talk 01:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and carring a promotional tone. JumpiMaus (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 16:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Magno[edit]

Renato Magno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable martial artist. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I didn't find a ton of references about him, but there are quite a few articles discussing celebrities who train under him (Fox Sports, LA Times). He's also been in some movies (IMDB profile), has written a book and done some videos through a martial arts publisher, and he is mentioned/appears as a demonstrator in several issues of Black Belt. I think he's probably right on the cusp of notability -- if not kept, maybe a redirect/merge to Redbelt, as most of the references to him are about his work on it. Pinball22 (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited from people he teaches or who taught him. Nothing to show he meets the GNG. The only mention he gets in the Redbelt article is because he teaches the director and served as a consultant. That's not enough to show notability or even that he was significant to the film. I found him mentioned at the IBJJF website for winning 2 silver and 1 gold medal in masters (age) divisions, but all of those events had only 2 competitors and none were at the world championships. That's not enough to meet WP:MANOTE or WP:NSPORT since it's not competing at the highest level.Mdtemp (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mdtemp; is not considered notable because of who he teaches, and fails WP:NSPORTS as he has not had success at the highest level of his sport. JTtheOG (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as also not far from A7 considering the current contents, simply nothing for applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search found no significant independent coverage of him so WP:GNG is not met. He also doesn't seem to meet the martial arts notability criteria at WP:MANOTE, the criteria for authors at WP:AUTHOR, or the athletic criteria at WP:ATHLETE. WP:NACTOR isn't met when his rolls consist of parts like "Courthouse Cop #2" and "Bodyguard For Attache Case Man". The bottom line is that he means no notability criteria that I can find. Papaursa (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:41, 4 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. Nomination withdrawn; the RAA source found by Ahunt satisfies NAIR. (non-admin closure) TigraanClick here to contact me 13:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroprakt A-32 Vixxen[edit]

Aeroprakt A-32 Vixxen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to fail WP:NAIR (no claim of notability, and existence is not enough). TigraanClick here to contact me 14:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's article about quite new light aircraft type. I will add information and reference till end of this week. --Jin (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Hunting the Vixxen' article by Anrew Murray in Australasian Sport Pilot September 2015 Vol 49 Magazine cab be reference --Jin (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator is incorrect! ALL aircraft are probably notable by dint of existence. So as long as they aren't hoaxes they are notable; just need a citation and they are acceptable!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is not what it says at WP:NAIR. Although fairly lenient about which aircraft types are presumed notable, it specifically contradicts your claim that "ALL aircraft are probably notable by dint of existence". TigraanClick here to contact me 09:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the article currently lacks third party refs, the cover story on it in a major aviation publication establishes notability. I will add the ref to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The inclusion of the Sportpilot article seems enough to meet the notability requirement. I'll have a look in this year's (16/17) Jane's the next time I go to the library, though it may have shown up too late for inclusion.TSRL (talk) 12:31, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Vanjagenije, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Rural Support Programme Network) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Support Programmes[edit]

Rural Support Programmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is actually a WP:COATRACK for the RSPN (rural support programmes network, formerly Agha Khan RSP) which is a charity or a group of charities (I am not sure). I am uncomfortable nominating the article for deletion when I believe the organization may deserve an article, but in any case RSP as an "approach to international development" is not a notable topic. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • G5 by blocked creator of previous version. Bazj (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 17:01, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 02:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orin D. Haugen[edit]

Orin D. Haugen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This World War II colonel doesn't quite satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:24, 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 04:24, 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 11:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passing GNG and per onel5969, and also given that he was deemed notable enough to have Camp Haugen named in his honor in Japan after the war.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be plenty of sources out there. Andrew D. (talk) 06:45, 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. Lacks notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afe Babalola University Faculty of Engineering[edit]

Afe Babalola University Faculty of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and other universities faculties notability criteria. Just because ABUAD is notable, does not mean its faculties should be notable. Ulabcie (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:48, 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 11:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article's topic is not significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia. — Music1201 talk 01:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:42, 4 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 // 07:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cubeatz[edit]

Cubeatz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO; little depth of coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO; appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:NMG. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:48, 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 11:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. — Music1201 talk 01:28, 4 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 22:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Indonesia Forum[edit]

