Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 April	8 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. no sources, promotional tone, not notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Airahuobhor[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Peter Sam Fan 23:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:36, 8 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rai Hamilton[edit]

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

Contested PROD. My original rationale was as follows: "Having removed a lot of serious WP:BLP violations, I simply think that the sources (tabloids) fail to establish notability. This provides the most coverage, but it's simply a gossip piece about the couple's legal troubles. And all the coverage seems to be centered around his wife, not the man himself." The previous versions of the article said he's an author, but this was unsourced.

Since then, a lot of unsourced material was removed, yet the article in itself does not establish Rai Hamilton's own notability (i.e. the article focuses mainly on his wife, and in a very unfavorable manner). Furthermore, the two sources provided hardly mention Mr. Hamilton at all; both are rather breathless tabloids, to boot. The first article mentions him twice, giving little information besides his very brief statement on a man's death. The second is almost totally about his wife; it says Rai is a financier who bought a castle and is involved in a lot of dramah regarding the property, legal issues, and his marriage. Another source I found ([1]) tells you all you really need to know: Rai Hamilton is rich and involved in personal drama, but mere mentions in the tabloids is just not enough to establish true notability. The biggest issue seems to be his legal concerns, but this perhaps puts it into WP:BLP1E territory. GAB^Hello! 22:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Only sources are from one tabloid, and doesn't seem inherently notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a biography of this man, who is not notable. The article is a coatrack for an attack on his former wife, which violates BLP policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only an attack on his ex-wife, but also an attack on him. See the article history, where an editor included an unsourced rape accusation. This needs to get WP:SNOWy fast. ~ Rob^Talk 23:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Article, in its present form, does not make a credible claim of significance. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Last of the Dying[edit]

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

NN self-published book failing all 5 criteria of WP:BK. Failed {{prod}} nomination by @NawlinWiki: when contested by obvious COI IP editor. Toddst1 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per nom. Self-Published, and seems like a promotion for the author. Not every minor book is notable.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unreferenced promotional article about a non-notable, self published novel. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I like the idea of this, but I can't find anything to show that it's ultimately notable enough for its own article. Most self-published and indie books fail NBOOK and while it'd be nice if we could include everyone, this just isn't feasible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing useable, only bookseller and some blog sites. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not establish the notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Mhhossein (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dinah Project[edit]

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

Website of questionable notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources is neither cited nor apparent in a Google search. As is to be expected, the article reads vaguely promotional (I cleaned the lead up somewhat) and as a part of the website's advocacy of its issues. Also, the website seems to be dead, so future coverage is unlikely. Sandstein 21:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable website. I didn't find any reliable sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. A simple Google scholar search found several good sources. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A similar Google books search, and one Highbeam search, found some of the same sources. Bearian (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced sourced like "https://www.amazon.ca/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=9781608994373" constitute something related to this organization. They seem like two distinct uses of 'The Dinah Project'. I haven't read in details, so I can't say for sure, but a simple google search does not seem to distinguish between the two, if the two are indeed distinct. There's lots of thing that seems to be related to Monica Coleman, an American theologian, and very little on the UK-based initiative. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reviewing sources, none (or very little, well below the treshhold to meet WP:N) seem to pertain to the (dead/inactive!) UK-based initiative called 'The Dinah Project', which instead seem to be about a book/personal project/church/something related to Monica Coleman. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for the noticeable signs of necessary notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:WEBCRIT. The book by Monica Coleman and this website look to just share a name. The Dinah Project book doesn't look to mention this website and instead points to Coleman's own website. Likewise the Dinah Project website doesn't mention Coleman. @Bearian: I think the sources you're seeing are for the book, not the subject of this article. Am I missing something? After deleting, we could probably Redirect to Monica Coleman as it's fairly standard to redirect from book titles to authors. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Monica Coleman. No reliable, notable coverage of the website but the book is notable enough for a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Folan[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable. No derivation of notability solely by dint of victimhood. Quis separabit? 01:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable WP:VICTIM.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This incident was a major event in Galway City at the height of the Irish War of Independence in 1921. It generated outrage in Galway, and received much attention at the time in both regional and national newspapers, and has been included in several history books about the period. The killing of 18 year old Folan created similar outrage to the killing of 18 year old Kevin Barry in Dublin. Michael Collins the Chief of Staff of the Irish Army ordered an investigation into the death. It was an infamous episode carried out by the Black and Tans and was one of a number of incidents which proved to LLoyd George and Winston Churchill that elements of their own forces were out of control and that a Military solution to the conflict was not possible. This occurred in May 1921, the truce between the Irish led by Michael Collins and the British was agreed in July 1921. Thanks. • Galwaybuck (talk) 17:57, 02 April2016 (UTC)

@• Galwaybuck -- please spare us the history lessons and partisan rhetoric. What is notable in Galway is no more universally notable than what is notable in Brooklyn, New York or Helena, Montana or Quintana Roo, Mexico or Ulaan Bator, Mongolia, which is to say usually not enough to merit a standalone article on Wikipedia or in any encyclopaedia, although it all depends on the facts and the circumstances. The unfortunate Mr Folan doesn't qualify. Quis separabit? 01:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies sorry if I sounded like I was giving a history lecture or trying to be partisan, I was just trying to explain why I thought this was a notable incident, and to put the incident in a historical context. I was trying to say that the incident attracted national and international attention as evidenced by its inclusions in national newspapers and it was brought up in the House of Commons, and a street was named after him. . Thanks • Galwaybuck (talk) 17:35, 03 April2016 (UTC)

Delete - per WP:CRIME and WP:1E, as well as WP:GNG. This person does not appear to be a notable victim that sparked significant national attention, nor did it directly lead to a major historical event or change. I also don't believe that this person meets WP:GNG, as I'm not finding a significant amount of reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of this person. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:34, 2 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} 21:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems slightly notable, maybe it could be put in a list, but probably not much more. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge elsewhere as per WP:VICTIM, I also cannot find many quality sources to pass WP:GNG. I cannot really see the individual significance of this sad incident, even though the killings as a whole apparently were historically significant. GAB^Hello! 22:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply still nothing to suggest a independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cantagalo Esporte Clube (Paraná)[edit]

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

Delete - Seems like one of them pub league teams. Thursby16 (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Association football sports club that briefly existed, but played at far too low a level to be considered notable. Safiel (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - low-level team, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN no indication the team has particiapted in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small team and really poor article. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all to suggest better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fail WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fenix down. WP:GNG not met. C 679 08:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G6) by Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh (pashto)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No links to sources, half of the cast doesn't have an article about them. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: JOSH movie Arbaaz Khan Muzaffar Khan Babrak Shah Jahangir Khan Jani Asif Khan

Delete for (apparently) failing WP:NF. That a cast member does not have an article simply means it has not yet been written, and with Pakistani films such is endemic. That said, and after looking, I found sources for a 2000 Indian film by the same name, but not for this (possibly 2015?) Pakistani one If they come forward, let me know So I might reconsider. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is another unsourced article the author started with no other necessary improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cornwell[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a local district attorney. This is not a claim of notability that automatically gets a person into Wikipedia just because he exists, per either WP:LAWYERS or WP:NPOL -- he'd be eligible for an article if he passed WP:GNG, but of the three sources here two are primary (staff profile on the county's own website, a table of raw election results) and the only one that counts as reliable source coverage is barely longer than a blurb. This is not good enough sourcing to make him more notable than the norm. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline promotional. Does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN AusLondonder (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficiently notable. Every local D.A. is the subject of articles comparable to those referenced herein, simply by virtue of position in the community and the fact that district attorneys tend to do things that are of more interest to the average local news reader than, say, heads of irrigation districts. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Heyyouoverthere (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Casino Royale (2006 film). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Obanno[edit]

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

In-universe biography of a fictional character in a single film, with no real-world context or reliable sourcing to suggest a reason why he would qualify for a standalone article. Delete, or redirect to Casino Royale (2006 film). Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Casino Royale (2006 film), where there should be a characters section already set up. Sheepythemouse (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Casino Royale (2006 film). I could find nothing more than passing mentions of this character in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While this article is very well sourced, it lacks the significant coverage that our notability guideline requires. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Idato[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG -- no independent RS found. GAB^Hello! 22:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is the senior entertainment journalist for one of the biggest papers in the biggest city in Australia. It's very hard to find refs on journalists, as google is overwhelmed by articles that they wrote, not articles about them. But I've found him described as "arguably Australia’s foremost television critic" and a story about his relocation. Both independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draft instead as the article is still questionable for better immediate notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of reliable sources and notability. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 05:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete almost all the coverage is about his reports not him as a subject thus fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources found by The-Pope. I recognize that this is borderline in terms of WP:SIGCOV but I'm comfortable going with borderline in light of The-Pope's comments on sourcing and the many incoming links to this article indicating potential notability and definite usefulness to Wikipedia readers. ~Kvng (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep it is borderline and it is a BLP. But sources are (just) over the bar IMO and as noted, finding significant coverage of journalists can be tricky. Hobit (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oru Muthassi Gada[edit]

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

Film has not begun principal filming. Per WP:NFF, "[f]ilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles . . . ." Rebb ing 18:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

expanded WP:BEFORE:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Oru Muthassi Gada Oru Muthassi Gadha Jude Anthany Joseph Vineeth Srinivasan Aju Varghese Renji Panicker E4 Entertainment

Draftify temporarily. Film's production has coverage to meet WP:GNG, BUT filming has not yet commenced. As soon as we do have confirmation of filmimg, it can come back and be expanded and improved through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still not suggesting anything for a better notable article, too soon for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify temporarily per MichaelQSchmidt's rationale and per WP:NFF. The film has received coverage, but it does not appear that filming has commenced yet. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. It has been demonstrated that content in the source presented was likely copied from the Wikipedia article, and no other rationale for deletion exists in the nomination. Viewing this link for the "No comments" link on the page further demonstrates that the source is from this time period. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Džejla Glavović[edit]

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

looks like copyvio of [2] (Duplication Detector) The Banner talk 10:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. WP:CP is thataway. However, I can tell you right now that it is NOT a copyvio of that, since that blog is from March 2015, and our article is basically unchanged since 2010 [3], and shows a normal development cycle before that. No opinion on merits of pageant articles otherwise. No such user (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:38, 7 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. Closing per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and per WP:SK#1 because nobody other than the blocked nominator has opined for deletion. WP:NPASR by a non-sock user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle Festival[edit]

