Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 April 9 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete clear consensus. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LeafyisHere[edit]

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

Outside of the supposed bullying controversy, the sources that mention this subject, such as the TubeFilter page cited here, only mention him as one of the top-subscribed Youtube channel, which would suggest he has garnered a ton of interest, but that's it. A couple of reliable news articles have gone around lately about his controversy regarding him bullying an autistic man, but that's it as far as the "significant" coverage goes. Since the only real independent articles are about this guy bullying a disabled person, this article could only be be a violation of the guideline that Wikipedia is not a news source at best. The Wikipedia article at its current state is mostly unsourced, not even mentioning his bullying behavior, with a youtube chart list (the TubeFIlter page I mentioned earlier) as its only source cited so far.

I also need to make note of this: The image you're seeing right now in the article was uploaded by a guy who may be the subject of this article, User:Leafling Jr. 69. Leafling Jr. 69 also did a draft of the article about himself in January 2016, if that is really him, but was declined by an administrator due to no reliable sources. The only way the article as of now was able to avoid a speedy deletion was due to the addition of the TubeFilter source, and on a side note, the citation in the article misspells the name as "TibeFilter" which is pretty hilarious. What's not hilarious, however, apart from the fact that this guy made fun of someone's developmental disability, is the subject's questionable notability. Probably should be a redirect to List of Youtubers at best. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with nominator. There doesn't appear to be enough significant coverage of him as a YouTuber (without focusing on a single event). AFAIK, statistics such as views or subscribers alone aren't enough to show notability. clpo13(talk) 23:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Youtubers. Although the article seems to not meet the standards of inclusion, the subject is notable enough to gain mention (although not enough for a whole article; see above). BlackVolt (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, possibly with protection. The article makes no mention of the one thing he is even minimally notable for, i.e the bullying and feuding controversies and even if it did it would not justify an article. There is absolutely nothing here worth keeping. We should not be describing this stuff as "satire" and even "comedy" is debatable. There is also some COI going on here with that draft. I suggest to delete that too. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing of any notability here. Fails WP:GNG by a mile.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - funny that my PROD was removed when you've said all of the points I had in there, and yet people here are supporting it. Fairly certain his fans are the only ones keeping this page afloat, but it's pretty cut and dry. Sock (tock talk) 16:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Simply not notable; does not pass WP:GNG. From my knowledge, the List of YouTubers article is a list of YouTubers that have a page. A redirect to an article with no mention of the subject would not seem appropriate. Sekyaw (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I think youtubers that have been noted in reliable sources but don't have enough information to have a long-enough article SHOULD be listed in that page for that reason alone. editorEهեইдအ😎 03:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point, but from the way the page looks, it doesn't work that way. Furthermore, I would have to disagree with you as the list would possibly be very long and would also contribute to many people listing themselves or other non-significant YouTubers onto the list, causing disruptive edits, edit wars, and so forth. Sekyaw (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. I am removing "or redirect" from my !vote. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete Why should his page be deleted people wish for it to be deleted because they are "mad" or "offended" by his channel, anyone with a presence on the internet that has a wiki page unless abusive deserves to keep it just because you dont like him doesnt mean you should have his wiki deleted i personally am not a fan of donald trump but im not complaining about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.7.87 (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • His actions are not the reason we're debating on whether or not to delete the article, it's his lack of notability and independent coverage in reliable sources that we're wanting the article to be deleted. editorEهեইдအ😎 20:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one source; it does not come close to WP:GNG one refrence for a bio article is not near enough for notability. Just like it says on the Talk:List of YouTubers 'YouTube ranking and Google hits do not make an account notable.' Kyle1278 (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solutions Resource[edit]

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

Written like an advertisement and all references appear to be from company created content. This company is not notable and it seems it has been created only to promote or publicize this company. — Music1201 talk 22:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No independent references provided to establish notability, none found. --Finngall talk 22:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very promotional article which doesn't establish notability, and the aforementioned lack of reliable sources indicates that it is not inherently notable. GABHello! 22:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with GAB, this article is written like an advertisement. Technetium-99 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy dDelete I removed all the preening and WP:NOT material and wound up with an unremarkable software company with a staff of "more than 20" employees. I've tagged it for speedy deletion, so we'll see what happens.I tagged it for speedy deletion but changed my mind, since the article's been created three times before and it seems this AFD is going to be dispositively in favor of deletion, so let's just settle it here. A Google search for "solutions resource" (bellevue OR seattle OR philippines) doesn't seem promising as far as WP:GNG is concerned. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is written in a highly promotional tone, no sources I could find would help establish notability. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Page reads like a puff piece and notability is not confirmed in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW 'Delete as simply none of this suggests at least minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Edwardx (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of TV series with episodes in the public domain[edit]

List of TV series with episodes in the public domain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been tagged as unsourced since July 2012. It appears this article is a morass of original legal research, hopelessly difficult to maintain. This is especially so given the uncertain copyright status of television episodes that were broadcast when the Copyright Act of 1909 was in effect. Moreover, even viewing the article as "TV series claimed to be in the public domain", the article would be hopelessly unencyclopedic. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rompicherla, Surname[edit]

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

Non-notable, mostly original research JMHamo (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Anthroponymy has been informed of this ongoing discussion. Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify or delete This article belongs to a legitimate category of surnames articles. As it stands at the moment it doesn't pass the notability guidelines at WP:APONOTE. It would need to either 1) list people with the surname that have wikipedia articles (and there don't seem to be any); or 2) contain properly sourced information about the surname. The article can conceivably be improved to meet the second criterion. Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bazj (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FC Nomads of Connah's Quay[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN#Club notability. Welsh football league system shows they'd need to rise to Welsh Premier League to meet requirements. Bazj (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Evidence of participation in national cup - [1] Bazj (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adamsquire86 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)There are plenty other Welsh Football teams included on Wikipedia, some playing at the same level as FC Nomads, others playing at a lower level. Only a small percentage of these would have played in the Welsh Premier, so to delete this article for the reason that they haven't played in the Welsh Premier, means all the others should be deleted too does it not? This club will be in the Cymru Alliance in the not so distant future, which is another league on here who's clubs have plenty of representation.[reply]

Adamsquire86 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "Club notability All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria."[reply]

Article here showing that they have played in the Welsh Cup - http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/fcnomadsofconnahsquay/news/nomads-go-out-welsh-cup-1339405.html

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Chappell[edit]

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

NN hockey player, fails the GNG. The article was AfDed in a group deletion of undrafted amateur players in 2006, but apparently was never actually deleted by the closing admin. His subsequent pro career was brief, without distinction, and fails WP:NHOCKEY. It's long past time to put this article to rest. Ravenswing 07:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not seeing evidence of notability. Possibly a speedy candidate given the prior AfD result, although given that 10 years have elapsed since then may be worth letting this play out in case someone comes up with evidence of notability. It looks like this was actually redirected in 2010 and then re-expanded subsequently. Rlendog (talk) 14:40, 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 19:48, 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" 10:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Bharti[edit]

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

Non-notable actor - does not meet WP:NACTOR or as a martial artist WP:MANOTE.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability and I myself patrolled this at NPP and questioned it also, Delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Running a series of martial arts schools is insufficient to show notability as a martial artist. Acting in a movie is insufficient to show notability as an actor. There is a lack of coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with previous comments. No indication of meeting any notability standards.Mdtemp (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 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 keep. I have considered the notability argument for deletion, however, in our WP:N guideline, this also applies:

Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

Hence, while I understand the arguments for deletion, they do not apply in this scenario. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Karachi[edit]