International Indonesia Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable HOAX about a claimed "organisation" which is actually and self-admittedly, a non-organisation, see WHOIS of iif.or.id which has been created and maintained by a "trusted" Indonesia based editor /admin of Wikipedia to self promote this non-organisation with which he has undeclared WP:COI as its COO Mohsinpathania (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as article writer. Yes, I have a declared COI with the IIF. I have noted this on the talk page. There are numerous secondary sources cited, including a highly negative review of a book published by the forum (if this were meant for promotion, I would not include that, now would I?). Notability is shown. And a "hoax"? Really? Did you even check the sources? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Please clarify the following kindly. A) What is the registration status of your organisation, ie. aere you a registered society, trust etc. B) What is your designation in the organisation ? Your "secondary" sources seem to be either local news (Indonesian language usually digital newspapers) and unreliable merely reproducing your press release handouts, or directly connected with you and self-written on your own website or indirectly linked sources (eg. Yale.edu) and not independent ones. Another problem is too many expired web-links for citations showing that notability of these events is transient or tenuous or indicative of a well planned Wikipedia hoax spanning many years. Mohsinpathania (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' Per Whois. Justinzilla ROARR!! 05:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We do seem to have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. There's no reason to dismiss "Indonesian language usually digital newspapers" -- where else should we expect the bulk of coverage to be? Google Translate makes it possible to easily check these and let's beware of WP:Systemic bias. To be an Indonesian org. covered in Indonesian is perfectly acceptable. I have found enough -- as well as the three English Gnews hits I see linked to above -- to meet my benchmark for significant, multiple coverage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm not sure exactly what is meant by the "non organization" line in the WHOIS report, but it seems a bit outlandish to me to take it at face value and say it's evidence that the subject is "not an organization" or a fake organization. I can see it as an abbreviated form of "non-profit" organization or "non-governmental" organization. Regardless, the registration line in a WHOIS isn't nearly as authoritative as published, reliable sources. We need to read the WHOIS line in context with the sources, and we need to follow the lead of what the reliable sources say. The provided sources here and here in Republika demonstrate that this isn't purely an invention by a Wikipedian. Beyond that, the relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG, which is satisfied by the presentation of multiple independent reliable sources in the article that provide in-depth coverage of the topic—see the two sources in Republika, MetroTV News, Okezone. Note that link rot will happen naturally with any source found online – archived URLs do not make the source any less credible than when it was published, and they are certainly not indicative of some contrived hoax. Also note that self-published sources may be used under certain conditions as sources of information about themselves, as it is done here. Mz7 (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the clear malice of the nomination. This was the third of a series of nominations—the nominator's first nontrivial contribution to Wikipedia—concerning articles with declared ties to administrators or Wikimedia personnel that began two days after the nominator was indefinitely blocked at Commons as an account "used exclusively for disruption." The nominator's assertion that an administrator has an undeclared COI is patently false: it's stated on the article's talk page (declared April 9, 2016). Per WP:POINT, we cannot allow our processes to be subverted to exact vengeances.

    On the merits, I disagree as well. Most likely, the WHOIS "non organization" statement is a translation mistake, a term of art (perhaps for a non-profit or an organization without a significant internal network), or an entry made by a hosting company without the subject's knowledge. Additionally: (1) WHOIS is not a reliable source; (2) WHOIS is insufficient to disprove the organization's existence when weighted against other evidence; and (3) the fact that it's registered suggests that it does exist. If I write a letter that asserts that I don't exist, would anyone believe me? Would we delete a BLP as a hoax if its subject posted on her Twitter account that she was a "non-person"?  Rebbing  05:32, 3 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.  Sandstein  18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List: Black Women Debate Coaches[edit]

List: Black Women Debate Coaches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe WP:LISTCRUFT applies here. While a history of black debate coaches is admirable, a list of every debate coach isn't. This is essentially a list of non notable people Gbawden (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest we move this article back to the creator's sandbox. I think it was too soon for it to be there. I have been talking to the creator on Facebook and think it's best to let them develop it further, seeking reliable secondary sources, to help with notability. Missvain (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 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 11:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from main space for now. Too early. Needs a lot longer in a sandbox / draft space. (Should also be 'List of', not 'List:'? Aoziwe (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly too for List of Western Australian women in sport Aoziwe (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also do not make it just a simple list of names. Include encyclopedic tabularised information such as dates birth/death, date and name/title of key debate/event wins, etc. Aoziwe (talk) 15:08, 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. No arguments for this article's retention have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Milton[edit]