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

~~There are many festivals named "Freestyle Festival" which is coming in news search results. This festival is in California. Greek Legend (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:38, 7 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of major beauty pageants[edit]

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

Promo vehicle only based on related sources (not conform WP:RS) The Banner talk 09:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole article was copied from pageantcenter.com. Also, the website is not WP:RS. --Richie Campbell (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable topic and is this copyvio? Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not quite a copyvio, but is replicating the style and some of the information. We really need another source to show this presentation amounts to a notable topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Adi Kapyare Kootamani#Sequel. The keep arguments don't cite any policy-based reasons to keep. There's a majority arguing to delete or redirect; not such a big majority that I would normally feel comfortable declaring a consensus, but the weakness of the keep arguments pushes it over the line. If/when sources appear which meet our notability requirements for films, it's easy enough to undo the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Kapyare Kootamani 2[edit]

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

Film does not appear to have begun principal filming; under WP:NFF, "[f]ilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles . . . ." Rebb ing 18:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film is not yet announced or pre-production is not yet started. JackTracker (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

expanded WP:BEFORE:

abbreviated:(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)

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Adi Kapyare Kootamani 2 AKK-2 John Varghese Dhyan Sreenivasan Namitha Pramod Aju Varghese Popcorn Entertainments Vijay Babu

Redirect for now to the sourced mention in Adi Kapyare Kootamani#Sequel for it was announced in December 2015 that the project was to begin filming in March 2016, and in January 2016 the sequel was again spoken of. A boiler-plated nomination statement does not address reasonable alternatives. We can WP:REFUND this one when filming is confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no need for my nomination to address WP:ATD: alternatives to deletion are for pages that are notable but have significant issues like poor writing, verifiability or NPOV issues, or ongoing content disputes. Rebb ing 15:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No offense, but You are reaching an incorrect conclusion as ATDs are possible options for any sourcable topics (notable or not) that have any sort of issue... and this one simply being TOO SOON is definitely an addressable issue. What exists here is a topic that is sourcable-yet-premature, and sorry... but a repeatedly boiler-plating nomination statements implies a knee-jerk response and possible lack of BEFORE, specially as policy states "sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect" as doing so as a reasonable alternative would have prevented this AFD in the first place. As the article is currently unsuitable, in your "Before" did you ever even find or consider Adi Kapyare Kootamani#Sequel as a logical and reasonable redirect target for this sourcable topic-not-yet-ready? Yes? No? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I considered redirecting to Adi Kapyare Kootamani § Sequel, but AfD seemed the better course of action as I believed (and believe) this to be both too soon and not likely to be notable once released. In retrospect, redirection would have been simpler. Also, there's no need to apologize: your remarks are perfectly civil, and, as I chose to bring this nomination, I am responsible to stand for whatever criticism it may deserve. Rebb ing 22:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again no offense, but your prediction that a film by and starring Indian notables which is already receiving coverage as "not likely to be notable once released" is unfounded and completely unhelpful to an AFD discussion... but then again, my own thoughts may themselves be influenced by my being an Admin or by my 8 years on board and 60,000 edits or by my being a coordinator of project film... so no need to take my own experience or advice into consideration. Your own courtesy is much appreciated. Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The makers of the film had already announced about the release and the cast of the film and its too said that it is the sequel of Adi Kapyare Kootamani. More reference , on Times Of India --Aleena Ahmed (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Film is clearly notable. I have added 3 more reliable references, they are from Malayala Manorama English online, another from International Business Times india and already existing one from The Times of India. Nicky mathew (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This film has no sources saying that the production is under way or any other "new" news about the pre-production. If you observe the available sources here and here, both dated 28 December 2015, they are just follow-ups to the apparent success of the original film. The film has only been announced, which does not make it notable for Wikipedia as per WP:NF. Cheers, Nairspecht (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nairspecht: Yes, not notable enough "yet" for a separate article, but multiple sources speaking about the topic of this planned film have those plans meet WP:GNG and even though occasion rare exceptions are sometimes allowed, a redirect is quite suitable and supported by guideline and policy. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt So what do we do? Keep the article or delete it, for now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairspecht (talk • contribs) 13:42, 9 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Nairspecht: I believe a redirect to Adi Kapyare Kootamani#Sequel will preserve its history until a recreation is merited and will send readers to the one place where for now it makes sense for plans of a sequel to be spoken about in context to the parent film. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article for now.--Aleena Ahmed (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC) (struck second keep vote)[reply]

@Aleena Ahmed: Sorry, but filming has not yet been confirmed, and I had to strike the preceding as we allow only one keep per editor.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the film is clearly notable and can stand on and as a single solid article.--Helper V1 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adi_Kapyare_Kootamani#Sequel per WP:NFF until reliable sources indicate that production has begun. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Money (builder)[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is still questionable for acceptable notability, current information is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. QueenCake (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - honestly, not even close to notable. Unlikely we'll be able to source this 19th c. builder. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 11 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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five-Domain Model of Self-Regulation[edit]

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

~~Some guy named Stuart Shanker has created this concept. I am not getting what the article is about or whether it passes WP:GNG. Greek Legend (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)~~ confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Written as a bordeline essay, and of no real value in its current state. Possible recreation in future if notability can be properly established. QueenCake (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing within the article is worth saving and a search doesn't find replacement content. Completely fails WP:GNG. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stitches Split[edit]

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

Fails ~~WP:AFD~~ WP:GNG. There was already another AFD, but no one joined. I'm getting less than 2000 hits on Google, most of them are retail websites and Split stitches. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 07:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even a claim to notability here, nevermind WP:GNG. There are a few more sources if you look for other names (like the bands plus "split"). It seems better known as the Le Shok/The Stitches split 7". This is the most substantial source I could find, but not a very good source. Regardless, it's basically a 7" single, with one song on each side. Highly unlikely to get a whole lot of attention. The standard outcome would be to redirect to the artist page, but it's hard to say which of the two. My inclination is to say delete and I'm indifferent if someone wants to redirect to one or the other. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article already deleted at 22:38 on 7 April 2016 by DGG (talk · contribs) "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11" (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Arora[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a person whose only discernible claim of notability is as a creator of instructional YouTube videos -- which, as always, only becomes a claim of notability if and when reliable sources, namely media, start writing about his work as a creator of YouTube videos. But nothing like that has been shown here. A prior speedy for lacking a basic claim of notability was removed, with a source listed in the edit summary rather than being added to the article, but that source is actually about a different person who merely happens to have the same name as the subject of this article. Delete, without prejudice against creation of a new article about the other, potentially more notable, Neeraj Arora. Bearcat (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Quite clearly wikipedia being used as a brand building tool for business. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:29, 7 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. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of OECD countries by road network size[edit]

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

This seems a rather arbitrary list. We already have List of countries by road network size, but I don't see why there should be a list specific to 34 countries that are part of an organization not related to road works. Seems a rather indiscriminate list, to me. kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per nom. I agree, it does seem rather indiscriminate. Imzadi 1979 → 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. This appears to be an unnecessary subset of the main list. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nomination. Seems rather pointless. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Would likely set a bad precedent for other arbitrary lists for things in international organisation member states, so best avoided. QueenCake (talk) 21:17, 9 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. 1. Troll, 2. No valid reason has really been presented (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ji Joo-yeon[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Donottroll (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is main actress in the TV series You Are the Only One (TV series). -- Kanghuitari (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to the TV series if needed as this is simply overall questionable for that independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom does not even make a pretense of refuting the claim of satisfying NACTOR as a lead in a notable TV series. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for leading role in notable series, the article has three references to press coverage and there is more available, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Park Bloods[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Another non-notable set of another criminal street gang Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable; fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG (as nominated). - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See Mozzy, who claims to be a part of this gang. 1. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source there said "a reported member of Oak Park rapper Mozzy’s crew." No mention of Bloods, let alone "Oak Park Bloods".[4] - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he was a member, coverage of him isn't coverage of the gang, so I'm not sure why you brought this up Maile. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~Notability is not asserted in the article.~~ An initial search for RS coverage yields passing mentions. The most substantial mention here names the subject as one of Sacramento's oldest and most violent street gangs. Not much to work with. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with additional comment. I did not realize the article previously was a copyvio from a blog. The press coverage cited by the blog post does not even mention the gang. Further searches for RS coverage came up with U.S. DoJ press releases. Fails WP:ORG. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable criminal organization. Smartyllama (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Klarna[edit]