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

This is a list of streets, each of which largely fail our guidelines for general notability, effectively a walled garden of sorts. I am presenting this deletion request to the community on the basis that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even assuming that none of the redlinks in this list merit articles (and that there's no basis for listing any nonnotable streets), Category:Streets in Karachi shows we have 21 articles on individual streets. That's plenty for a list. postdlf (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you postdlf for commenting. In your opinion, how many individual street articles would be required to justify such a list? I ask because most all of the 21 articles you refer to lack anything in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. The majority have no sources at all, and the few that do fail our standards for reliability. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you've done all of this backwards, haven't you? Nominate the street articles for deletion that don't pass GNG and then we'll see whether a list is merited for whatever remains. We're certainly not going to waste time discussing the merits of other articles that aren't actually included in this AFD. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    While I was not aware of the additional poorly sourced articles until you mentioned them, this only furthers the point that this is a walled garden. You are welcome to assist in the assessment process, as a second set of eyes to review would be helpful. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ditto  sami  talk 22:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Karachi is a huge city. And I doubt it will be long before all the redlinks in this article would have their own pages, even if only stubs on Wikipedia soon.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 22:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Karachi is a populous city, there is no argument to be made about that. That said, this list has existed for several years without improvement. Per WP:NGEO, "geographical features must be notable on their own merits", and "local roads and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject." As this list is unsourced, and the few articles which are linked also fail to provide adequate sourcing, your subsequent claim is dubiously speculative and wishful at best. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Had they all be wikilinked then fine but the article's existed since 2007 and only 5 or 6 out of 45 have been created, All the streets aren't notable (I've searched for 3 and found nothing) and it's extremely unlikely they'll ever be created thus making this article useless, Also in the 10 years it's been here there's not been one source added at all ....., I personally think it's utterly pointless in keeping something that we all know will never be expanded nor improved... plus it fails GNG anyway, As the saying goes No source = No article, Delete. –Davey2010Talk 01:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per below - The streets in the category can easily be added to the article and I'd imagine there's sources somewhere. –Davey2010Talk 18:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete actually as I see nothing else convincing to keep and this is still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources to support such a list, and the vast majority are redlinks. Though there are a number of existing articles on streets in Karachi that could be enough to sustain a list, as the majority appear to be unsourced substubs that will almost certainly be bulk AFD'd and deleted, it would be pointlessly bureaucratic to withdraw this nomination and renominate again two weeks later. QueenCake (talk) 17:08, 8 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 19:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep none of these streets probably need a separate article, but a list is fine, as long as it doesn't get to extensive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a list of redlinked articles yet to be created is useless to the reader and the list will grow with more redlinks ..... sure they could be create but chances are they won't ..... –Davey2010Talk 20:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Could this be redirected to "List of notable streets in Karachi" (or similar) and narrowed to only list streets with demonstrable notability? —Nizolan (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a matter for normal editing and is typical for lists. By convention, we do not include self-referential terms such as "notable" in article titles even when they are limited in practice in that way, so there's no need to rename. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postdlf's correct- We don't ever have the word "notable" in any article title, That aside it's a great idea however there's only about 5 or 6 bluelinks there so seems pointless to have a list of 6 articles and nothing else.... –Davey2010Talk 00:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are 21 in the category. Maybe some of those should be deleted, maybe all, but this AFD can't decide that either way because it's just about this list, an index. I'm also concerned about WP:SYSTEMICBIAS when we're talking about features of a nonwestern city, so I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt absent some showing of familiarity with the subject. postdlf (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well damn I hadn't spotted that, & I haven't been biased ? ... Well atleast I don't think I have ? .... –Davey2010Talk 01:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up – Thanks for the clarification Postdlf. I was thinking of the List of famous mosques (which I now see is also at AfD), but I get that that's a bit different in any case. I do agree on the point about non-western coverage, and since the selection criteria seem objective and there are a range of potential articles that can be listed, I'm going to go ahead and !vote keep. Some of the arguments to delete seem to boil down to WP:NEGLECT, which is a cleanup matter and not a deletion matter. For what it's worth, I don't think every entry here needs its own article necessarily either, but that can be discussed at the article. —Nizolan (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Either way, if you like or hate articles abouts streets in Karachi, then you should vote Keep. Any new individual street topics should be covered first in the list-article, and only hive off into separate articles if there's lots to say about them. --doncram 17:39, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slay (Nia Sioux song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Artist lacks Wikipedia article. Retention (CSD removal) is based on supporting artists involvement. Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. reddogsix (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The artist is NN with no article, the song is NN, the text is a discography entry only. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:32, 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 19:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly non notable song by non notable singer. Easy fail. Smartyllama (talk) 15:03, 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. This article is a very poorly written article. However, I also do not believe there is a strong consensus here to delete. The only policy-backed argument here for deletion is WP:NOR, however, it is unclear to what extend how that applies here.

While it is nice to have academic sources for this subject, our WP:N does not absolutely require this, rather it is the WP:RS that needs to be demonstrated. None of the arguments demonstrated how this fails our notability guideline, or how the existing sources are not considered to be reliable by WP:RS standards, hence I cannot see the consensus to delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of potentially habitable moons[edit]

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

Entirely speculative article. The sourcing is not done to actual peer reviewed papers and it appears the article is largely original research and selfpublished. jps (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Please see the related deletion discussions on WP:CRUFT related to ESI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable exoplanets and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue that it would be best to merge back into Earth Similarity Index which is where the page :was derived from. However speculation and/or OR is not going on in the article because
A) ESI values are known for solar system satellites
B) Exomoon information is provided by PHL/HEC based on data from exoplanets and the planet-to-mass ratio of 10,000:1 as proposed by Bates et al.[1]

If Speculation is such a concern simply remove the information that you think is speculative instead of deleting the whole article. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbuddy9 is blocked for confirmed multivoting with sock account QuentinQuade. I suggest all votes by this user be discounted as bad faith abusive voting. Alsee (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially the entire article is speculative. It is impossible to remove the speculative information because then the article would be blank. Even the "ESI" values are speculative as the index itself is made-up by a single author and doesn't represent any meaningful statement with respect to habitability according to the inventor's own admission. jps (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed sockpuppet of Davidbuddy9. Mike V • Talk 18:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Table has been removed from Earth Similarity Index QuentinQuade (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with Earth Similarity Index too. I am rewriting it in my sandbox to remove a lot of the original research that is contained in that article. jps (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I'm sorry I have to say this but nobody believes you with your WP:OR bs, just look at all your AfD's I'll be reverting your revision because apparently 3rd party sources are Original Research. Since Wikipedia is a communtity it would be nice if the entire community can have access to that sandbox. Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use the word "bs". I'm truly sorry that you're working on trying to include ESI in many articles, but it simply is not used in the academic literature. It is outside the WP:MAINSTREAM. It is WP:FRINGE. Thus, to write about it, we need independent sources. That is, sources not written by Mendéz which reference the ESI. That is the goal of what we're trying to do here. jps (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changed vote). My original instinct was to try to merge this material somewhere or to rename the article, but I now think that the best solution is to delete it. WP should not describe an object as "potentially habitable" unless there is in-depth, peer-reviewed research which makes such a claim. The UPR source is not peer-reviewed and should not be the basis of a WP article. Moreover, there are other articles (e.g., Europa, Enceladus, and Extraterrestrial liquid water) which discuss in-depth, peer-reviewed evidence that other bodies in the solar system might sustain life. So even if this article were rewritten, it would still be redundant with those articles. See also my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable exoplanets. Note: for the sake of readability, if anyone wishes to respond to my changed vote, please do so at the bottom of the AfD discussion. Merge to Earth Similarity Index, and remove hypothetical exomoons from table. It seems to me that this article basically applies the ESI to the objects listed in the table. Accordingly, I think that this table should be merged to the ESI article, supplemented with explanatory text. However, the hypothetical exomoons must be removed from the table. We should not presume their existence in the absence of peer-reviewed observational evidence. Listing them alongside objects which do exist has a very strong potential to be misleading, especially to readers without a background in exoplanets. Astro4686 (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Astro4686: The I initially proposed this but after a few incidents (1, 2) I have changed my mind as it appears to not be welcomed on the ESI page. Repurpose this for ESI's of Moons in the Solar Systems which is definitely known whether you like the ESI Scale or not. Davidbuddy9 Talk  03:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi @Davidbuddy9: Thanks for pointing that out; I'll think about your point and reconsider my vote. One concern I have with keeping the article is that the use of "potentially habitable" in the title might be misleading, as ESI attempts to quantify physical similarity to Earth and doesn't take into consideration all factors relevant to habitability (as we know it). Changing the title to reflect this distinction might ameliorate any concerns that the article is too speculative. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having an article on habitable planetary satellites is a good idea. This list is just opinion masquerading as fact, as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Astro4686: @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: If its the title that's not OK than how about we rename it? List of Natural Satellites in order of ESI? Something along those lines. Regardless if you agree with the ESI or not a list of Natural satellites should still be accessible to the readers, even if it is repurposed to just include the Solar System. Davidbuddy9 Talk  23:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of natural satellites already exists. jps (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it does not list them in order of habitability. Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Davidbuddy9 and I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Renaming the article would address my concerns, and I am wondering whether the other participants in this discussion might find this to be an acceptable compromise. My interpretation of this discussion is that the fundamental issue revolves around the use of ESI as a predictor of habitability; if the article and its title are amended so that they don't use the ESI to quantify potential habitability, then the issue is remedied without deleting the article. Would the renamed article be too redundant with List of natural satellites, though? Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Astro4686: although others might argue otherwise having a separate article for this could be the same reasons for List of potentially habitable exoplanets, although related to exoplanets/(exo)moons it would still be best to have a separate article in my opinion but with a better title. Davidbuddy9 Talk  05:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it doesn't list them "in order of habitability" because such an order is entirely the unpublished originally researched invention of the person in charge of a single website (while simultaneously claiming that the ESI isn't actually an index of habitability). I have no objection to an article about the likelihood of habitable satellites, but this is not going to be a well-ordered list and certainly shouldn't be relying on the ESI. Unlike for Kepler candidates, there are precisely zero peer-reviewed papers on using this index with respect to natural satellites. jps (talk) 11:25, 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 19:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of potentially habitable exoplanets because I don't think it warrants an article of its own. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 23:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article does not cover our own solar system's moons in any useful manner, our solar system's moons can't be merged to an exoplanet article, and the purely hypothetical exomoons shouldn't be merged anywhere. That leaves nothing to go anywhere. By the way, List of potentially habitable exoplanets currently has a slim majority for delete once the sockpuppeting !votes are discounted. There's a good chance it won't even exist as a merge target. Alsee (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, just in case this hasn't been mentioned yet, if you remove the hypothetical moons this page could be renamed to List of moons in the solar system compared to Earth based on ESI. I find it hard to believe that there is a scientific consensus that Io is more habitable than Ganymede or Titan, perhaps ranked higher on ESI does not correlate to habitability. This list maybe notable, just not this version. WP:TNT should apply here. Valoem talk contrib 22:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the list doesn't cover potentially habitable moons very well, and is poorly sourced. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Habitability of natural satellites (nothing to merge) Per WP:PRESERVE the table could be used the future when reliable sources and actual information can be added to the page. Discovering potentially habitable moons is certainly going to be notable, if it is not already notable. Valoem talk contrib 15:22, 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 merge to Miss Spain. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Spain 2004[edit]