Howard Milton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Nominated for an award is not the same as winning an award. Another ref is simply a quotation from the subject about something entirely different. Other refs make no mention. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched for anything under Howard Milton designer and found very little, nothing more than what's already cited, and that's pretty slim. I agree with deletion.RockyMtChai (talk) 20:55, 15 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 12:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 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 11:19, 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reservoir Media Management[edit]

Reservoir Media Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very little independent coverage of this company, mainly a couple of industry articles about a corporate appointment. Additionally, outside of the scope of notability, has COI and promotional tone issues Rayman60 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:36, 10 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 12:44, 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 11:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It does sound promotional and I can't find any significant coverage. ツStacey (talk) 21:37, 4 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 22:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Dynasty[edit]

I Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ROCK.IT (yacht) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lady M (yacht) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Royal Romance (yacht) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tamer II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No evidence in any of these articles of meeting WP:GNG. Large reliance on a single specialty publication (http://www.superyachtcompany.com/) of dubious journalistic value. Creator has removed PRODs from some without improvement or comment. —swpbT 14:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 14:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For all mentioned yachts I have found additional sources, and I added them to the corresponding articles. I hope this is enough to take them off this list. 102Legobrick (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These new sources do deserve to be properly checked out to see if any of them are reliable, but the first few I looked at didn't seem very strong. —swpbT 18:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask which were the ones you looked at, so that I can adjust them correctly or replace them with others. 102Legobrick (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, they seem to be commercial pages, associated with the yacht builders themselves, which makes them not independent. What you really need is press coverage from reliable news organizations. Are any of these yachts know for anything other than being owned by someone famous? —swpbT 19:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed some of the sources. Would you like check them again? 102Legobrick (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This AfD seems to be of personal opinion about the notability of yachts. Many megayachts are in fact very notable. For example, for Royal Romance (yacht), it only took a few seconds to find secondary coverage by secondary sources. [8][9][10] By the noms opening comments about the one dubious source it seems WP:BEFORE wasn't followed.--Oakshade (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I acknowledge the sourcing weaknesses and the possibility that these articles are just advertising, but I do think that there is strong encyclopedic value in these articles. We have probably already missed the opportunity to write about most of the superyachts that have existed so capturing this info now about an important genre of vessel is a worthwhile addition to the encyclopedia. I note also that superyachts are invariably highly customised so each one is different. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BEFORE does indeed apply. These 60m+ yachts invariably have significant coverage, and each one is built and/or interior designed to a unique spec. Edwardx (talk) 22:48, 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 State flags of Mexico. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 22:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Colima[edit]

Flag of Colima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, No claim of notability. Fails GNG. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:18, 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 11:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to State flags of Mexico. Pursuant to a discussion held at one of the other concurrently-nominated flag articles (here), I'm striking my "merge" recommendation and changing it to "redirect". Also, for this particular article, there's nothing useful that needs to be merged. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Doesn't contain any information on the specific flag, only about the Mexican state flags in general. SiBr4 (talk) 12:39, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 16:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Banayoti[edit]

Ed Banayoti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC with no clear secondary sources. It's unclear whether the one-paragraph Jordan Times source ("Princess Aisha marries Ashraf Banayotti") refers to the CEO Ed A. Banayoti, as it says nothing about him beyond his (differently spelled) name. Whether Banayoti is Jordanian royalty or a Canadian arms trade lobbyist or both, Google only returns a couple of LinkedIn type profiles when searching for "Ed Banayoti" or "Ed A. Banayoti". McGeddon (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: IPs are now claiming against sources on the Princess Aisha bint Hussein article that she married Ed Banayoti and divorced him a month later, so there may be some hoaxing going on here. --McGeddon (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete currently the article has no sources. It basically says "this guy is ethnical, you should higher him." It is blatant advertisement, and we have no clear claim to notability, no sources, and so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC) <<-- AGREE[reply]
  • This gentleman is real and he is a royalty. I am working for him. This page does not need to be deleted. What do you guys want as sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.69.77 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BASIC: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". --McGeddon (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to McGeddon's response, please also read our conflict of interest policy if you're his employee. It doesn't mean that you can't edit the article at all — but you do need to be very careful not to cross the line into public relations, as opposed to neutral and encyclopedic, editing. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cites no reliable source coverage at all, and makes no claim that would entitle him to a presumption of notability in the absence of a properly substantiated WP:GNG pass. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources to show this person even exists. Does not make clear how he is notable. JIP | Talk 16:47, 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. czar 05:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rape Faction[edit]