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

Plain advertising with COI-editors. The Banner talk 17:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth: earlier removed twice. The Banner talk 18:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notable company well-covered in business news (a few English-language articles are already referenced in the article, but these are the hits from just one Swedish business magazine). --Hegvald (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article does not have a promotional tone. It does not contain weasel words or adjectives and phrases saying how great the company is or extolling it's virtues. It's actually quite neutrally-worded, and presents an unbiased overview of the company. It would benefit from some copy editing to reduce the manner in which it reads as a news release in some areas. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have copy edited the article a bit to address the latter part of my comment above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Swedish payments firm Klarna shifts focus to U.S. as revenues swell". Reuters.
^ "Fast-growing Klarna expanding its role easing e-commerce". The Columbus Dispatch.
^ "How Klarna got investment from Sequoia Capital - Business Insider". Business Insider.
^ "Getting more ambitious". The Economist. 4 February 2016.
^ "Klarna, A Unicorn, Is Coming To The U.S. And Going After U.S. Credit Card Companies". TechCrunch.
^ "Klarna acquires Analyzd to tie social to finance and payments". TechCrunch. 4 May 2011.
^ "Making online shopping easier". Nordstjernan. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Keep – The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Swedens best known e-commerce company. BabbaQ (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough independent sources. For years the company has been more known in Sweden than many of the banks and they have expanded to other countries as well most notably the US. Tweak and copy edit the article rather than delete. w.carter-Talk 18:53, 9 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. Consensus shifted this way due to improvements to the article during the course of this discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McNaught[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO notability. Of the sources listed, the first few are primary sources and only mention the subject in passing. The only source that obviously meets WP:RS, Bloomberg, is nothing but a single quote from McNaught. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the references and notability of this individual. Resource have been added from Newspapers, Universities, and respected unbiased newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrrfunding (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of that sourcing is good enough, no. Of the references that have actually been properly used as footnotes for specific content in the article, four of the six are primary or unreliable sources that cannot support notability at all — and one of the two that does count for something just namechecks his existence a single time as a soundbite-giver, while not being about him. Literally the only one of those that even starts to count for anything at all is the Cornell University Archives page — but that can support biographical details, while not being enough to get him over WP:GNG by itself as the article's only good source. And the sources you've contextlessly added under the footnotes don't contribute anything either: one is his own website, which is a valid external link but cannot confer notability as anyone can start a website about themselves; one is a repetition of one of the footnotes; one is another invalid primary source; and while one of them is an actual newspaper article, it's not a very long one and doesn't really add anything new to the article besides reverification that he exists. So no, the references haven't shown that notability is there. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a potentially valid claim of notability here, but the references aren't good enough to support it: right across the board, it's almost all primary and unreliable sources. A writer does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify in primary sources that he exists — he gets an article when reliable source coverage about (not just mentioning) him in media can be shown which verifies a WP:CREATIVE pass. The guy's been active for long enough that a better class of sourceability might be possible in databases that I don't have access to, but we don't keep an article just because the quality of sourcing needed to make an article keepable might exist, if the article isn't making a slam-dunk notability claim on the order of winning a Pulitzer — we keep an article only if and when the necessary volume and quality of sourcing can be shown to definitely exist. So I'm willing to revisit this if much more solid sourcing can actually be shown, but the sourcing that's present here now doesn't cut it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for newspaper references and credible resources and they were supplied. Is this because the author stands for Gay rights and you have an issue with a gay author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrrfunding (talk • contribs) 17:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided enough newspaper references, and most of your other sources don't count as credible ones. And you clearly need to spend a lot more time around here if you think it has anything to do with him being gay — I'm an out gay man who was the original creator of probably more of our articles about LGBT writers than any other individual editor. But being LGBT doesn't entitle a person to an exemption from having to pass WP:GNG, either — even an LGBT writer still has to be properly sourceable as passing WP:AUTHOR. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not there to demonstrate notability. The opening lines would need much better sources to establish their grandiose claims that he is widely known.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a truly horrible article. To User:Jrrfunding, adding puffery like a gigantic, unsourced list of clients and unsourced claims ("was the first to" etc) is counter-productive. It makes people see your article as more inappropriate for Wikipedia. And no, Bearcat's concerns are legitimate expectations of an article. However, Mr. McNaught does indeed seem to be a go-to expert on the topic - I found sources like Bloomberg, HRC and CNN using him as an expert on diversity and sensitivity training. To Jrrfunding, I will vote to keep if you are prepared to take the time to cut the article heavily and remove any and all information that there isn't a third-party source for, one not written by Mr. McNaught. Blythwood (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is a bit too promotional, but I found two rather in-depth stories in reliable sources: [5] in the Sun-Sentinel and [6] in the National Catholic Reporter. Besides that, there are a few more: [7] and [8] in The Advocate; [9], [10], and [11] (book reviews) in Publishers Weekly; and [12] in The New York Times, which seems to be the source of the "godfather of gay diversity" line comes from. The NYT source is a trivial mention, but it can be used to source the line. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that the clientele list was removed from the article (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC and point #3 of WP:AUTHOR, because his works have received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Sources used to confirm this are those listed above by NinjaRobotPirate: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. There's also this article from NPR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has sufficient reliable sources to deserve an article, and the subject of the article passes WP:AUTHOR. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NinjaRobotPirate and Northamerica1000. I added some of those additional sources in a "Further reading" section of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been improved since nom and now indicates notability. Smartyllama (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 True Aviation An-26 crash[edit]

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

Article details a small cargo aircraft crash with only three fatalities (sorry to use the word "only" there). This is WP:NOTNEWS and, at least for now, doesn't seem to warrant its own article unless the investigation turns up something that has industry-wide repercussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly Speedy delete The sources do not support notability WP:GNG. Also, the first two sentences are identical, except two words, to [20], creating a possible copyright violation WP:COPYVIO I'm not experienced enough to know if that short a snippet is too much. Chris vLS (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on - The article is sourced from Aviation -safety.net? then surely it meets GNG. Someone is applying double standards here!! OK the article needs work, but it meets all criteria other than workmanship. So instead of carping, get on and fix!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not !voting at the moment, but Aviation-safety.net is a database of air crashes and hijackings and therefore tries to document all crashes, however scant the details may be. It alone does not necessarily provide the required in-depth coverage to meet the GNG. YSSYguy (talk)

Keep - False rationale given for deletion. The An-26 is not a small aircraft. It has a maximum take-off weight of ~24,000kg/53,000lb. The three deaths represents 75% fatalities. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Per Mjroots. This is not a small aircraft or a routine event.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Cargo crashes happen all the time and they are mostly not notable. This flight was carrying shrimp of all things....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Per Mjroots sources ok. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In all, a crash like this doesn't warrant itself as a article alone. I would propose a merge to the Antonov An-26#Accidents and incidents, but its already there. The article, for now, is written like a news article which warrants itself as WP:NOTNEWS and seems like any other cargo crash. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fairly major plane crash covered by several major sources. However, it should be rewritten somewhat per WP:NOTNEWS. Smartyllama (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only two people looking to keep presented dubious arguments. Neither provided any sources, and one admitted they weren't notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EFax[edit]

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

This does not pass WP:CORP. By looking at 5 random references that are given they don't meet the threshold for achieving notability. The first one is a homepage about the product which is a primary source. The second one is a PRNews Wire article that is not WP:RS. The third one is an announcement about a deal signed with a notable company HP. The fourth one is a review of the android app and the website that has done the review PCMag.com is owned by j2global which also owns efax - at least from the disclosure on the PCMag android app review. This Yahoo finance article has a passing mention about eFax being a product owned by J2Global. This fifth one is a press release via market wired and there is nothing concrete about efax in addition to it being a non-reliable source. To add to the above there is a BBB review reference that is not a relieble source as seen here Maharayamui (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the more well-known PC fax services. A niche market for sure but still notable enough for being a top company in its small (and admittedly declining) field. Nate • (chatter) 16:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources to give weight to the notability of this subject? Kindly point me there if it is indeed a well known PC fax service. Even if the field is declining then it should have coverage in WP:RS otherwise it is a trivial subject that shouldn't have an article here. Maharayamui (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing in the article to suggest its notability. There are also no reliable sources as per nom as one would expect for an alleged leader in its otherwise small niche. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to suggest notability as per WP:GNG. Mwenzangu (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Agree that there is nothing notable about this organisation, other than they are well-know to engage in fraudulent billing practices.It may therefore be of benefit to alert consumers to the fraudulent conduct that this organisation repeatedly engages in and to the number of complaints (655) filed against it in its registered place of business Mistral2099 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment is slanderous since there are no reliable sources to substantiate these outrageous claims by this editor. The editor also agrees there is nothing notable about the organization which is the real metric to be on Wikipedia therefore the vote ought to be a delete. Maharayamui (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a consumer protection service. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the sources are press releases, passing mentions and usual announcements by a company which do not meet WP:CORP.Kansiime (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Product. Passing mentions in one or two RS cited, the rest of the sources are blatant promotional/self-published by other websites affiliated to it. Your average variety spam, delete this and move on. DarthVader (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources have been added and seems to beet BASIC & GNG, Sources haven't been refuted so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Liguori[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker with one work that doesn't appear notable - only one somewhat reliable source, appears to fail WP:BIO. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 17:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - Aoidh (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning I was quite sure I am going for delete, but after searching the google, I've found this [21], [22] and this [23]. So, unless I am convinced, he passes WP:CREATIVE and hence, I am tending to Keep now. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources above, particularly the Deadline Hollywood article, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and Draft if needed as this is still questionable for a solidly better independently notable article, perhaps too soon at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "PJ Liguori: YouTube star had an 'amazing' experience working with Sir Patrick Stewart in Oscar's Hotel". International Business Times.
^ "PJ Liguori's Oscar's Hotel for Fantastical Creatures Interview". People.
^ David Bloom. "YouTube Stars KickThePj, Sawyer Hartman To Launch Vimeo Series On Demand". Deadline.
^ Todd Spangler. "Jim Henson Co. Creates Creatures for 'Oscar's Hotel' Series from YouTube Filmmaker PJ Liguori". Variety.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Glorious day, somebody doesn't just state that sources exist, they actually go and put them into the article. Will wonders never cease! -- RoySmith (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Beck (professor)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, is this person notable? ViperSnake151 Talk 16:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Creator name is the same as the article. Same editor makes update edits to the article. — Maile (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really hoped I could save it. However I can not see how. There might be more contribution to the field than I can find, but what I have found is not promising. I do not see him passing the Academic prong 1, which would involve making significant contributions to his field. He co-authored a text book, but I am not seeing that or his articles. His "Mental Health Counseling: A Stakeholders Manifesto" has 15 citations, which is the highest I can find on google scholar. The abstract says he is "a pioneer stakeholder in the formation of the mental health counseling movement" which I am not sure what it really means. I don't think that abstract reference is enough to establish notability. He was at one point president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association, but that if you look for it in Wikipedia is just a redirect. I do not think it would count as a "major academic society" per criteria 6 for academic notability. On the other hand his work in relation to Jewish and Israel issues might make him notable. However while I can find lots of articles, often however op-ed articles although he has been a regular contributor to the Jerusalem Post, I can not find any actual coverage of him other than a listing as past board member on the website of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, and that is a directory listing. Articles that cover opposition to the Boycott of Israel, which he is vocal in opposing, only showed up in my search for him because he made comments in the comments section, not because he had made contributions to debates on college campuses that were felt to be worth considering. So I just cannot find how he passes any notability criteria, and I do not see any coverage that indicates that he passes the General Notability Guidelines. The Catholic Priest named Edward Beck is far more notable and dominates a straight out search for that name, so I may have missed something, but my search leads me to think there is nothing to miss.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or (distant second choice) redirect to Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. Appears to be non-notable, the organization he founded barely moreso. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources appear ot date form a decade or more ago, when he was most active. I'm going to attempt to pare this bloated article down to size, I have found sources, which I will add.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sourcing available for his career as academic activist, and some for his role as a clinical psychologist and academic. I deflated (some of) the bloated c.v.style article and rewrote (some parts) according to a few of the many sources I found. (tips for searching, looked under both Ed and Edward with keywords including psychologist, and name of org. he founded) Flag User:Johnpacklambert to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep E. M. Gregory's work has convinced me we should keep this article. I still think it needs to be trimmed a little though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST isn't a good argument to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT for "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats" and "For a games or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted." Issue already exists and noted with WP:PRIMARY. Also doesn't appear to pass more general WP:EVENT or WP:GNG requirements. GauchoDude (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's just stats, and no evidence of notability. Agree 100% with the nominator's rationale. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of independent coverage. Miles away from WP:GNG. C 679 08:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NCAA Division I Soccer Conference Tournaments are generally considered notable due to the automatic bid in the NCAA Tournament the champion gets, and almost every other conference tournament from 2012 and other recent years has its own article. No reason this should be any different. The article could be expanded a bit, but it satisfies WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Is pretty far from satistfying GNG or EVENT. No credible claim of significance. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 04:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all other NCAA Division I conference soccer tournaments, as well as tournaments in other sports, have articles. Should they be deleted too? It is notable because the winner gets an automatic bid in the NCAA Tournament, the biggest tournament in college soccer. Conference tournaments in Division I college sports are generally considered notable, I thought. That's why we have them all. Smartyllama (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self Protect App[edit]