Miss Spain 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although a desperate attempt is made to save this article, it still has hardly viable information or sources. The relevant information does not warrant a separate article and the info can be added to the main article Miss Spain The Banner talk 21:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:10, 1 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 19:42, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Rae Daykin[edit]

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

Although she's been in one notable film and tv show there's nothing at all in terms of reliable sources on the actress, (I've found about 3 mentions & that's it), Possible meets NACTOR however fails GNG,

As I've done one April Fools AFD already I just wanna make it clear this isn't a "jokey AFD". –Davey2010Talk 15:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply not convincing for the applicable notability and the listed information is simply not enough, even for both moving elsewhere or the one award which I find is simply not enough to save the article. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 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 19:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A cursory search turns up nothing in terms of reliable, high quality sources capable of establishing notability under either WP:GNG or WP:ACTRESS. Snow let's rap 21:56, 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. With no prejudice to article re-creation if better sources come up in the future. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Delgado[edit]

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

So many refs and so very little evidence of notability. Most are at very best tangential and many make no mention of the subject. The archetypal puff piece which fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   04:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article has been modified to cleanup unnecessary information and add proper references so it has now the notability standards of WP:GNG.  Torchbit  Torchbit Talk   06:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I'm concerned, you can prove notability with articles that are not in English and that are not online. Edsab15 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC
  • Comment - can somebody please point out which, if any, of these refs convey notability. Language isn't an issue. Spanish is fine, but where exactly can notability be found ?  Velella  Velella Talk   01:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this cannot be taken seriously as an excellent example keeping, the simple number of current sources are still questionable actually and, if there's nothing better, this is best deleted until better is available. Overall article is still questionable, SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to know which refs are considered questionable. This is why is hard to have a better representation of Dominicans on Wikipedia, since articles of the best newspaper in the country is considered "questionable".  Torchbit  Torchbit Talk   23:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most of the sources in the article are from non-reliable sources (imdb, youtube), or are non-independent (crunchbase, evernote), or are not about him directly (about his company), or are interviews or articles by him (and therefore primary sources and not valid for notability purposes), or are mere mentions of him. The search engines do not turn up anywhere near enough to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Evernote link is a collection of scanned magazine features and interviews of him in Spanish. How is best to reference offline refs so it'd be admisible? The WP:GNG doesn't specify this matter - Torchbit (talk) 23:11, 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 19:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note that the Keep votes are not actually convincing to actually keep and improve this with the article currently still seeming as questionable as when it first started. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 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" 11:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brady Vail[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 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 19:30, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-born Afro-Americans[edit]

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

This page is a mess. Afro-American is synonymous with African American, not a generic term for people of African ancestry in the Western hemisphere. This article has been unsourced/poorly sourced for many years. Finally, the idea that "foreign-born Afro-Americans" have anything in common beside the accident of geography of birth is pure original research without reliable sources that establish the existence of such a group. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is still questionable and I'm not confident there would be better noticeable improvements, delete for now and then restart later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 8 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 19:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this appallingly diffuse, badly sourced WP:COATRACK article. Problems include the fact that the term Afro-American is commonly reserved for the United States, but here it is used for a motley array of groups claiming descent form other countries in the Americas. Sourcing is a huge problem, take, for example, the section on Amaro, Saro and Emancipado populations, which makes assertions not supported except by links to, for example, Emancipados, itself a highly inadequate article desperately in need of sourcing. (On review, I see that Nom has already said all what I just said. He's right, however, to continue with reasons to delete this mess) The primary problem here is with the topic of article. It is not at all clear what, if anything, the children of American military personnel, the religious seekers of the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem and the Freetown creoles have in common. To keep this article we would have to see evidence that someone other than the article's creator discusses these disparate groups as a unit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 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. The one "keep" can't be taken into account, see WP:WAX.  Sandstein  09:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Boy (film)[edit]