Rape Faction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a band. Fails WP:BAND for lack of available sources. - MrX 13:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not at all satisfying the current notability, delete and restart if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:06, 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. Non notable subject. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Averch[edit]

Ben Averch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local busker from Seattle who made three CDs promoted through bandcamp. No indication of notability except for his own blog and a number of local reviews. Since retired. Fails WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as all of this still questions solid independent notability, not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:06, 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless Time & Expense[edit]

Timeless Time & Expense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two overlapping articles that both fail WP:NSOFT/WP:GNG. Might be G11able, but while it has all the hallmarks of paid editing the tone isn't so egregious as to make G11 clear. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: Timeless Project Tracking ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply nothing yet to suggest a better notable article aside from the reviews, I would still wait for better coverage later. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:57, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Hotel Alliance[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Global Hotel Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the references are own web-site of affiliated hotels. Massive COI in editing this article. No independent refs . Fails WP:CORP  Velella  Velella Talk   11:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Clean Up We need to block all COI editing, thoroughly edit or redraft this and it would probably be worthy of inclusion. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep However I agree this badly needs a cleanup as there is a lot of puffery and obvious COI edits. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG, The above !voters are correct in that the article does need a cleanup however no one above has addressed the notability (or lack of) of the subject..... The cites are all "about us" on different websites, Nothing substantial and nothing worth keeping this article over. –Davey2010Talk 23:47, 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 00:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this suggests better for the applicable notability and the listed sources are certainly not impressive. Delete and restart is best instead of hoping for improvements to be made. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Here are some sources about the 2004 establishment of this large hotel affinity program: New Straits Times [11]; International Herald Tribune [12]; Hotels [13]; The Age [14]; Gulf Business (re 2013 HQ move to Dubai)[15]. HighBeam has 100+ hits, most of which are probably press releases but at least a few seem to be substantive business news reports. A decent small article could be crafted out of all this, and would be worth retaining. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:42, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 21:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soerabaia 45[edit]

Soerabaia 45 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to pass WP:NFILMS or WP:GNG Sports Devotee (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With 6770 Ghits (YMMV) I would not exclude the possibility of the film being notable. Would somebody acquainted with Indonesian look into this? Sam Sailor Talk! 11:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The film supposedly according to id:Soerabaia 45 won the Jury Award at the 1991 Indonesian Film Festival I may have misunderstood the Google translation in that regard, but it was at least nominated for Best Film, cf. id:Festival Film Indonesia 1991, and its director Imam Tantowi, who has a lengthy bio on id.wiki, won the 1991 Indonesian Film Festival Best Director award for this film. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative search terms:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep. References to reliable sources have been added, many more are available, and the film easily meets GNG. (I took the opportunity to create a stub on the film's director Imam Tantowi.) --Sam Sailor Talk! 16:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 22:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Nadezhda Tereshchenko[edit]

Princess Nadezhda Tereshchenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not see why this person is a princess (in fact, one of the editors claims she is not), and, above all, why is she notable. We do not have articles for all nobility, especially nobility of abolished states Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It really shits me when people nominate an article for deletion because they can't be arsed to (a) do some basic research to determine whether the subject is worthy of inclusion and (b) if so, improve the article. I knew nothing about the individual, but some basic research showed she was indeed worthy of inclusion, featuring in the book :Female Entrepreneurs in Nineteenth-Century Russia, and as a Ukrainian newspaper article notes, established a leading hospital in England during WWI, as well supporting the construction of schools and hospitals in the Ukraine before the Revolution, This information wasn't in the original article, which was awkwardly written by someone for whom English obviously wasn't their first language. So I rewrote it, added the fresh material, and it's now good to go as a basic stub. It's clear by his comments the proposer was more peeved by her noble status than anything else. They need to get over the chip on their shoulder. Engleham (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to say, you are not a good mindreader. I am sorry that my behavior shits you. May be you should go to a toilet. Have a good day.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The slack attitude and grudge is even depressing in an Admin. I suggest you take time out and evaluate why you're on Wikipedia. Engleham (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was a prominent business person and community leader in areas of what is now the Ukraine 100 years ago. Whether the article is properly named is an issue for another time, and has no bearing on wheather she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perhaps as this seems convincing enough and would certainly imaginably need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 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 band. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmoofers[edit]