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

Not notable app & a promotion article. I didn't found any SDK file on the official site or Google play store. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support to Delete Experimental app so not notable. --Kayser Ahmad (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is noticeably new enough to where there's unlikely enough coverage and even if there was, it would still likely be too soon thus still questionable for notability. Delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 11 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Volkanovski[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Winning championships in minor organizations (not even second tier according to WP:MMANOT) does not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine fight coverage is not enough to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 11 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. spam page for non-notable amateur writer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyl T. Cobb, Jr[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Cobb is an amateur self-published historian and paranormal investigator. No significant sources to be found about him other than his own writings. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 7 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK Wrestling Experience[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a wrestling promotion with no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no signs of any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Staples Corner tube station[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "I'm sorry, but this fails WP:CRYSTAL. There's no evidence that this is a serious proposal and no chance of it being built within the next 20 years." Only one of the three sources mentions Staples Corner, and it's not even a formal proposal but a suggestion in the report of a feasibility study. We only create articles for railway stations that exist, have existed, or (verifiably) will exist - we don't create them on the offchance that an eight-year-old scheme might get the go-ahead someday. Redrose64 (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the PRODder. No evidence of detailed planning or funding, it's just a fantasy. It's hard to see it happening in the next 20-30 years, so it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Blythwood (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - If it's listed on the West London Orbital map template, somebody must have some evidence that it's suppose to exist. Unless I'm wrong, this seems more like an infill station like 10th Avenue (IRT Flushing Line). Why not Redirect it to the West London Orbital article until further notice? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that it's on the RDT because it's second blob from the left of the diagram on the first page of "West London Orbital 2008 Update – a summary". The only other place that it's mentioned is in the second paragraph on the last page of the same doc ("It would also include a new interchange station with Thameslink near Staples Corner"). But neither of these are evidence that the line is going to be built, let alone the station. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. There should be a mention of the WLO proposal on the Staples Corner page, and a mention of the Staples Corner area on the WLO page, but likley no more than a short sentence on each. That is not enough for a redirect, let alone from this title as the WLO proposal in it's most recent form is not for a tube line (nor is Thameslink a tube line) and thus an article about the station (if ever built) would be unlikely correctly placed at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Piercer[edit]

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

No significant independent coverage to show GNG is met.Mdtemp (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis is a name of a particular weapon in a fictional novel. No reason to have its own article when Ji (polearm) exists.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. The bottom line is that there is no significant independent coverage to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are articles on fictional weapons ie. Sting (Middle-earth) but that weapon is notable with references while this is not and have been unable to find references, doesn't meet WP:GNG so delete, also not mentioned in articles on Lü Bu or Ji (polearm) as deemed trivial? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Projector Records[edit]

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

Non-notable minor record label. Article without references since 2005. XXN, 15:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Swister. Nothing sources found for verifiability. No indication the label has made any cultural impact through length of operation or releases by notable artists. No other indications of notability such as GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only link was its official site and it is not working either. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eartube Empire[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There appears to be no coverage whatsoever in secondary sources. Rentier (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nom is not quite correct, I found enough coverage to verify the existence of the label, but that's about it. No indication the label has a history of releasing multiple albums/singles by notable artists. No indication the label has made a cultural impact of any significance. No other indication of notability such as WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not finding anything convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SparkWare[edit]

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

Too soon. Reliable sources do not discuss the studio, or their new games. Both of them are not notable right now. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply still not enough considering it's a newly founded company and it's obvious to say there's not going to be enough yet. Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 14:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete We're not here to promote potential projects. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Founded too recently, for now just a non-notable Kickstarter campaign. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The company is not yet notable. If the games are released and independent coverage appears then this could be re-examined. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There doesn't look to exist significant in-depth coverage from secondary reliable sources, and to the point where an article can be created without the use of original research (required to meet GNG). NCORP is also not met, as it has not been the subject of multiple independent sources that cover the company in-depth. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Kosi Bird Observatory. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koshi Bird Observatory[edit]

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

It has exactly the same content as the article Kosi Bird Observatory. Moreover it is orphaned, dead-end and uncategorized Wishva de Silva (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The two articles were created the same day by the same editor, who was presumably unaware how to set up a redirect from one alternate spelling to another. AFD not needed, this could have just been redirected. --do ncr am 17:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Doncram is right, all we need to do is redirect this one. If we could close it now we can redirect it immediately. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Doncram is right, redirect is in order. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Youth Revolution[edit]

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

This page has no independant sources and never has. I can't find anything to establish notability. Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 09:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 09:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, and fails WP:ORG. What's more, there are no real sources out there on the web that could be used to improve the article. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 09:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to have been "Pakistan Youth Renaissance" at one point, and today according to http://www.pyr.org.pk/ is "PYR Welfare Organization". Or is it Pakistan Youth Revolution? Can somebody find their name in Urdu and search for sources? As for now, they do not meet WP:NORG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searches on both the given AfD name and "PYR Welfare Organization" (which appears to be the current name judging from their website) are returning just the usual social media pages. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 19:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Magic negro. I see a clear consensus to merge here. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barack the Magic Negro[edit]

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

In my view this is a derogatory article about a living person. There is already discussion of this ~~topic under~~ "parody song" within Magical negro which is about a term that criticizes/exposes the racism of American culture, as opposed to the topic of this article, which twists that into racism and snickers over it. That we actually have an article called this, is extremely messed up, not to mention a BLP violation. I will be clear that I stumbled across this article while thinking about standards for articles about political figures based on Short-Fingered Vulgarian which is in the process of being overwhelmingly deleted by the community here. This article was never put up for AfD and was even on the front page of Wikipedia via a DYK. Hard to reckon. There are going to be all kinds of arguments about "well sourced" - well that is not the point, as I understand it. Derogatory intent trumps multiple independent sources. Some may call this filing POINTy; my intent is not to be disruptive but rather to understand how this article about racist mocking with its racist title can exist, a) when the topic is discussed in another article and b) while Short-Fingered Vulgarian cannot when both are sourced out the wazoo. I really don't get it. So let's see what kinds of arguments are brought, and if the article survives. (It should not; when I came across it I wanted to AfD it but I held back to avoid accusations of POINTy. But my question is authentic, not ironic, so here we go) Jytdog (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC) (redact to clarify Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

keep It's an article on a derogatory topic about a living person. However I also believe it to be a notable derogatory topic, and that's what matters here. The magical negro trope already has its own article, it's a topic that deserves serious consideration. This song is what happens when some people with a clear political agenda find that trope and use it against their favoured target of the time. I have sympathy for Obama over this, and I recognise Jytdog's point here, but it's tough at the top - one of the costs of running for President is becoming a target for this sort of abuse.

BTW - when his term's up and he can't constitutionally run again, can you please send him over this way to the UK? We have a vacancy for a new Prime Minister and we could really use his abilities here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Delete if no changes to the tone of article are made. Keep if some more cites can be included that highlight the derogatory tone of article, so it can be neutralised a bit more. I find the subject discomforting even-though it's notable. Gongwool (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On that topic, I've restored the comments by Peter Yarrow. The author of the original song didn't like this parody. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support keeping this. But I can see no reason to delete it - if it's judged that it shouldn't be kept as a standalone article, how about merging it into magical negro? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Magic N*gro article, yep I'd support that, it's already a section at the M.N. article, and more from here could merge OK. Gongwool (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Magical negro. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . It is not encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian for a similar article. It is already discussed at Magical_Negro#Barack_Obama. QuackGuru (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Magical negro. I fail to see the 'derogatory article' of the proposer, Sharpton seems more crudely maligned than Obama and white voters the ultimate target. The song itself may have been cruelly derogatory but it was also notably derogatory and the article is reporting, not 'snickering'. This article is different from the Trump AfD, there the subject is little more than a periodically regurgitated snipe with a high infantile snigger-factor. I'm not US, and I find this informative both for the attempt to discredit Obama/his supporters, and for how it partly backfired. Though the term is a crude way of satirising the fact, it is hardly a state secret that Obama was able to appeal to white voters because he was black, but not 'too black'. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Amended, since on reflection, this is insufficiently notable for 'stand-alone'.Pincrete (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic and not notable.VanEman (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion arguments strike me as inherently designed to censor Wikipedia. Beyond this, they misunderstand that nature of the song, which is inherently mocking the extreme grievance culture cultivated by Al Sharpton, including his aiding and abbetting the lies of Tawana Bradley. One has to understand how fabricated racial outrages cause people to react to such issues. The song has had demonstrated impact on some who have used it in various campaigns. Wikipedia is not censored, which means that we do not delete articles on impactful songs merely because the title is unpopular to some people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By this line of reasoning we are censoring Wikipedia by deleting Short-Fingered Vulgarian. This makes no sense. Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We already have, as short-fingered vulgarian is a fraction of the size it was, mostly because "too many refs make it less notable" [sic].