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

Film with no strong claim of notability per WP:NFILM, and no strong reliable source coverage -- the "sources" here are IMDB, an entry in another IMDB-like film directory, and the sales page for the DVD on amazon.com, but none of these represent media coverage about the film. (Side note, I'm also amused by the creator's username: "Accountcreatedsoicancreateanarticle".) As always, a film is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it has an IMDb page; it must have a credible claim of notability, which is not the same thing as mere existence, and must be sourced to real media coverage. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
alts:
Year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Europe:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poland:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DVD 2012 distributor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
premiere:(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)
  • Comment: I'm finding some stuff for the director's other work, so if all else fails we can always create an article for the director and redirect there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 1 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 19:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said anything about the film being deletable because it was independent — the size of a film's production studio has nothing whatsoever to do with our inclusion criteria for films. The issue is the presence or absence of reliable source coverage about the film in media — no film, independent or studio or American or Canadian or whatever, ever gets an exemption from that. My own edit history is bulging with the creation of articles about independent and/or Canadian films, so I can't be accused of having a bias against the topic — but I use proper sources to support the articles I create. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 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. For lack of interest in the discussion, apparently...  Sandstein  09:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Curtin[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. A member of US diplomatic service, he has not held a rank of ambassador, just some mid-tier bureaucratic posts which do not seem to confer auto-notability. I don't see any references (articles about a subject) that would allow to expand the article. This is just an a person doing his job, not encyclopedic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete per Piotrus's rationale. But I did come across a couple of pages from the USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership & Policy, where he is a senior fellow [2], noting that he received an award for his work to implement new policies to secure the rights of same-sex couples at the State Department [3], as well as a 2013 Washington Post article that describes him as "the department’s top human resources adviser on LGBT issues".[4] I didn't find more online content on this topic (which isn't even mentioned in the current version of the article), but if some substantive coverage about his activities in this area were identified, I would reconsider my !vote. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've incorporated much of the material and sources found by Arxiloxos into the article. The career section in particular has been expanded and (hopefully) improved. His aforementioned work on LGBT issues and benefits has also been included. Given that his contributions are now further elaborated on (and sourced) in the article, I would contend that this meets WP:GNG. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice job, but I still don't see what makes him notable. He got a university award, which was covered in a university newspaper; all other sources either mention him in passing or are not-independent (such as his official homepage biography, etc.). Mid-tier bureaucrat doing unnotable, unencyclopedic work that is simply average and expected for someone of his level in the administration, and receiving corresponding minor recognition in media - I still stand by this assessment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted. I've added a few more sources I could find from the Washington Post and a few others that may help to meet the source independence criterion, but other editors can chime in and say otherwise. Also, to clarify, unless I'm mistaken, the subject received an award from GLIFAA, which is the official association of LGBT diplomats, not a university organization. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:12, 1 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 19:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:25, 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 merge to Aero Fighters.  Sandstein  09:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Video System[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search apart from the small IGN piece about the name change, and no one at WT:VG had anything. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please {{ping}} me if you find anything noteworthy. I imagine any worthwhile source on this would be offline. czar 05:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar 05:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Agreed, a merge makes sense. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches are finding nothing obviously better. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tried searching for information about their US branch's name, McO'River. The company itself seems to have little to no coverage but one of their titles has some: Aero Fighters. The console version was rarer but it was the heyday of the arcade. Since it's their magnum opus at least overseas, maybe a selective Merge would be appropriate? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For since the Video System had a bit of trivia concerning the development of Aero Fighters, it might fit in the appropriate article along with possibly a brief background about the company, like the infobox (only without the meaningless website archive). If some more sources are found about the company I'd be inclined to keep, however. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:52, 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 03:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only secondary source in this article wouldn't be relevant to the Development section of Aero Fighters. Psikyo could work. czar 03:03, 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 19:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, six years for the maintenance tags attracted no big improvements. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Do we have a template to cover name changes of a business---this article surely highlights the need. RockyMtChai (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A template to do what, exactly? Merge to where? czar 22:46, 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 no consensus. North America1000 00:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien van der Walt[edit]

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

I've proposed this article for deletion, due to violation of policy Wikipedia:AUTO (see #9 from Reasons for deletion). However, it may meet Criteria for speedy deletion A7, which has in the past been deemed appropriate for autobiographical entries.

In December 2015, Lucien van der Walt was identified as the user Redblackwritings with autobiographical contributions on this and other pages concerning his career and books. These articles contain unsourced personal and career information that only comes from the subject/author, Lucien van der Walt. After being confronted with this information and the fact that his nom de plume was exposed, Lucien van der Walt admitted to owning the Redblackwritings account, which has been editing only this autobiographical article and other related to his career (such as his books Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Counter-Power vol. 1) and Anarchism and Syndicalism in the Colonial and Postcolonial World, 1870-1940).

Lucien van der Walt's admittance of this blatant autobiographical, unsourced, non-encyclopedic editing is available in the "Personal statement" from February 2016. In it, he describes his use of the Redblackwritings account: "I apologise sincerely and unreservedly for engaging the issues under the Red.Black.Writings identity without clearly identifying it as mine. I should have done so, from the start. I am sorry if it was misleading. I acted emotionally, and without care. I am truly sorry... But that does not excuse me."

Furthermore, there is reason to suspect that anonymous edits to this article and related articles (for example, articles about the author's books), originate with the author or close friends and/or colleagues. The IP addresses 41.13.200.2, 41.13.216.24, 41.13.220.57, 41.13.228.45, 41.13.228.127, 41.13.192.222, 41.13.220.5, and 41.13.238.143 are also likely Lucien van der Walt, contributing original, unsourced information (such as "working class and slave family background") and all originating from a private ISP account near the author's home and workplace in South Africa. The IP addresses 197.79.37.234, 197.79.56.46, and 197.79.29.54 all originate from mobile broadband in South Africa, and only contribute links to talks and articles by Lucien van der Walt that the author or a close colleague would know. Other IP addresses that have edited this article show a similar bias, such as 105.250.162.49, which also originates in South Africa.

A first step to rectify this situation is removing this non-notable article about Lucien van der Walt that was clearly written by Lucien van der Walt himself. Beyond that, any edits by Redblackwritings and associated IP addresses (some listed above) should be scrutinized. Edits by those users should be reverted or the articles removed completely. It is questionable whether the articles reach the criteria of notability and some, such as Anarchism and Syndicalism in the Colonial and Postcolonial World, 1870-1940, were created by user Redblackwritings/Lucien van der Walt.

As an aside, it's rather embarrassing for a serious academic to be engaging in such blatant self-promotion, especially under a "once-well-known name I used to use". Since that username was an open secret amongst Lucien van der Walt's friends and colleagues, it displays the author's brazen will to violate Wikipedia policy... it's almost like editing this article under the nickname "IamLucienVDW" - Africanarchist (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Unfortunately WP:AUTO is not a reason for deletion alone. He seems to be notable under WP:PROFESSOR (criteria #2), however, any blatant promotional content and the ridiculous over-listing of works by the author need to be removed.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A GS h-index is not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in pop-sociology. Authorship of BLP is irrelevant. 21:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe (talk • contribs)
  • I'm open to Keeping if this can be improved. Delete at best as I'm uncertain but I'm able to examine this is still overall questionable. Also asking DGG's analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. but rewrite;, which I have just done. Anarchism and syndicalism is a reasonably important book. I removed the large excess of material which made it promotional , and does not conform to the standard practices for academic biographies. WP is an 1encyclopedia , and our policy is NPOV--not to reward or punish potential article subjects according to whether the people follow our rules DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just removed further promotional text by Redblackwritings, unsourced irrelevant material (racial and ethnic ancestry), and redundant info (birthplace, awards already mentioned). I still think it merits deletion; once you have stripped out the self-promotion and unsourced autobiography, there isn't much left but a stub page. There is even more text that probably merits removal or editing, but I will wait until this discussion closes. Africanarchist (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:03, 1 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 19:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep For me, we need to figure out where the promotion ends and the fact begins. If he meets WP:GNG he should be kept. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:30, 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.  Sandstein  09:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers of Evil (band)[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines: WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The included sources do not support notability (not WP:RSes) and I cannot find any reliable sources to support it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article is simply not convincing for the applicable notability, best restarted if better is available later. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 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 19:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Seems non-notable, but could possibly meet notability requirements? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:34, 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. North America1000 00:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of the aging[edit]

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

See WP:NOTESSAY Ethanlu121 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 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 keep. Nominating within 4 minutes of creation is beyond fucking stupid, Nominator deserves a trout!, As per below closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pringle House[edit]

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

Article does not assert significance. Ethanlu121 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is linked to from a list of the oldest buildings in South Carolina which had long had a hyperlink without any article. More importantly, tagging something that was created literally FOUR MINUTES earlier for deletion is silly. Articles need a little time to breathe.--ProfReader (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of assertion of significance is by some quirk basis for a speedy delete, but it is not a requirement of articles. Instead we use notability defined by reliable sources, present here. And it's subjective whether there is assertion of significance or not. You can say "The White House is a building in Washington, D.C." without having to explicitly document "Professor Z says the White House is architecturally very very important, and it is also very very important because lots of super-important events happened there." This one exudes significance to me. Also the article could say more about the dependencies, but it does say it has them and that they are award-winning. That's a second assertion of notability for the property. --doncram 17:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being an almost two and a half century old South Carolina house asserts significance. Coverage indicated in article demonstrates passing WP:GNG too. Ethanlu121, why was this nominated for AfD within four minutes of its creation?[5] --Oakshade (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per all the above.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:24, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 17:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhbir Singh Lakkha[edit]