Sharmoofers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of passing WP:NBANDS. A quick search finds only one reliable source which isn't enough to pass WP:GNG Sports Devotee (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I had successfully nominated this once before for an G11 Speedy Deletion, and the page seems largely unchanged from that version. Even if not meriting a speedy deletion, the nominator is quite correct with their reasoning. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as considering the tossed about state, none of this actually suggests the applicable notability. Delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NBANDS. — Music1201 talk 22:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:53, 4 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. Article's subject lacks notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muang Lak Southern Stadium[edit]

Muang Lak Southern Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the Hat Yai F.C. page this ground isn't even there home ground. A quick google search shows knows sources that indicate a pass of WP:GNG. The only major hits are travel sites and the like which are not WP:RS Sports Devotee (talk) 09:41, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 16:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Hull[edit]

Ruth Hull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason " Not a single reliable source given that is about the subject. Those that do mention her are blog posts and such. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO." Article dePRODded by article creator without reason given. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the nom. Weak sourcing, no evidence of notability. AusLondonder (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This relies entirely on blogs and a user-generated discussion forum for sourcing, with the exception of a single news article which isn't about her — in fact, the newspaper article fails to even contain a mention of her name at all, serving only to confirm the association of another unrelated person with an organization this person is also involved in. And nothing here is compelling enough to constitute an automatic notability freebie in the absence of adequate sourcing. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She organized a club to connect teenagers with progessive politicians. I see no actual claim to notability and no sourcing to demonstrate this has been noticed in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as currently containing nothing for the applicable notability, simply not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. — Music1201 talk 22:44, 3 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 Finnusertop has not explicitly responded, they boldened Keep so this closes as such (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tax in kind[edit]

Tax in kind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This disamb page does not disambiguate between topics that have similar titles (none have "tax in kind" in their title). It should be deleted to make space fora broad concept article per WP:CONCEPTDAB. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:03, 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.  Sandstein  18:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-sovereignism[edit]

Neo-sovereignism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem like a notable ideal and I can not see in WP:RS that indicate this article passes the WP:GNG Sports Devotee (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...significant coverage in reliable sources..." by itself is vague as a standard. When is a third-party source considered reliable enough? Does wrongful reporting on countless occasions by for instance mainstream press outlets, who are allegedly "reliable sources", indicate reliability? Realcitizen007 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