Mostly though, as is blatantly obvious, the 4chan-generation of WP is fine with attacks on black liberals, but Trump is their favourite candidate. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, bad faith comment. There are other substantive differences between the two 'incidents' and personally I'm UK and voted 'merge' for both, though 'vulgarian' would likely end up as a single sentence (he has been called it?~~but only denied the adjective ?~~ self-striking through WP:Synth).Pincrete (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 10 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, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge very briefly. -- NOT NEWS. The principle is NOT NEWS, and this type of article is one of the reasons why we have and need that policy. I would apply it not just to this article, but to almost all similar, except those with actually proven historical or literary significance. Almost all political insults have -- and are intended to haver -- only an ephemeral significance, and the middle of an election campaign is not the place to judge the permanent value. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Magical Negro and redirect, per Pincrete.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is disparages a living person, it totally fails based on that alone! KoshVorlon 18:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This should easily fit within the Magical Negro article. Whats there is poorly formatted so a correctly done merge should improve that article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarawood[edit]

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

Non notable housing estate, Most sources don't even mention Clarawood and most are completely unrelated anyway, The creator has also admitted they're a resident of the estate which explains why most of the article is written as someones opinion, All in all IMHO the article should be blown up and started from scratch.
(An an aside I was asked by an editor on what I thought of the article and to be nice I originally suggested AFC but we both agree AFD is the better option, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarawood123 also has alot of WP:OWNership issues with the article, As I said above IMHO the entire article should be deleted and rewritten by a neutral editor regardless of the sources (and perhaps notability). –Davey2010^Talk 22:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Keep, however User:Clarawood123 reverts everyone elses edits when they try to improve the article. There may also be a notability issue. I will still try to improve the article over this AfD period. CDRL102 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CDRL102 - Ah I assumed you wanted it deleted, In that case would you prefer If I instead moved it your sandbox or whatever? –Davey2010^Talk 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For now we can do that then, if I can't improve it we can re-open AfD/request deletion? CDRL102 (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie I'll move it over, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 18:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 March 30. Sandstein 07:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Clarawood was created and written by me in February and had been active with some minor edits etc for some weeks. User:CDRL102, who as mentioned in other comments has a history of unwelcome and unnecessary edits to various pages, then made a huge sweeping cut in the article adding tags for referencing and notability etc. User:Davey2010 then, in direct response to an ask br CDRL, listed it for deletion. This was already after some discussion by myself on talk pages and after I added info to the page making them also aware that further info could be added. The AfD was closed after an hour with contributions from only these 2 and before I even knew it was listed or had an opportunity to participate, nevermind the fact it is supposed to sit open for a week anyway. It was userfied and the article was moved to CDRL's sandbox and the page Clarawood was then speedy deleted by another admin User:Malcolmxl5. I asked them to reinstate it and there was some discussion. I then listed a deletion review and as a result an admin has reinstated a Clarawood page and listed it again AfD. It should be noted by anyone paticipating in this that the AfD as listed here is simply the identical one from before with which I had major problems and have already had substantial discussions on with everyone involved. Anyone participating in this AfD, in my view, would be well served by ensuring they read the full breadth of those discussions on the Clarawood talk page, the original AfD and the deletion review, Davey2010's talk, CDRL102's talk and Malcolmxl5's page. Articles are open for editing whilst AfD. Now Clarawood is back as a page - whether temporarily or not - I am editing it back to the form it was in at 21.21 on 22nd March 2016. The article as it now stands, which was in the form edited by CDRL102, is factually incorrect which demonstrates their lack of knowledge and expertise in dealing with the subject. I will also add a note to the Clarawood talk page and I will be expanding the General Reference section over the next day or two which should satisfy any detractors that the article is not referenced or the subject non-notable. In short the article as I will amend and edit it now should be a Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarawood123 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Sorry forgot to sign Clarawood123 (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and allow development, and revisit in a year. Factors are:

The article is the main work in Wikipedia so far by a new contributor, and deleting it outright is unnecessary and offensive
There's no emergency: there are no wp:BLP issues and the article is factual and harming no one
A neighborhood or housing development or planned commmunity of 600 homes is often/usually valid as a topic in Wikipedia.
That said, the current version is not written in encyclopedic style. It already has too many unimportant details, perhaps added to make it seem like a valid article, in the eyes of newer editors. (This is natural, many/most new editors' first contributions are this way, c.f. hundreds of too-detailed articles about college dormitories such as Towers Hall, another article at AFD.)
It's not worth turning this contributor away; it's not worth pages and pages of arguments either way
To the new contributor: go ahead and develop it, but please try not to use so much detail. Different issues of the same annual publication are not really very independent sources. Sourcing is good to have, but detailed sourcing is not needed for factual matters unless they are contested, and no one is saying the development doesn't have the number of whatevers that the article says it has. Please ask other editors to review it and make suggestions. If you haven't already please go to your public library and get help with sources about the area. Many libraries keep clippings files. I encourage the new contributor to please take a look at other articles in Category:Neighborhoods, Category:Planned communities, Category:Housing developments and the like, find some that are good and emulate them (does anyone have specific good examples?)
I encourage the new contributor to edit in other articles and participate in Wikipedia processes like wp:AFD about other articles for a while. It's easier to learn by working in areas that are not important to you.
Don't anyone have a cow and let's just put this on the back burner to return to a year from now, when the article will be better and when small things won't matter as much. I am willing to put it into my calendar to return to this 365 days after this is closed, and others can calendarize it too.

--do ncr am 18:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried to edit a bit back in March, in order to make the article more Manual of Style-compliant, but got reverted. Looking at the page history, others seem to have experienced similar situations. While there is not much wrong with an article about a neighbourhood like Clarawood as a WP:GEOFEAT, I do advise the page creator to act less as if one WP:OWNs the article. Some have more knowledge about Clarawood, others are more experienced in creating the Wikipedia looks; working together is what results in good encyclopedic articles. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I have also said above, I would like to Keep this article too and make it more Wikipedia acceptable, however User:Clarawood123 has taken a WP:OWNs feeling to the page meaning when I and other editors do change it, it gets reverted back. CDRL102 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking here, [24], we can see the article has been restored to the way User:Clarawood123 had it, without essentially any other input. CDRL102 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As previously discussed in other places the suggestion that I have simply reverted every edit made to the Clarawood page by other editors is frankly untrue. I learnt from Hypergaruda and others about fair use photo protocols on Wikipedia and there were a number of other edits. I did revert a number of edits however and I gave my reasons for doing so using Wikipedia Guidelines as my reference - I did not just reject what people did or try to keep things "my way". One of the main reasons for reverting some things was that these edits, especially that done by User:CDRL102, were more about a matter of the editor's personal preference on how a page should look or sound rather than any actual benefit. Indeed CDRL102's edit removed very substantial portions of information and facts. The article had also been tagged as non-notable and unreferenced. Both these assertions were untrue as I have previously argued and demonstrated using Wiki Guidelines. However I have now expanded the General Reference section substantially to satisfy any concerns in this area. Regarding the so-called encyclopaedic style - various Wiki Guidelines are very clear that articles ought to be written in a style accessible to any reader and find a balance between info for the expert or for the casual peruser. They should also be written in plain neutral language and this is what I did on Clarawood. The United Nations, the European Union and many other groups view human settlements and habitations, including the local neighbourhood, through a filter of Sustainable Development typified by the three strands of environment, society and economy. Therefore I sought to write the article with this in mind. An encyclopaedia is defined as a collection of knowledge and generally they try to be comprehensive. Usually an article will be written by an expert on the particular subject and if it is a subject where there are likely to be updates then that person is expected to do this in a timely manner ie regularly. Articles are not usually changed or edited significantly without the orginal writer's participation or an open discussion first. In the case of Wikipedia it is a free online version and the community editing allows anyone to edit. However it is clear from various Wiki Guidelines and policies again that edits should be constructive. Simply because everyone is able to edit does not mean that everyone should be editing or that all edits are constructive, Assume Good Faith notwithstanding. It would be normal according to Guidelines for major stakeholders in an article eg the original writer to keep an eye on their creation. That is not ownership or acting like an owner however it is good stewardship and responsible editing. In cases where there is a difference of opinion on style or whatever it is also in the Guidelines that the style chosen by the original writer or editor should be adopted. I wrote the article to be a balanced summary of the breadth of information about Clarawood delivered in a concise but comprehensive way and understandable to anyone. Numerous things have been omitted but those included are all included for a reason. Many editors seem to think that Wikipedia articles must be written simply as an abolutely cut back version of whatever information they can find online about the subject. This is not correct according to the Guidelines and I think the Clarawood article, unlike CDRL102's opinion, is more than "Wikipedia acceptable". I thank the editor above for their comments but I must also observe that their advice to visit a library and look for info seems to be a mistake. The publications listed as references on the Clarawood page are held in one of the biggest libraries in the country, the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland which is part of the UK National Archives, and they are the detailed original source for many of the encyclopaedic facts on the page and the particular citations were added due to people saying the General Reference wasn't enough. Clarawood123 (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I have just looked through the revision history and you have clearly undone a lot of decent edit without giving a proper reason. Also you new comment certainly seem to show that you are very possessive over this work, which honestly I don't believe is very wikipedia appropriate. I don't understand what you mean when you talk about being a "stakeholder".*Treker (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And they've literally just done it again. [25] - unbelievable. CDRL102 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CDRL102 - I've reverted back to where Sandstein had moved it, If she keeps it up she's gonna end up blocked ... which would be a lovely thing actually... –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC) (Self reverted. –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