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

Non notable musician unsupported by any third party, reliable sources. Ciridae (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ciridae (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ciridae (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches found several links at Books, News and WP:INDAFD but simply nothing to suggest considerable improvements, it's simply expected coverage. Delete at best for now, SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 1 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 19:02, 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" 11:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GECMUN[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable annual event. Hardly any coverage is available and all references are primary sources. The first edition of the event just happened last year. The impact of the event (if any) is not clear either. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 1 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 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't a large, one time event, and 3 schools having a model UN doesn't meet WP:GNG . May also be WP:TOOSOON . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete. All present "references" are just pages on the event's own website. There's nothing by way of legitimate sourcing and nothing in the content the context that gives good reason that more will be forthcoming. Indeed, google searches don't presently return a single result that doesn't direct to the afore-mentioned website. Snow let's rap 22:02, 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 --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unbreakable Smile (Casta Fierce album)[edit]

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

This album has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and fails all other aspects of WP:NALBUMS. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's completely non notable. Another article created by the same over enthusiastic Monster High fan. This user keeps making this kind of stuff repeatedly.*Treker (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:21, 1 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 19:01, 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. czar 06:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PAGE Junior College[edit]

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

From what I can gather by reading the college's website, it is a preparatory school offering courses that prepare students to sit university entrance exams. See here, here and here for examples. What I could not find was any evidence that the school offers degrees in its own right, which would mean it fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Nor could I find any evidence that it satisfies WP:GNG. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is still questionable and I've found no signs of convincing improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:04, 1 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 19:00, 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 by the author's request. —Cryptic 00:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taeyeon Butterfly Kiss[edit]

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

This article was already speedy deleted on two occasions, but it is back. I would like the AfD community to consider its value and determine its worthiness. For myself, I am not seeing where it meets any of the basic Wikipedia notability requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC) And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The concert has been announced to be postponed until the latter half of the year. No date is yet confirmed. Even if there is a date, no one knows for sure until it actually occurs.--TerryAlex (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references, no indication of notability, and the amount of content barely qualifies this for stub status. Further, if the article has met speedy delete criteria twice there is overwhelming community consensus on this matter and salting may be recommended here. Snow let's rap 22:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This concert hasn't happened yet and lacks "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" (WP:NCONCERT). Random86 (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Guillermo Coria career statistics - Someone will obviously need to create the article (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Guillermo Coria tennis season[edit]

Guillermo Coria career statistics/sub1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Guidelines this does not qualify for a seasonal article, nor do the other two recent Coria articles. The standard guidelines per consensus are that IF the main page of a player is getting overwhelmed, we would create a Guillermo Coria career statistics article like many other standout players have. He doesn't even have that yet! Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reasons:

Guillermo Coria career statistics/sub2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guillermo Coria career statistics/sub3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • We would have hundreds of these trivial articles if the guidelines allowed for it.
It would be a sham to delete these articles for the sake of a formality. Coria achieved much during his short career, including reaching the French Open final in 2004 and winning many masters titles. He was even considered the best clay-courter in the world in 2004. By the guideline that only players who won a slam qualify for tennis season articles, less talented players such as Gaudio and Cilic who fluked their single slam titles would receive tennis season articles whilst Coria would be excluded simply because he choked and had cramps on match point in the 2004 French Open. It would be a shame to delete three fully completed articles detailing his match history during his peak years of 2003-2005. He was a talented player and deserves these articles. Excluding players who didn't win slams would also exclude players such as Nalbandian and Ferrer which is not right considering both have reached many semis and a final each and Nalbandian was extremely talented, although inconsistent. I don't see what is wrong with keeping this articles up. How will Wikipedia benefit by deleting this articles, considering Wikipedia's aim is to spread information rather than limit its spread? Ujkrieger (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Fyunck, I never thought of that. The three articles could be merged into a "Guillermo Coria career statistics" rather than deleted. Ujkrieger (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Players like Davis Ferrer do have career stats pages...see David Ferrer career statistics. That's the format that should be used to create one for Coria. Basically these season articles are only for players who have won a grand slam tournament that season. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and move to the article mentioned above as this is likely best collected to one article instead of multiple. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 8 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 18:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't think they merit individual articles, but they could be merged either into a single career article or summarized in Coria's main article.Mdtemp (talk) 15:32, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein, and no prejudice against userfication or draftication. North America1000 00:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eearz[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, has not receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. JMHamo (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incubate as a draft - currently reasonable coverage on "Work Your Muscle" but keeping in mind WP:1E as well as the fact that Work Your Muscle is borderline, it makes the most sense to keep the article as a draft, hopefully expand on it if the artist continues to release significant music, and move it back to mainspace once that happens. Appable (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Draft only if needed (since "incubate" was mentioned above) as my searches found several extra links but this is frankly still questionable overall. I question drafting because I'm not certain if this can be improvable, delete from mainspace at best though. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 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 02:22, 1 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 18:52, 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 -- GB fan 15:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

King Tatie[edit]

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

Poorly verified article for non-notable performer. No record contract, no hits, no in-depth coverage: not notable, in short. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article is not yet convincing of any applicable notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 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 18:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She is a low level musician and actress with no sources in the article to pass notability. IMDb claims she has been features in newspapers in South Africa and Zimbabwe. If someone could find these sources, we might be able to salvage it. The Zimbabwe link we have does not seem to be enough to even count as one indepth reference in a reliable source. Even if it is, we need at least one more to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 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 delete. Consensus not to have an article. No consensus yet about whether to redirect or where to, so editors are free to follow up on this.  Sandstein  09:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Safe-Zone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, possible WP:OR. Looking up "alexandria safe-zone" does not bring up any reliable sources that mention the fictional location beyond the comic book or TV series. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 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, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable for better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally pointless, belongs an a fan wiki instead of this wiki layla 18:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - we need to assess an article's potential, not just its current state. For example, on the TV series, the location was introduced in the episode "Remember". That article has 20 sources, several of which discuss Alexandria (the full name "Alexandria Safe-Zone" is not mentioned in every occurrence). You need only peruse the article to see this. The location has appeared in over a dozen episodes since then, and I'm sure looking over the sources presented in the articles for those episodes as well will reveal even more sources. BOZ (talk) 03:30, 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 18:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources may mention it, but it doesn't seem to be independently notable. For the articles linking to it, the context usually provides enough information for a reader to understand the idea. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:20, 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 redirect to List of Middle-earth Elves#F. Consensus is that we don't have the basis for an article here.  Sandstein  09:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fingon[edit]

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

This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 1 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 18:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I see nowhere else to move this thus delete may be best for now, and none of this suggests solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable fictional character, also its best left as a stand alone article as a merge would be bulkyAtlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This character only has in-universe notability (no sources support real-world notability) and is already listed in List of Middle-earth Elves. Article size is no substitute for notability. AadaamS (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Without real world details to establish the information as relevant, there is no need for an article detailing the extensive biography of a fictional character. TTN (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Middle-earth Elves#F (with the history preserved under the redirect). I agree that there are no sources about the subject to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I recommend preserving the history under the redirect so that the redirect can be easily undone if sources are found and so that a selective merge to List of Middle-earth Elves#F can be considered. Cunard (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Cunard. The character is not notable, but the the search term is a legitimate one, and should be directed to the legitimate content that we do have; namely, the list. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 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 speedily deleted by Diannaa per WP:G12. (non-admin closure) —Nizolan (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empires of India[edit]

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

this has been copy pasted from http://www.worldstatesmen.org/India_princes_K-W.html Fitindia (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 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 keep per WP:SKCRIT#1, the nominator has failed to advance an argument for deletion and no one else recommends that the page be deleted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shakeel Ahmed (Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited cricketer)[edit]

Shakeel Ahmed (Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts, played at highest level of domestic cricket in Pakistan. Appears to be this player, so the article can be expanded a little. IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep For one thing, the nominator has given no rationale, which means it should be speedy kept anyway. And they clearly pass WP:NCRIC, as they've played first-class cricket. The solution is to improve the article, not delete it because it's a stub Joseph2302 (talk) 22:45, 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 snow keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 20:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Bell (footballer, born 1923)[edit]