What is notable? What is notable to someone is not by definition notable to another. Realcitizen007 (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A WP:SPA article with no sources, just a link to a new Wordpress blog, itself using the Wikipedia page as a source. There is sporadic prior use of the term in discussing international politics,but no evidence provided or found to indicate that this usage is other than one person's neologism as a gloss over recent events. Fails WP:GNG, possibly meets WP:CSD#G11, WP:CSD#A11. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several articles on Wikipedia that are proven to be filled with misinformation yet remain as they are and even get semi-protected when people want to actually improve the articles. Why? In order to keep the misinformation included for whatever reason it may be? Those very same articles apparently - or better allegedly - meet the standards which proves the point that the standards applied are not clear and not conclusive and highly selective at best. Until all the standards are applied equally to all articles on Wikipedia there's no valid reason to delete the page "Neo-sovereignism", at all. And I'm certainly willing and capable to provide the list of articles that document beyond any doubt the double standard mentioned above. Realcitizen007 (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is sporadic prior use of the term in discussing international politics" proves that the article topic does not concern "one person's neologism" or my personal invention as wrongfully suggested above. Realcitizen007 (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The practice of foreign diplomacy by people such as Charles de Gaulle (the prior usage) is about as far as is possible from the agora-based vision in your essay. Yours may be closer to, for example, Andreas Kalyvas's "Democracy and the Politics of the Extraordinary", but I do not see him using the term. Reliable, 3rd party evidence is required that this term is being used beyond your essay and blog. AllyD (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no golden rule that requires or demands or confirms that everything that ever happens in the world is prominently or at all mentioned on the internet or in "reliable sources", nor is everything of importance written down or accessible in print. Having said that, here are a few "3rd party" evidences in which neo-sovereign terminology is used, independently from me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. And there are more. Realcitizen007 (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in the absence of reliable sources. The links provided above show that the term has been used, which is good as far as it goes, but that does not change the fact that there is no indication that the term itself is notable or that the definition of the term discussed in this article matches the uses of the term in the linked references. Realcitizen007, you need to take those references and add them to the article, so that they confirm the statements made in the article - or amend the statements in the article to conform with what the sources tell us. Right now, there's a link to a blog and that's it. This isn't sufficient to show that this concept warrants an article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The concept does not appear to be notable. The fact that some reliable sources have used the phrase "neo-sovereignism" is not enough to change that. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have said earlier, there's an obvious double standard here (which can be extensively documented) at Wikipedia and I have explained that above, and until all articles on Wikipedia are valued accordingly and conform to the same set of rules, NO EXCEPTIONS, all the requests for deletion of the neo-sovereignism page have no valid basis, at all. As suggested, indeed the provided 3rd party links do confirm that this topic is not my invention and I will include them for this purpose, to document that it isn't. It's not because there are more individuals who have a different point of view relative to mine that this makes yours to be true and factual and righteous. Hence the referencing of the double standard, which is obviously avoided as topic of discussion and argument by everyone opposing the publication of the respective page here. That by itself also proves and documents the double standard. Realcitizen007 (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be the first to admit that in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit with over 5,000,000 articles, articles exist that shouldn't. Nonetheless, the fact that other articles exist which aren't notable doesn't mean that we should let this one slide: that's the whole point of WP:Other Stuff Exists. In theory all articles on Wikipedia do conform to the same set of rules, and so if you nominate articles which don't meet the notability guidelines for deletion, I would be the first person to support that. As wikipedia is run by volunteers, however, if you don't step up to do that work then you can't be surprised if an article you think is not notable remains. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no point in me nominating for deletion those false articles when they are even semi-protected in order to keep them unchanged, these articles clearly and undoubtedly play a political role (or worse) way over the wiki mods their heads. Again, until all articles are valued and dissected according to the same set of rules and standards there's no reason to delete the Neo-sovereignism page, at all. If we delete this one we also delete ALL the false articles on Wikipedia. Fair is fair. This selective policy is not only obvious it is also ridiculously in the open and in your face. Realcitizen007 (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all in favour of deleting all of the articles about non-notable things on wikipedia, but there are over 5,000,000 articles. Unless people AfD them when they find articles which should be deleted, then we can't delete them, so I don't really understand what your point is. Arguing that there is some sort of conspiracy to keep undeserving articles isn't going to make whoever closes the deletion discussion more likely to keep the article; if you think that the concept really is notable and worthy of keeping an article on, a much better use of your time would be to find reliable sources which give the concept of neo-sovereignty significant coverage (which is what wikipedia's notability policy requires). The sources you have demonstrate that the phrase neo-sovereignism has been used, but that is not enough for wikipedia; it needs to be notable as well. If you have questions about wikipedia's policies on notability, or wikipedia's policies in general, I am happy to try to answer questions if you put a message on User talk:Caeciliusinhorto; otherwise you could try the Teahouse. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Use of Neo-Sovereign Terminology" added and additional reference. Realcitizen007 (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • References added to 3rd party evidences of use of neo-sovereign terminology prior to the creation of the Neo-sovereignism page. Realcitizen007 (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories added and example of recent neo-sovereign activity. Realcitizen007 (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this would still need better improvements and there's currently nothing confidently convincing of that, Delete and restart when better. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zarah Little[edit]

Zarah Little (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

About the only notable role was Ryofu in Ikki Tousen and that was under an alias. Although she starred in Starship Girl Yamamoto Yohko, that isn't really a strongly notable anime in the scheme of things. Is there another title that shows this article should be kept? She has a supporting role in Haibane Renmei [17] but that's as much as I can find critiquing her acting. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, not enough significant coverage by reliable sources. Anime News Network wrote "Zarah Little (Chiaki, NieA_7) gives an unpolished, though by no means bad, performance as Kana. Since Kana is a tomboy, Little's blunt acting style fits the character. And I loved J-Ray Hochfield as Niea in NieA_7, but as Kuu, the youngest Haibane, she often sounds awkward", and referred to her as a "well known voice actor" here, but that's as much coverage as I can find. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing convincing for solid improvements. SwisterTwister talk 00:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could not find anything aside from the ANN article to denote notability. Esw01407 (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Roles are minor, does not pass WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 4 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 // 07:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kurz[edit]