That link shows nothing of value to me. The article isn't the issue, your attitude towards it is. It shouldn't be deleted but something should be done about your behaviour. You keep claiming that you're not doing what you're doing but it is clearly disprovable. The article is not suited for wikipedia in this condition and I believe the other editor are trying to fix that.*Treker (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My behaviour? What have I done? CDRL102 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acting very possessive and behaving as if you own the article. You think you know better than everyone else. Other people are trying to improve the article and instead of letting them you want to have it your way, which in turn has made the piece less than what it should be. This is clearly a pet project of yours and no one is enjoying your attitude about it. I completely believe if you let others cooperate more with you on this the article would become much better instead of what it is now. I also doubt you are capable of looking at this completely objectively since you are so over-invested in it so I wouldn't trust your judgment about what should be included in the article and what not. Right now it's also pretty lacking in sources for its length, some of it should probably be cut.*Treker (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you've confused me with User:Clarawood123. I'm the one who tried to cut the stuff but was reverted. CDRL102 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry. I was trying to respond to her before but you must have commented before me and I didn't keep track. I take to long writing my comments sometimes. Sorry.*Treker (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the information of any participants in this AfD User:Davey2010 has deleted comments off the Clarawood talk page in which I explained why I reverted the latest edit by User:CDRL102. I have, in fact, explained and discussed anything I have done either on the talk pages or in the AfD or in the Deletion Review and have provided examples of relevant Guidelines etc. I have now been accused of disruptive editing by Davey2010 (along with his deletion of Talk page items). This is quite simply not true and I will be reporting my concerns over this to ANI. It should be noted that Davey2010 has already been demonstrated to have closed an AfD for the Clarawood page out of process which is why it was restored and that the consensus so far seems very clearly to be a keep. This latest so called "problem" with my editing behaviour results from CDRL102 removing the majority of the opening statement on the page asserting that it was simply an opinion. As I commented very clearly on the talk page - but it has been deleted by Davey2010 - that is absolutely untrue it is a matter of published fact and was referenced. I am being accused of being a disruptive editor and failing to understand that CDRL102 is trying to make the page better. The reality is that CDRL102 removed a referenced fact without justification - or discussion - and in doing so demonstrated that their own actions were exactly what they were accusing me of - opinion not fact. I am not bothering to revert Davey2010's edit to the Talk page, I will let the ANI process run first. I am also not bothering to discuss it with Davey2010 on his page as he does not seem open to rational discussion on anything but instead seems to act as he pleases - including the deletion of talk comments in order to cover up the fact that what I did was more than justified but that he and CDRL102 have a joint mission to make me out to be a fool. By the way I am not female and I would appreciate not being referred to as "she". Clarawood123 (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep, but only if User:Clarawood123 agrees not to revert other users in the future. Otherwise, delete as being waste of time for the people involved. LK (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to thank the various participants for their advice and guidance. It seems that I am being portrayed as someone who simply just reverts everything for the sake of it because I am new and unwilling to learn. This is not the truth. It also seems that those who have supported this position have taken others' comments at face value and have not checked into the history of any edits or reversions I have done or the comments I made to support those. At present following the latest edits to the Clarawood page by various editors over the last day or so it is in a state where it is factually innaccurate from the very first line of the infobox, is misreferenced throughout and is in breach of copyright as legally required statements for the attribution of multiple references have been deleted. I am not going to edit it or revert it as I will only be accused - as I have been already - of ownership etc...all I can say is that if correcting mistakes, ensuring information is factual and ensuring that material is referenced is wrong then I am happy to be wrong. Hopefully someone with a bit of sense and gravitas will look into this Clarawood123 (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then update the population if you think it's wrong. 86.130.124.145 (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed with LK, keep and develop as long as Clarawood123 doesn't take a WP:OWN approach. 86.130.124.145 (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see anything particularly problematic here, and certainly not something that warrants deletion. In general, the "Non notable housing estate" is a contradiction in terms when it comes to UK articles, since even a small council estate will generally be a major population centre in its own right, and the existence of reliable sources can be presumed for any estate even if nothing shows up online since estates by their nature generate regular press coverage (especially in NI, where the Assembly sends out a breathless press release every time the public sector does absolutely anything). I don't see how Clarawood is inherently any more problematic than Noel Park, a council estate which went all the way to FA. ‑ Iridescent 21:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn

SS Hopestar[edit]

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

About a ship that sunk. While the ship is notable, the article is an utter mess. It only contains quotes, badly formatted and hard to read. Prod was removed, but not by the creating editor, and should stay as is. The article should be userfied. Bgwhite (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: - I agree that the article is a mess. However, AfD is not the way to go here. Articles in need of improvement should not be nominated at AfD because they need improvement, no matter how bad the state of the article. It would have been far better to flag the issue up at WT:Ships. Give me some time and I'll see what I can do. Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots It's common procedure to userfy or move to draft articles that are not ready. The creating editor opposed to do this and they and the prod remover were not going to improve the article. AfD is not just to delete articles. Merge and userfy are common outcomes. It seems nobody ready my opening comment of "The article should be userfied". I was not asking for a delete, but I guess people don't read the opening statements. Bgwhite (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: This, to me, is a case of WP:BITE, albeit probably unintentional. The editor who created the article has an account that is all of five days old. He has a heck of a lot to learn about Wikipedia, as I'm sure you'll appreciate. As others have pointed out, it would have been better to let WT:SHIPS know of the potential problem. Now, how about withdrawing and closing this nomination? Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots I already closed the nomination several minutes before you wrote the above. I even sent you a thanks before you wrote the above. I was not aware of WT:SHIPS. I was already cursed out by the creating editor before the nomination. Bgwhite (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why this new article ought to be deleted, rather than fixed? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Nominator agrees that the ship is notable, so why are we at AFD? A post at WT:SHIPS to get some volunteers to help clean the article up would have been a better course of action. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW KEEP - firstly, the article should never have been nominated at AfD. Even the nominator states "the ship is notable". Secondly, the article is now shipshape, notability demonstrated in droves. Mjroots (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per nomination, which states it is notable. --do ncr am 17:22, 7 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CrowdFlik[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. The only secondary source given and a few I could find only speak of the company's product, but the article is entirely about the company itself. It appears to have been created by an WP:SPA. See also: Chris Hamer. Rentier (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the reasons listed above by Rentier. Online search results for the company name appear to be either primary sources or secondary sources which discuss the company's one and only product — a mobile app — not the company itself. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 8 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. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Van Voorhis[edit]

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

A political activist with no record to be called "politician" and no elected position so far. Also, searching internet does not return many results. A clear case of WP:TOOSOON for me. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the specific notability guideline for politicians as well as WP:BASIC. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Nom. Non-notable regional politician. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nice puff piece. Bad Wikipedia article. No basis for notability. VanEman (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant and embarrassing advertising on a profoundly non-notable person. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a delegate to a political party's convention is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, and this article claims and reliably sources nothing else about him that would get him included for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedied by User:Fayenatic london per A7, G7. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orrian[edit]

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

this company no longer exists, the company never did anything relevant, no wiki page should have been created in the first place Bertobettencourt (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails WP:CORP and the article lacks a credible claim of significance. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also, I have flagged this as CSD A7 and G7, as both are appropriate here. I leave the AfD in case the CSD is declined for some strange reason. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I originally tagged it as A7. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 11 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. by Sphilbrick, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Thorns[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Article is promotional in tone, plagiarized, and makes no credible assertion of significance, much less notability. Borderline speedy. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 07:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as CopyVio of http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18523856-game-of-thorns. No need for AfD discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails several of the CSD criterion: it's a copyvio, written in a promotional tone and no assertion of notability. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 09:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the article has been speedily deleted, the AfD can be closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rocking Soccer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage whatsoever from reliable sources. The1337gamer (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the person that created this page, I will say that this is a real game. Ok it may not be up to standards like some other games but this can easily be improved with hard work. Matt294069 is coming 05:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be easily improved? There are no reliable sources covering this game at all. It clearly fails Wikipedia's notability criteria. --The1337gamer (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

h — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChilenoDeCorazon308 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— ChilenoDeCorazon308 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. WP:ITEXISTS is not an argument, and a quick Google search shows no coverage by reliable sources. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 07:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment Well why not add Maxithlon to this list thien as that fails WP:GNG. Matt294069 is coming 22:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion on Rocking Soccer, not Maxithlon. If you feel another article should be deleted then go ahead and nominate it. In this case, saying other stuff exists is a poor argument to keep this article on Wikipedia. --The1337gamer (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches are simply finding nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 17:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'll leave it to somebody else to clean up the incoming links. Fortunately, it looks like what links here works even on deleted pages, so that should help a little. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y = Arctg X: The Hyperbola of the World Order[edit]

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

No sources found that discuss this book, all the sources in the article predate its publication and are used to support what seems to be the book's argument. Book was published by "University Press of America", Google searches raise blog/message board allegations that this is a "quasi-vanity" press, but I cannot verify this.Geogene (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. This newspaper article (Westword) calls University Press of America (UPA) a quasi-vanity press and then later concludes it is a vanity press. "The firm's acquisitions editor, Michelle Harris, describes UPA as an "academic publisher" but notes that the company is not affiliated with a university. UPA agreed to print and distribute 700 copies of the book in paperback after Denver's Hue-Man Experience Bookstore, which specializes in African-American literature, agreed to buy 500 of them. Harris insists that UPA is "not a vanity press." But Dick Rowson, publishing consultant to the American University Press in Washington, D.C., who is familiar with UPA, says book contracts that require prepublication orders are "in effect...a vanity form of publishing."Tucker says UPA gets to keep all proceeds from sales of the first edition of the book, but she will earn a small royalty if there is a second printing." Sounds like a vanity press to me. So a vanity published book and no sources discussing it. PermStrump(talk) 06:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The whole thing has the feel of a fringe theory to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve -- Some 50 other pages link to this page, resulting in traffic of over 40 views per day. Deletion would cause numerous disruptions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.137.8 (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to remove all of those myself, if necessary. Geogene (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Notability comes in time, usually posthumously. One day the book will make a comeback to Wikipedia. I copied this page for my autobiography. Max. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxaxax (talk • contribs) 00:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has COI issues, seems promotional/fringe. Baking Soda (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Baking Soda (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

X-Smiles[edit]

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

Non notable software project, defunct since 2008. No indication at all that it ever came close to satisfying WP:NSOFT. The reasoning given at the first AfD for keep were very weak and in one case, non-existent. Never had close to the required coverage and obviously never will, given that it is long defunct. Safiel (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Software was experimental and is now is defunct, as noted by nominator. Dialectric (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Pinwheel[edit]