Tommy Bell (footballer, born 1923) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs TJH2018 talk 16:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Care to make a WP:GNG-based argument? Sure there's listings in dusty stats compendiums, but where's the coverage? Where's the evidence of (that wikipedia-specific concept) "fully-professionalism"? Bring back Regi Blinker (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, welcome back Clavdia; your comments and attitude betray your former identity. Seeing as this is a player who played in the 1940s and 1950s and died before the internet age, the coverage is presumably in the print media of the era, but sadly this isn't easily available online unless you have access to the archives. Thankfully it appears Struway2 may have access, as he's added some coverage from the Daily Mirror. It's also disappointing (although not at all suprising) to see you bringing up the "wikipedia-specific concept" canard again. You were party to plenty of discussions in which it was pointed out that this is not the case, but for the benefit of the closing admin, here are just a few of the multitude of BBC Sport stories that reference this:
Number 57 11:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NFOOTY and Number 57's evidence. A league player of that pedigree would easily meet GNG today, and I'm sure did in the print sources of the day.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL, by a country mile. What is the project to gain by deleting articles that meet our notability requirements? Mattythewhite (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:23, 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 redirect to List of Hypericum species. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hypericum species in Androsaemum[edit]

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

This topic is fully covered in List of Hypericum species. This can be redirected to its specific section in said article Fritzmann2002 15:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. List of Hypericum species isn't large enough to benefit from being split into sublists, and section Androsaemum certainly isn't large enough to justify a stand alone sublist. Plantdrew (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Fritts[edit]

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

Amateur fighter that fails WP:NBOX. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Winning the Atlantic Fleet title does not meet WP:NBOX nor does anything in his pro career meet boxing notability criteria. The only coverage given is passing mentions of boxing results, certainly not enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG with no significant coverage and lacks the achievements to meet WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 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, per improvements made to the article. Bradv 20:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Uncapher[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. I tagged this as blp prod, but the author deleted it without providing a reliable source. Bradv 15:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:Music #6, as this musician is a member of "two or more independently notable ensembles" (ie, Dan Vapid and the Cheats and Noise by Numbers and two more that may be notable: Textbook and Woolworthy). Robman94 (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robman94 - passes criteria 6 of musician notability guideline. -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 08:25, 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. The only argument for keeping was made by a  Confirmed sock account.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Matthew (Entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Questions of notability. Article was previously redirected to HouseholdHacker but was reverted by the author. Bradv 14:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page has exisited for many years and is indeed very notable as the subject Mr Matthew co founded and managed one of the largest youtube channels in the world for many years and was responsible as shown in some references for much of the success and coverage of the channel.

Additionally since that time Justin has gone on to his own notable accomplishments and important news. From Forbes magazine to the United Kingdoms City AM of the top 100 entrepreneurs and even the top 100 digital marketers from digital marketing magazine to mention a few. Also the founder of one of the most respected digital marketing firms in the US which has also made headlines for their innovation in that field. From being mentioned with the likes of Mark Cuban, Steve Jobs and other top entrepreneurs to helping create one of the most viewed science television shows Scientific Tuesdays on youtube. Because of these actions millions of students were watching and learning about science in schools across the country.

May 31st 2016 Steve Olenski of Forbes, Huffington Post & Business Insider contributor (among others), Writer, Top 100 Social Media Influencers, & Member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Digital & Social Media Marketing wrote an article called The Single Trait That Can Build Or Kill Your Brand [2] about the importance of ingenuity in business and is mentioned by the author and cited with "He would know, being named one of the top 10 entrepreneurs in the U.K. in the online presence of City A.M., London's first free daily business newspaper. City A.M. is distributed at more than 250 commuter hubs across London and the home counties, as well as 1,600 offices throughout the City, Canary Wharf and other areas of high business concentration, giving it a daily readership in excess of 399,000 professionals. [3] CityAM.com has a monthly visitor figure in excess of 1.27m, of which two-thirds are in the UK.(Source: Adobe Analytics, Comscore). Matthew is alongside such people as Richard Branson and Victoria Beckham." [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrollPatrol247 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bate et al 2003 (Monthly Notices of RSA, vol. 341, pp. 213-229)
  2. ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveolenski/2016/03/31/the-single-trait-that-can-build-or-kill-your-brand/#300309a92b51
  3. ^ http://www.cityam.com/about-city-am?ITO=nav-footer-about
  4. ^ http://www.cityam.com/220386/uk-entrepreneurs-top-100-richard-branson-edwina-dunn-these-are-most-influential-business
  • Delete: Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The history of the article Justin Matthew is relevant to this discussion as well. Bradv 21:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Matthew7878/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thesoundkillers/Archive. I suspect that the following need to be added to these investigations:
Bradv 21:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches are finding nothing better and this would still need better improvements, delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Vider[edit]

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

Only notable for competing on America's Got Talent Gbawden (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the article had more claims about Vider before I pared it way back due to its being an apparent autobiography with a promotional tone sourced only to the subject's website. Another editor on the talk page feels that there is sufficient notability found in this Highbeam search, although what I see there looks like repeated mentions in a single source (The Buffalo News) doing local-grad-makes-good stories. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Sossi[edit]

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

Not notable yet. Promotional article which is probably meant to enhance her campaign. Might be notable when elected. Nothing in her legal career makes her notable Gbawden (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, not currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless she is elected. Page was more than likely created for Sossi's campaign. Meatsgains (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As always, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot provide and properly source credible evidence that she would already have qualified for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then she does not become notable enough for an article until she wins the seat. But nothing else claimed or sourced here is enough to get her over the bar if you take the candidacy out of the equation. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 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 per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delaney Ruston[edit]

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

Already tagged for notability, this person fails GNG IMO. Her claim to fame is a film called Unlisted, but even the film is not notable. Gbawden (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. The page currently uses: Twitter, LinkedIn, and Unlistedfilm as sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply not convincing for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-2194.03[edit]

KOI-2194.03 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO. As with most KOIs, we should wait until confirmation as there are likely to be false positives. jps (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation. bd2412 T 18:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. Astro4686 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are already over 1000 confirmed Kepler planet detections, and growing. That is already an excessive list of non-notable exoplanets, and we need to stop this nonsense before we have lists of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of non-notable exoplanets. We definitely should not build a list of unconfirmed exoplanets, and if we did, we absolutely should not keep "false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation". Alsee (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:47, 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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-5737.01[edit]

KOI-5737.01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO. As with most KOIs, we should wait until confirmation as there are likely to be false positives. jps (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation. bd2412 T 18:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeDelete all per nom. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OhNoitsJamie note that nom did not propose a merge. Alsee (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amended; thought we were just talking about the ones recently created by a now blocked user. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are already over 1000 confirmed Kepler planet detections, and growing. That is already an excessive list of non-notable exoplanets, and we need to stop this nonsense before we have lists of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of non-notable exoplanets. We definitely should not build a list of unconfirmed exoplanets, and if we did, we absolutely should not keep "false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation". Alsee (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list for most of these right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.) Astro4686 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-3456.02[edit]

KOI-3456.02 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO. As with most KOIs, we should wait until confirmation as there are likely to be false positives. jps (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation. bd2412 T 18:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list for most of these right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.) Astro4686 (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-4878.01[edit]

KOI-4878.01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO. As with most KOIs, we should wait until confirmation as there are likely to be false positives. jps (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation. bd2412 T 18:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list for most of these right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.) Astro4686 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-2626.01[edit]

KOI-2626.01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO. As with most KOIs, we should wait until confirmation as there are likely to be false positives. jps (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation. bd2412 T 18:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list for most of these right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.) Astro4686 (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-854.01[edit]

KOI-854.01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO. As with most KOIs, we should wait until confirmation as there are likely to be false positives. jps (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation. bd2412 T 18:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are already over 1000 confirmed Kepler planet detections, and growing. That is already an excessive list of non-notable exoplanets, and we need to stop this nonsense before we have lists of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of non-notable exoplanets. We definitely should not build a list of unconfirmed exoplanets, and if we did, we absolutely should not keep "false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation". Alsee (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.) Astro4686 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-3138.01[edit]