Kevin Kurz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet GNG John from Idegon (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madness.[edit]

Madness. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by another editor. No significant independent coverage. We could redirect to the artist's entry, but it seems silly to do that if there is no coverage and there is doubt about what her next album will be titled. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article doesn't provide any useful information and would be better served in the main article for Taylor Swift if there is a source for the speculation. Mcfar54 (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX. —IB [ Poke ] 08:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced trivia which is self-contradictory as it says three alternative titles are being considered for the album and it's not finalised yet. Neiltonks (talk) 09:07, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colby Gilbert[edit]

Colby Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-created article, doesn't appear to meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:41, 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Askari Chaverdi[edit]

Alireza Askari Chaverdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not important and good references Reza Amper (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worthy academic but work has not achieved notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as none of this currently satisfies any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. — Music1201 talk 01:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't he notable per WP:ACAD criterion 6? I am not sure what our best practices are concerning university presidents.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He has some important book like "Bibliography of Nowruz" this book is in UNESCO Library Mohammad persianfarsi (talk) 10:32, 4 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 editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aangaar (pashto)[edit]

Aangaar (pashto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wholly unreferenced article and therefore no claim to any notability. Inevitably fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   18:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also the creation of a blocked sockpuppet, so qualifies for CSD. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all for the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as subject lacks requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete As it falls under G5 as a creation by a banned or blocked user with no substantial content contributions from others. Note that it's already been nominated for speedy deletion several times but the template was removed by a now confirmed sockpuppet of the creator. Omni Flames let's talk about it 08:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pr nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:59, 4 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) 06:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Browne[edit]

Robert W. Browne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non notable individual. Czolgolz (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only WP:RS coverage of the subject I could find was of his gift of $14M for an aquatic center but not really about him. I was not able to find the requisite sources actually discussing the subject in detail needed to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a successful orthodontist who used his money to create memorials to his family, but nothing notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as merely a state businessman but nothing actually for any applicable notability and its notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 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 // 07:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Human Life Centre, Bhubaneswar[edit]

Human Life Centre, Bhubaneswar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on "Human Life Center". Nominating for deletion as it is essentially an informaiton listing based on unreliable sources. There are six references, four of which are published by the center itself, one by the Jesuit organization running it, and the last is a Google books entry with a phone book lisiting. Fails WP:GNG. Note that this is not a school. It is described on its own web site as an organization that is "promoting personal, interpersonal and community Growth." They never use the word "school". HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that we can't demand for articles on schools in India the kind of references that we have in the USA, where most people are literate and read newspapers. Their claims are not exorbitant and I believe we have to settle for this if we are to give minority schools in India access to Wikipedia. This is a simple, objective report on what is both an educational and development center. Such centers are a matter of interest to many who want to know the simple facts of what is going on that is good in the world. More basically, development centers and schools should have notability in their own right. Observe the number of courses offered and the picture of the three-story building that it occupies.Jzsj (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no special dispensation for notability requirements based on the location of the article subject. Nobody gets special rules. If they did the encyclopedia would fall apart. (Also, I'm not in the USA. This is a global encylcopedia.) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I commend your intentions, on a human scale, but unfortunately your arguments do not fit the policy.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All articles must have significant coverage from sources that meet Wikipedia's reliability standard. That can indeed be a problem in some cases, but nonetheless is a requirement. In the article at hand, sources were woefully lacking; I also didn't find the required sources. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the nom is demonstrating WP:GEOBIAS here. This article is titled "Human Life Centre" yet in the opening sentence of this deletion proposal the nom refers to it as the "Human Life Center". The proper name of this organisation is "Human Life Centre" - why do some editors absolutely refuse to accept the use of British/Indian/Commonwealth English? AusLondonder (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • AusLondonder, actually the nom speaks and writes Canadian English and likes it. The nom got into the habit of writing "centre" as "centre" as the nom often writes for an American audience. The nom hopes this explanation is accepted in good humour. God save the Queen. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's not really a big issue. Thanks for your good-humoured reply. AusLondonder (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing currently hinting at the necessary notability, not convincing from any of the current contents. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - promotional.Deb (talk) 11:58, 4 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 // 07:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Mercy Law Clinics[edit]