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

Previously deleted via WP:PROD. Still no notability per WP:CRYSTAL. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has "been shelved or put on hold" according to only source I could find. PamD 08:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GEOFEAT. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Nomination. No cited sources, non-notable potential project. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:TOOSOON -IagoQnsi (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. No need to delete outright. Mention of this building, planned to be Lebanon's highest, could be given in some list-article ... and in fact it is, see "Tallest under construction / Proposed" section in List of tallest buildings in Lebanon. That list-article could carry more specific information about this building (and others) in a "Details" column in the table or otherwise, because the list-article itself is not very large. Its Talk page is where debate about which projects are still ongoing vs. cancelled etc. should be held. Put a {{anchor}} in the list-article to serve as target for redirect after merge done, so that List of tallest buildings in Lebanon#The Pinwheel links to it. --do ncr am 18:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of systems biology research groups[edit]

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

NOT DIRECTORY. Even as individual groups, almost none of them are likely to be notable (One does have a possibly justified article, and one or two more might, but even so that does not make the while list of them notable. Inappropriate use of Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of microfluidics research groups (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of microfluidics related companies . DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is another example where a solidly acceptable list for Wikipedia is going to be questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources discussing this subject as a group. Violation of WP:NOTADIRECTORY. --Randykitty (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree WP:NOTADIRECTORY as above - a possible compromise might be moving to a list of notable sysbio groups, leaving the groups with current WP articles? Entirely possible that some of the groups with pages currently are not notable either, though. --Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others above have mentioned, WP:NOTADIRECTORY is pretty clear on this. Seems to be a place for using a category if someone really wanted to organize these rather than creating an article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hamer[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Except a passing mention on foxbusiness.com, the sources are either primary or closely related to the subject (fairfield.edu). The article was created by an WP:SPA. See also: CrowdFlik. Rentier (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the reasons listed above by Rentier. I should also mention that the credible claim of significance for the subject made within the article seems predicated on the notability of CrowdFlik, an article which was also created by the same single purpose account. Additionally, as it is currently written, the article appears to read like a resume: Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still not convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. VanEman (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 11 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. Consensus is to keep the article. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Christie[edit]

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

(edit conflict) PROD tag removed with rationale "NYT obit is defacto notability" something not enshrined in any policy or in common-sense. Are we suggesting every individual to receive an obituary on the back pages of The Times of London; The New Zealand Herald or The Times of India is notable? Or just Americans? The New York Times is the local newspaper for this area as well. This one-year Mayor fails WP:NPOL and also fails WP:GNG as not having received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Founder of a city with a full obituary in the New York Times and a full biography written in 1900, both independent of him. He did not own the New York Times or the company that published the biography, or the book about the town he was mayor of. You also do not have an understanding of the political hierarchy in New Jersey, he was a freeholder, a county level elected political office, as well as a mayor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): What is the full biography about him? The book about the town is likely not significant coverage because he was Mayor for a year. AusLondonder (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He founded the town, it sounds like you did not read the article or the source material. I think you are mad because I deprodded the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Page creator !voted keep prior to a rationale for deletion being provided causing an edit conflict AusLondonder (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Christie's role in the founding of Bergenfield is a rather strong claim of notability and the extensive coverage about him in books and newspaper articles is unassailable evidence of that claim. AusLondonder fails to understand the obligations under WP:BEFORE to actually look for sources; merely not liking the article or the response to a deProd is a rather poor justification for deletion. Ignorance is no excuse, be it of policy or sources. Alansohn (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: How about you assume good faith and stop making stupid, wild and false allegations. I couldn't care less about the deprod. I knew very well he would deprod. I don't take your claim a single obituary in the back pages of the New York Times is "extensive coverage" seriously quite frankly. AusLondonder (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "I knew very well he would deprod", but if you did, then why didn't you take it to AFD instead of PROD directly? As soon as I deprodded, you jumped to AFD, but you knew I was going to deprod. I still think you were angry, and jumped to AFD without doing any research by reading any of the source material, you just saw a stub, and wanted to get rid of it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder Have you read the obituary? Do you have any idea what the f$%@ you're talking about in summarily rejecting a major obituary in the nation's de facto newspaper of record? At what page number in the Times do sources stop counting? Alansohn (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not every person granted an obit in The Thunderer or the NYT is going to turn out to be WP:Notable, but enough of them are that such an obit would certainly make me !vote keep at an AfD.

I'm surprised though that the NYT obit describes him first as a banker (in New York?) rather than for his connection to Bergenfield, yet there's no mention of this is the article? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of WP:GNG and WP:NPOL then. A single source is nowhere near enough to keep a local politician. AusLondonder (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are already three cited sources, and given what those sources say he did, I am confident that a search through offline newspaper archives would find several more, at least. DES ^(talk) 03:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stop being "confident" and actually do the work then? Or is that too much to ask? AusLondonder (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is. WP:V says that statements must be verifiable, not verified. WP:N says: "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. and he absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." My comments went to that "possibility of existent sources". That said, I added an additional citation to the article after I commented here. DES ^(talk) 03:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Alansohn says, this has a strong claim of notability. GBooks has a substantial number of additional potential sources, and for example this university-press book about Bergenfield (that mentions Christie on at least 28 pages) is now cited in the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the discussion I have raised regarding sources at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability question AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a New York Times obituary is a pretty good start in terms of establishing notability, and this clinches it for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, referenced. VanEman (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the founder of the town, which is well attested to in the sources. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The book coverage combined with the newspaper obit strikes me as significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 01:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 11 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ice & the Iced[edit]

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

I don't see anything in this article or at Discogs that might meet the notability criteria at WP:BAND. John of Reading (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:02, 23 March 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, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it was apparently only active for one year and there's nothing to suggest there was considerable coverage and information to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage can be found online to meet WP:BAND criteria. Additionally as per reason given by @ User:SwisterTwister DarthVader (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Swaggers[edit]

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

Not notable enough to have a article GreenCricket (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs improvement but searches find large number of sources from India and internationally. AusLondonder (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep it with banner showing it needs improvement, but it meets notability requirements.VanEman (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as doesn't meet any notability guidelines, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-sock user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Techspardha[edit]

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

~~There are two RS-sources from Tribune India, but no news results. Fails WP:EVENT. Greek Legend (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and mentioned if needed at the University's article as none of this actually suggests better independent notability and is likely best known to the University itself. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the tribune india reliable sources passesWP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion has already been relisted twice and votes seem to be split between keep/redirect/delete. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 05:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of NRA[edit]

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

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

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

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

Not notable. It's an article about a group that supports an unnotable foundation that supports the National Rifle Association. There ain't even one secondary sourcethat's worth using. It's got tags dating back four years, but no one cares enough to fix it. I proposed a merger before I noticed that it's all written from press releases, etc. There's nothing worth merging and no good target for a merge. Felsic2 (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the NRA article. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability well established for wikipedia proposes. Drive by tags not reason enough to delet J8079s (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Huh? How is it established? Where are the secondary sources? Is the NRA Foundation notable? Nope. Neither is the group that supports it. Felsic2 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- @R'n'B: - Pinging the editor who added the "drive by tags". Felsic2 (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable organization within the gun culture. Friends of NRA has held over 17,600 events, reached over 3.2 million attendees and raised over $600 million for good causes. Seems notable enough in terms of its impact, and the article has footnotes. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting all this info? If it's a notable entity then let's see some sources. Felsic2 (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the NRA at best for now because this is likely best connected to them and is best put aside until a better improvable and notable article is available. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect Gun-worship above does not excuse the absolute lack of reliable secondary sources on this organisation. AusLondonder (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: The page has a lot of references, but many of them only serve to support the contents of the article without mentioning the organization. Of those that do cover the organization, most of them appear to be primary sources or lists/registries. Per Felsic2 and AusLondonder, there really isn't a lot to work with here in terms of coverage from secondary sources, so the subject appears to fail WP:ORG. However, it could still be worth mentioning on the National Rifle Association page in a similar manner to the NRA Foundation. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to wonder if dislike of "gun-worship", gun rights and NRA is driving the Delete votes. This appears to be a huge organization. No one has disputed its 17,600 events and its raising $600 million (did i get that number right?). References look fine. If Wikipedia deletes articles because many of its editors, probably the majority of them, are liberal, then Wikipedia loses credibility. --do ncr am 17:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Linked AFD search on news alone yields many many current news items on local events. If this was about a nonprofit helping disabled orphans in Atlanta, say, the availability of 3 or 4 local news articles would produce a slam-dunk Keep resolution to its AFD. --do ncr am 17:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. Further, frankly it would be valid for the Friends of NRA article to include a list of significant Friends of NRA events, i.e. to include a list of many thousands of items. Arguably many of the individual events have been covered in multiple reliable sources and themselves would be Wikinotable. "Events of Friends of NRA" no doubt meets wp:LISTN as a topic and List of Friends of NRA events would be valid as a list-article. I am not chomping at the bit to start such a list-article myself right now, it seems a bit much to delete the main article on Friends of NRA in which it could be a section. --do ncr am 17:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPPS. From looking at the Friends of NRA website and the wikipedia National Rifle Association webpage in full, it seems to me that the NRA Foundation (currently a redirect to a short section in the NRA article) and the Friends of NRA are substantially different and distinct from the NRA itself, and deserve separate coverage, but the two might be covered in one article. The NRA itself is concerned with legistlation, broadly. The NRA Foundation supports "the shooting sports" nation-wide by grants that fund nation-wide programs (getting 50% of funds raised by Friends of NRA) and local programs (getting other 50%). This is huge and genuine...it really does support gunmanship training programs, Boy Scouts programs, etc. etc. ...and it should be thought of like a foundation supporting another sport like skiing, say, or like supporting the training of Olympic athletes, that also has a huge grassroots fundraising arm. From 2 seconds of searching about foundations supporting skiing, this can be compared to say the Billy Poole Memorial Fund which provides for "opportunities for kids to learn to ski" and has an annual movie and fundraiser event at the Washoe Theater in Anaconda, Montana. If the Billy Poole foundation does anything like $1 million revenue I would support it having a Wikipedia article for sure; the combo of the Friends of NRA and the NRA Foundation does $59 million per year now. The Billy Poole program perhaps has a side "benefit" of putting skiing in general into the public's mind but there is no nation-wide legislative or public policy issues about skiing; I suspect it is a deliberate (although perhaps unstated) goal for the Friends of NRA & NRA Foundation to put shooting as a sport into the public's mind as part of supporting the legislative/public policy mission of the NRA. The United States Olympic Committee supports Olympic sports and we cover it. One might support gun control and be against the current agenda of the NRA, but that is not reason to suppress coverage of the massive fundraising and grants program supporting the "shooting sports". --do ncr am 19:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be open to keeping it, but there would need to be a substantial rewrite. The bulk of the "Supported shooting sports and safety programs" section is composed of external links to sub-domains of the NRA website (not even the Friends of NRA website) as opposed to descriptions of the programs, and virtually all of that section discusses the activities of the NRA Foundation as opposed to the Friends of NRA. It seems a bit ungermane, and the sheer number of consecutive external links makes it seem like the goal is not to provide information to the reader but to generate page hits for the target websites. Additionally, as mentioned above, I think the subject could do with better referencing to demonstrate depth of coverage. If the topic does in fact have significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources — as opposed to passing mentions in relation to other NRA activities by other NRA associated organizations — great! But we need to evidence that in the article. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References reasonably establish notability, especially with what are currently references 4 and 5 (this version).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Article is definitely notable. Many references are easily found, for example:
http://www.enidbuzz.com/friends-of-the-nra-banquet/
http://www.kgwn.tv/home/headlines/Friends-of-the-NRA-Host-fundraiser-290709171.html
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5450#.Vwa4PP_mrZY
http://www.scnow.com/sports/outdoors/article_f8206318-9d6b-11e3-9a94-001a4bcf6878.html -- Samf4u (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samf4u Those "references" do not meet the criteria at WP:RS nor do they amount to in depth coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References that are really just notices of fundraisers really doesn't count. Not notable. VanEman (talk) 22:31, 8 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. postdlf (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Reagan Allvord[edit]