KOI-3138.01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO. As with most KOIs, we should wait until confirmation as there are likely to be false positives. jps (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation. bd2412 T 18:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list for most of these right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.) Astro4686 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-3010.01[edit]

KOI-3010.01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO. It is likely that most KOIs do not pass notability unless there are numerous papers written about them. Many if not most KOIs will be found to be spurious detections. jps (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation. bd2412 T 18:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are already over 1000 confirmed Kepler planet detections, and growing. That is already an excessive list of non-notable exoplanets, and we need to stop this nonsense before we have lists of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of non-notable exoplanets. We definitely should not build a list of unconfirmed exoplanets, and if we did, we absolutely should not keep "false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation". Alsee (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list for most of these right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.) Astro4686 (talk) 02:07, 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 merge to NuGet.  Sandstein  09:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolatey[edit]

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

Yet another piece of niche software without any evidence of notability. The refs show that it exists and the the Windows environment in which it operates exists. The others are non-substantive refs in terms of notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   11:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with NuGet. I found enough material to support the merger:
  • Patton, Tony (9 May 2014). "Chocolatey brings Linux-style package management to Windows". TechRepublic. CBS Interactive.
  • Paul, Ian (4 August 2014). "How to use Chocolatey: A delicious Windows package manager". PC World. IDG.
  • Zukerman, Erez (8 November 2012). "Review: Chocolatey offers easy software installation and updating". PC World. IDG.
  • Gordon, Whitson (11 September 2012). "Chocolatey Brings Lightning Quick, Linux-Style Package Management to Windows". Lifehacker. Gawker Media.
  • Hanselman, Scott (5 August 2015). "Apt-Get for Windows - OneGet and Chocolatey on Windows 10". Scott Hanselman's blog. Microsoft.
  • Warner, Timothy L. Windows PowerShell in 24 Hours. Sams Publishing. ISBN 9780134049359.
  • Reynolds, Rob (19 September 2012). "Apt Windows: Let's Get Chocolatey! Part 2 : Multiple Installs and Package Creation". Developer Fusion.
  • Foster, Jeremy; Tuliper, Adam (17 April 2015). "Package Management and Workflow Automation". Microsoft Virtual Academy. Microsoft.
Of course, it is completely possible that after scrutiny, all of them turn out to be non-encyclopedic.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second merge. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! 1st it's not the same as nuget. 2nd: Beside the citations by @Codename Lisa above, their site states that they've got 3,893 unique packages of which 3,010 are known good. There are 39,672,513 total downloads as of today! asklucas (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any good editor in Wikipedia knows that download statistics are worthless. First, there is no Wikipedia policy to account for them. Second, it is rarely possible to translate them into anything meaningful because they are disproportionate to due weight. Consider this: The combination of a small app with an auto-updater and a developer that constantly releases new versions for every change, results in high download counts. But this app could be anything, like a lolcat app. On the other hand, supercomputer operating systems (which might or might not be sizeable) do not receive more than a handful of downloads per version, even though their due weight and impact is more than any other software product in this universe.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:48, 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. Deryck C. 14:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Shah[edit]

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

Not notable haven't played any international level game GreenCricket (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AsiaXPAT[edit]

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

no assertion of notability (and no references to use to judge notability) RJFJR (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no clear context for an imaginably better article at all for the applicable notability, overall not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 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.  Sandstein  09:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Rollins (Character)[edit]

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

Non notable character. Other character from this film, Jude Quinn is also tagged for notability. No reason why this character is notable. I am also nominating this duplicate article:

Jack-rollins-character (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gbawden (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 07:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:30, 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. Clear consensus was reached that the article should not be deleted. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isărescu I Cabinet[edit]

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

No sources, very little content. Cleanup tags date back from 7 years ago but has changed little ever since. More beneficial on ro.wiki rather than here. Nordic Dragon 07:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cabinets are notable. The English Wikipedia needs content from all around the world. Not just English speaking countries. AusLondonder (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. If the current article is ugly, the solution is improving it, not deleting it. Wikipedia:AfD is not cleanup. --Cavarrone 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as inherently notable, just badly made. Any Romanians here that could help us with improving this? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Inherent notability. A cabinet or government entity such as this is an absolute keep. The fact that the article needs expansion and some improvement is completely irrelevant to the AFD process; it's about searching for sources and external resources to determine if the article should be kept or deleted. Article quality has nothing to do with this process. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep – See WP:IMPATIENT on cleanup tags. In any case the table is probably adequate for most people. —Nizolan (talk) 14:27, 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 (CSD#G5, created by banned user). --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Weekly Shōnen Jump[edit]

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

A criticism section in the main article may be warranted, but an entire article on criticism of something of lower notability is excessive, and this piece is heavily slanted. JamesG5 (talk) 06:49, 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Retail Stores Group Inc.[edit]

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

An article that has had a CSD tag by an editor, not the author, with a redlinked talk page.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-write. Has received coverage in Reuters and The Philippine Star amongst other sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one of the largest retail companies in the Philippines. It needs some improvements though and additional citations from these Google News sources.--RioHondo (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The creator of this article was blocked for 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. On both accounts the user edited this article and made it seem promotional. I currently don't have an opinion on whether or not it should be deleted, but just keep that in mind. — Music1201 talk 22:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the largest retail operator in the Visayas region, one of the three main island group divisions of the Philippines. As verified by an independent source (Euromonitor) and a stock exchange listed company.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article should never have had a speedy deletion tag placed, let alone twice. This is about a major regional stock exchange listed company with coverage in the international press. Clear case of WP:GEOBIAS. A London Stock Exchange or New York Stock Exchange company would never have been subjected to such a rush of hostility. AusLondonder (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter how important the company is: if the article reads like an advertisement then it can be speedily deleted. The original tag was removed by the article creator so I simply replaced it. The article has now been improved slightly so there is no longer a need to consider speedy deletion, but the list of store addresses and most of the pictures need to be removed. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't initially apparent the tag was removed by the author, as it was a sockpuppet account. WP:G11 does state "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently an I.P which may or may not be the creator keeps on adding uncited and promotional corporate fluff on the article. I have reduced the content again.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:52, 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 there are many streets in London. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whittaker Street[edit]

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

Old orphan page for an apparently non-notable street in London. Nothing more to say than WP:ITEXISTS. Page was prodded and deprodded twice over the years but never expanded or linked to. — JFG talk 05:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Basically no content, clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG. —  crh 23  (Talk) 09:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing about this to suggest any notability for the street. Probably just created by a resident. Rcsprinter123 (relate) 10:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If every street had an article, Wkipedia would triple in size. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:GEOROAD - Road does not pass WP:GNG from my attempts to find sources. This road is not a major, state, national, or international highway and has not been the subject of multiple published reliable sources (required criterion for WP:GEOROAD). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:06, 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 not notable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Jay Miller Jr[edit]

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

Not my field,so I may be making an error, but "has been involved in " is not notability. There needs to be evidence he was primarily responsible. The references given do not seem to show it. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I checked the references given in the article, and none of them even mention the subject. This looks like self-promotion. Bradv 15:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this suggests better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 16:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject is not directly notable nor can his "involvement" with marketing artists be verified. Meatsgains (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  09:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fats Kaplin[edit]

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

Delete as insufficiently notable musician. Quis separabit? 03:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Added new sources to the page. Seems notable. Cleaned it up a bit too. --TheDomain (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not all of the new references are particularly strong, but there are enough with merit in the minority to indicate he is notable. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft at best as this could be imaginably acceptable but there are still questions so Draft for better improvements until then. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 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 08:38, 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 04:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. References do not represent significant coverage. VanEman (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – @VanEman: How do these sources ([10], [11]) which were in the article prior to your !vote above, not constitute significant coverage? North America1000 01:02, 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 no consensus. North America1000 01:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Always (Willie Nelson album)[edit]