Detroit Mercy Law Clinics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable law clinics. WP:BEFORE turns up no significant references or independent in-depth coverage. Existing refs are either weak or self-published. The article itself would be more appropriately hosted on the web site of the unversity. Prod removed by article creator, so bringing it here. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Note that there is some confusion possible here as to which clinic the article is about: a) all the clinics of Detroit Mercy Law, b)The "Detroit Mercy clinics", c) the "Detroit urban clinic" mentioned in the article, or d) the many other clinics listed on the university pages in the refs.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I gone into some specifics on the clinics, which receive mention as special in law reviews. I find wiki articles on other university law school clinics:

  • Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic
  • Tulane Environmental Law Clinic
  • Tulane Domestic Violence Clinic
  • BLIP Clinic (Brooklyn Law Incubator and Policy).

This clinic is apparently one of the oldest, as they claim, and one of the very few today that require a clinic, placing all their students in direct contact with the poor and needy. These two features, I suggest, make it at least as notable as those reported on in the 4 above Wiki articles. These are the only clinics mentioned in their law website, so I don't see where the confusion would arise about what clinics we're speaking about. I've expanded on the section on clinics, naming them all more clearly. I had been focusing on topical areas covered rather than the nitty-gritty of all the courses. Another factor that makes this school notable is what it achieves as a social development centre, doing what it can to attract its students toward the service of the needier segments of our society.Jzsj (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep on the merits. I think the subject (the clinic itself) is notable, but we need better references and tighter prose to show that notability. The nom is right - there's some fuzziness about whether this article is on the courses, the fact that students are required to serve, or about the clinic itself (location, load, clients, etc). I think this could be rescued, but it needs a lot of work. Might be worth pruning it back to a stub and going from there. The list of courses makes it seem like a course catalog - put that into a paragraph. "Students serve at the clinic in a variety of focus areas, such as X, Y, and Z. (ref)" or some such. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I also considered deletion since this is another where solid independent notability is still questionable. Perhaps Merge to the University of Michigan's article at best as this is may be applicably searchable and there's nothing to explicit suggest deleting perhaps but also not the certain independent notability. Asking DGG for his familiar analysis.SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should not be making articles on these clinics unless they receive extensive coverage in their own right beyond the local area. This one has not. Almost all the references are to its own publications. The only two external references are to an article in the state bar journal, a local TV station, and s prelaw journal. This is not at all sufficient. A list of the clinics could be added to the article on the Detroit Mercy School of Law. As for the other articles mentioned , they need to be looked at: There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked through the references and the vast majority of them are non-independent. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage that could possibly save this article. Omni Flames let's talk about it 08:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional. Deb (talk) 11:59, 4 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. czar 05:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Up and Salute the Sun[edit]

Rise Up and Salute the Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by an SPA (now blocked for socking) to support the latest article (now salted) about the book's author (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzy Kassem (2nd nomination)). No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Meters (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No indication of notability. Option to merge to author's article no longer exists now that it has been deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as also imaginably A9 if it was applicable for books, nothing else for convincing notability as its own article so delete is best. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 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. Michig (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Smith (entertainer)[edit]

Mike Smith (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article extensively edited by Kmarcario, who appears to work for MCM, a media management firm, as well as MCMNashville itself. Subject is non-notable per WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Article is an obvious puff piece. I am flabbergasted as to how this passed NPP. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:44, 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) 06:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Music Masterclass[edit]

My Music Masterclass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. References are either self-published or mention MMMC in passing. No references here establish notability. Notice also that the majority of artists involved are not themselves notable, but merely associated (without sources) with notables. ubiquity (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as searches came up with very little, if it was notable, I would suggest WP:TNT but due to lack of notability, that is out of the question. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC) Delete as nothing yet suggesting the necessary solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG. Google news search for the name in quotes resulted in "No results found for "My Music Masterclass"." CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The bulk of the article is a list of musicians. Subject lacks notability and there are zero news articles covering it. Meatsgains (talk) 02:29, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_April_26&oldid=1142623847"