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. References only provide passing mentions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in cited sources, specifically: [26], [27]. ~Kvng (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources come close to significant coverage, as they do not discuss the subject in detail. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's on 4 pages of the book. The whole intro in the All Hands piece is about the subject. It's definitely more than a "passing reference". ~Kvng (talk)

Delete actually as my searches found nothing better, still not convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both the All Hands article and The History Press–published book provide significant coverage of the subject, allowing him to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 18:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a borderline case, and the page needs some cleanup, but a lot of less notable less accomplished persons have pages like Meg McGuffin. Legacypac (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmm, I thought I had cleaned it up when I rewrote it. I did that because I felt that there was – just barely – enough coverage in the sources for a deletion proposal to fail. But if the consensus is that the coverage is insufficient I'll raise no objection. Whether or not other articles are worse has no relevance here; this page should be judged on its own merits (or lack thereof). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, admittedly a borderline case -- I found nothing for several searches until I did a Bing search without the middle name, under 'news' and found these sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:50, 8 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. Notability has been established. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vidya Iyer[edit]

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

Non notable musician Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as notable per WP:MUSICBIO. There are multiple independent published articles about her, as linked in the article, giving notability per #1 of WP:MUSICBIO. -crh23 (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of sources: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 15:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solidity, could be better and we'll frankly wait. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC and point #1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Vocaloid products. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anon Kanon[edit]

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

Article topic is not the subject of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to List of Vocaloid products could suffice. Many of these Vocaloids should be redirected. czar 05:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar 05:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Vocaloid products is in the process of being removed and merged with respected articles Vocaloid (software), Vocaloid 2, Vocaloid 3 and Vocaloid 4. This will occur at the end of the month, I am 1 person and can't do this all at once and ddespite asking for help to do this, no one has come forward to aid me.

Anon Kanon and all respective Vocaloid pages are being created and removal of said list page cannot occur until the information has been set up. If you check my contributions, and what I'v been doing, you will see I've been creating and expanding these pages. There is enough sources on the page for it to exist as it does now.

The whole thing is part of a project, either way, to better handle the situation. Anon Kanon are vocal synthesizing software for Vocaloid, have their own independent trademark and have no connection to video games' except that 1 iOS app, which exists independently of their actual software. They do NOT therefore comply to this and are instead comply with either Speech synthesis related articles and/or the music software, as they designed to be singing vocals for music. Therefore the basis of their delete being "Video games" is invalid and ridiculous and only shows ignorance on the one who nominated them, for they did not check what exactly they are nominating. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List_of_Vocaloid_products

Also I will add this. The reason the list is being retired is in the last past yer it was put up for deletion anyway based on the fact it was merely a list. So the current working process is to sort to get rid of the page. Redirecting the pages to said list either way is a step back at its removal. Furthermore, several vocaloids such as Macne Nana, while have Vocaloid technology behind them are not souly sold for Vocaloid. Mane Nana herself was made as a sound library for Reason and Garage Band DAW, later had a UTAU vocal and then became a Vocaloid. Others like Hatsune Miku and her fellow members of her series are so well known in Japan that you easily come across their merchandise. Even without the video game mislabeling, there is enough to warrant their pages existing, as only a few are stubs and many have large expansive information about them. I can understand why something like Pokemon may be attacked for this, but each "Vocaloid" is a separate software entirely. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Vocaloid

Here is another place I've discussed this.

Also... While I'm own the matter of reliable sources... I thin you'll find some of those said sources are in fact their own homepage... In fact going only the sources on there none of them are not official source for them. They either come directly from a legit twitter account about them, their own website, or Yamaha's Japanese website. They've got more reliable sources then some video game articles despite this being the accused reason to get rid of them! So between this and the fact their not video game characters, I can fully say *someone* didn't get this one right. I can think of other reasons why this page could be pulled up, mostly to do with house keeping reasons, but none for deletion based on how its been set up. Its not a stub either. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can take up the connection with video games with whoever added that info and tag to the article. All I noted is that whatever connection it was supposed to have, it didn't show up in game sources. I explained this on my talk page already, but we don't host pages for which only primary sources exist. (As I said in the nomination, we require significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?)) Topics with weak coverage are best addressed in a list (as redirects) or deleted altogether when we lack the secondary sources to write full articles on the subjects. czar 13:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps as there seem to be no serious needs for deletion and this seems best connected to the series itself. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I will not defend the article and have put forward everything already. I can ensure you deletion is not the way forward, but I know how this works due to past experience. If 3 people come in now who hate Vocaloid, the thing will be out-voted or that determined no matter how solid of an argument I can come up with, this article is gone if its worthy to go and no matter how much editing I do further will not save it. this happened to me so many times in the past that it wasn't funny,even wen solid articles were edited. So I will now walk away from the project regardless of its outcome. :-/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel Emfrbl (talk • contribs)

Redirect to List of Vocaloid products. Regardless of what medium this product actually is, the sources currently in the article are not adequate for providing notability through multiple independent sources. I think these separate vocaloid products would be best as a list on a single page. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I'd be fine with a redirect. czar 02:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My I make a suggestion, while I've walked away from the the Vocaloid pages, for that page to proper handle redirects, its needs some improvements; -Exchange the information on Vocaloid (software), Vocaloid 2, etc with the products list. Have the vocaloid informatin on the "products page" and the tables on V (S), V2, V3, etc pages instead. The problem with a redirect right now is the page is just a list and thats want I was trying to get rid of. That lists already been attaced once for being just a list so it need to be sorted. Plus its a horrible mess right now which is why I was trying to retire it. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, just redirect this page to "Vocaloid 3" rather then the products list... And not change anything. Either way Czar's argument about it falling under the Video gaming guidelines is not 100% faithful to the discussion and I was happy that 1 other person here called that too. That makes me satisfied regardless of the result here. I do not feel its reason initially for being strikes against was fair and legit, it would be like filing a page for a dinosaur under deletion for not being a living creation, pardon the metaphoor here as sadly it was the first to come to mind. I knew sooner or later I was going to come into problems as I was doing these pages alone, this did not make me comfortable at all to edit any of the vocaloid pages as only 1 editor can reach X range of information and sources to back things up. I would like to see the page returned in the future by a different editor; when the right one comes along. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... again, no one has called this a video game. If the nomination wasn't "fair and legit", we would have sources for this article and would keep it. We don't. czar 11:23, 6 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} 00:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. A quick Google search does not bring up enough indepedent, reliable sources that would merit its own article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Swedish payments firm Klarna shifts focus to U.S. as revenues swell". Reuters.

[2] "Fast-growing Klarna expanding its role easing e-commerce". The Columbus Dispatch.

[3] "How Klarna got investment from Sequoia Capital - Business Insider". Business Insider.

[4] "Getting more ambitious". The Economist. 4 February 2016.

[5] "Klarna, A Unicorn, Is Coming To The U.S. And Going After U.S. Credit Card Companies". TechCrunch.

[6] "Klarna acquires Analyzd to tie social to finance and payments". TechCrunch. 4 May 2011.

[7] "Making online shopping easier". Nordstjernan. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[8] "PJ Liguori: YouTube star had an 'amazing' experience working with Sir Patrick Stewart in Oscar's Hotel". International Business Times.

[9] "PJ Liguori's Oscar's Hotel for Fantastical Creatures Interview". People.

[10] David Bloom. "YouTube Stars KickThePj, Sawyer Hartman To Launch Vimeo Series On Demand". Deadline.

[11] Todd Spangler. "Jim Henson Co. Creates Creatures for 'Oscar's Hotel' Series from YouTube Filmmaker PJ Liguori". Variety.

[12] "Meet Vidya Iyer the latest YouTube star". The Hindu.

[13] "Stylish makeover for Malayalam folk song". Deccan Chronicle.

[14] "Blend it like Vidya!". The Times of India. 3 February 2016.

[15] "6 Best Indian/English Song Mashups by Singer Vidya". India.com.

[16] "'There's been no looking back'". Deccan Herald.

[17] "Singer Vidya Vox on Blending two Musical Worlds: East and West". India.com.

[18] "The Famous Kerala Boat Song 'Kuttanadan Punjayile' Just Got A New Twist And It Sounds Awesome". The Huffington Post. 13 January 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]