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

Prod declined on the notability of the artist. However, I could find literally nothing on this album; it was a limited release in only one country, it contains no new material, and I could not verify the purported chart positions. No notability asserted at all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Verified some of the chart positions of this album for the NZ albums charts from 1981. You can actually look through the archived dates on this website. Added several sources. Had it has keep before, but actually looking at the album cover it's the same as 'Always on my Mind' by Willie Nelson. So I am a little bit confused. --TheDomain (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE/REDIRECT: This is just the Australian/NZ version of Always On My Mind; probably better served re-directing. 161.113.20.135 (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 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 08:38, 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 04:01, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Marie Howard[edit]

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

Actress who was under BLP prod but since a IMDB ref was added, decided to go to this. Anyway non notable actress, only one film so far. So falls under too soon as well. Wgolf (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All of her roles appear to have been minor. Her only named role is in Pandorica and I think that it's her on the poster, but I'm not finding anything to suggest that the film is notable. This might pass under A7 criteria, but just barely so it's probably better to let it go the full AfD route in this situation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:19, 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. Non-notable, advertising Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esoteric Veracity (Business)[edit]

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

Blatant advertising. Author deleted the speedy deletion template. Brad 03:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:21, 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 as unambiguous copyright infringement of the official website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Song Stage[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT and excessive WP:PROMOTION. Greek Legend (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That promotional tone comes from the article mostly being copyvio from the show's website, especially its About Us page. Pure advertising. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. The website says this is an upcoming PBS show, but I'm finding no reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 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 02:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found this source that discusses the show, but I don't see enough to really justify it having an article at this point in time and as far as I can see, this is the only actual source out there. I'm likely going to delete this as a copyright violation and I have no problem with this getting re-created once there's more coverage, but at best this is just too soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Árvore dos Sexos[edit]

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

No reliable coverage online. There is some coverage, but the sources aren't reliable. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Portugese:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
English:(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)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
distributor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment: It does have some unused Portuguese-language book references available,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] but apparently was never released in the US or in English. This pre-internet film needs input from Portuguese-reading Brazilian Wikipedians, better able to locate and offer hard-copy news sources or reviews that are not online.. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — There is a lack of online English-language coverage of this film because of the time period and genre, but it seems clear to me that this is notable. The handful of mentions that MichaelQSchmidt linked above (thank you) demonstrate that there is more than enough in print to reach the notability threshold. giso6150 (talk) 03:48, 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 13:47, 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 02:57, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Visegrad Insight[edit]

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

No independent refs, tagged for notability. Since the first AfD nom on March 9 (not a single vote besides the nom) not a slightest effort was done to remedy the notability problem. It means nobody freaking cares. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find any independent coverage using Google, although there is a bit of incedental coverage or POV coverage. Fails WP:GNG basically. —  crh 23  (Talk) 09:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom, seems like an advertisement. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:21, 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 uncontested. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amethyst (character)[edit]

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

Fictional character. Not sufficiently notable (WP:GNG); her coverage is limited to short passages in interviews and reviews. As a principal editor of the main article about the TV series, I'd like to avoid more places for in-universe fancruft to accumulate; there's already too much of that at List of Steven Universe characters.  Sandstein  20:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, just delete it, I suppose. Garnet and Pearl had some good content due to sexuality, but I have no idea what to say about Amethyst. I mean, she's an interesting character for sure, but I don't remember anyone ever putting much focus on her while discussing the show. If all there is to use are episode summaries and series reviews, then you might as well not have an article on her. I'm sure she'll become notable at some point, but that's for the future to decide. ~Mable (chat) 13:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An interview with a creator is not independent, and unreliable blog sources suggest this is bottom of the barrel in terms of independent notability outside of the fictional universe. Character can succinctly be discussed in a list of characters, to keep WP:FANCRUFT to a minimum. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that interviews with creators aren't independant. When an interview is held by a reliable source, I believe it should be held up to the same standards as other reliable sources. But yeah, it's still basically impossible to write an appropriately balanced article on Amethyst due to a lack of real-world impact. ~Mable (chat) 19:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it, with a note adding Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability.. Thus while content in interviews may be verifiable, it alone doesn't help establish notability, no matter how much detail creators go into about what they've created. In this particular case, an AMA on Reddit is hardly reliable, reputable source. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Content on AMA and Reddit would be considered self-published sources, so those obviously don't establish notability. Something like this Newsarama interview does, however, as Newsarama is a reliable source and both the website and the writer (Lan Pitts) are independent from the creators of Steven Universe. This argument doesn't really have much to do with the reliability of Amethyst, as we both agree there's just to little to go on, but I like to make clear for whenever this article gets recreated that interviews from reliable sources are excellent places to find content, and self-published sources should generally be avoided. ~Mable (chat) 10:03, 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 Deleteper discussion. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Catalano[edit]

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

WP:NEO. A one-off opinion article in Slate does not merit creating an article on the subject. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article because the only primary reference I can find is an opinion piece article written in Slate [21] making reference to the term, and a couple of minor articles referencing that. I do not believe that this term is widely used in any context beyond the targets audience of that Slate article. If the term Xennials, which generates more hits and references than this subject, was not deemed good enough for its own article, I don't see how this one meets wide enough notability outside of the small fanbase of the show My So-Called Life. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I know it's a shout in the dark and this article is as good as dead, but, aside from my admittedly inclusionist leanings, I do like the name it gives to the many hundreds of thousands of late-70s, early-80s kids that are caught in the no-man's-land between Gen X and Millennials. I think Slate is a good source, but clearly it appears to be virtually the only one. And, yes, you don't hear people ever actually mentioning they are a self-identified member of Gen Cat, but hey, at least this is one 'keep' before the WP:SNOWBALL comes roll'n on in. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the version of the article I am making mention to and voting for in the above is/was this one, as recent edits had cut out some of the weaker, but still seemingly plausable citations. I added them back for maximal disclosure, but the above link can obviously be referenced if it gets all gutted out again. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's my biggest point here; there is no mention of this that does not refer back to that one Slate article, which is an opinion piece from someone not notable. The author of that article attempted to make something happen and it went nowhere beyond a couple of brief mentions in a couple of other thinkpiece articles, and then alongside other terms. This is a no-brainer delete to me.Justinm1978 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know Xennials didn't fly. Doesn't anyone know of a good term (at least better than gen cat) which describes the grey area between gen X and Millennials? Maybe just maybe something that will eventually have some merge potential? Buddy23Lee (talk)

A cursory search to answer that question turned up this Poll: What Should Be The Name Of The Generation Between Gen X And Millennials? I didn't vote due to clear conflicts of interest, but I'd encourage everyone to get behind "generation sandwich" as it is clearly no less sexy than Jordan Catalano. Hah! Buddy23Lee (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the one source is basically a blog post, far from getting past WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or Merge as appropriate to Generation X and Millennials (and perhaps My So Called Life) - There are a few sources which picked up on the Slate article, writing about the same subject of, basically "if you're at the very end of one 'generation' or at the very beginning of another 'generation' you might feel like you don't fit into either one, so let's make up a name for you based on pop culture at the time". We have two variously and arbitrarily bounded generational spans which have been written about extensively (in book form, in academic journals...everywhere), then we have a hodgepodge of names in blogs and magazines for the people "in between" (while making the case that an "in between" exists at all). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:55, 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hanson Brothers[edit]

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

Never watched Slap Shot but I don't find these characters to have enough coverage and notability to warrant their own article here. It's current state right now doesn't give much hope either. GamerPro64 02:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 07:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am pretty surprised by this nomination. These characters are probably the most popular characters from any sports movie ever. They are talked about in media alot. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Djsasso. The article does need to be improved but this is far away from not being notable. Hell you can even find websites that sell Hanson Brothers costumes. Deadman137 (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Funny, just watched this movie last week in 1080p. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - In the world of sports, the Hanson brothers are well known. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's obvious you've never watched Slap Shot. These characters are very notable and have received significant coverage from many sources. Smartyllama (talk) 17:50, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand–Sweden relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. could not significant coverage of actual relations. the fact they closed their respective embassies says something about the importance of the relationship. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that they had embassies says a fair bit. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The previous existence of embassies does not grant automatic notability. You have failed to establish how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, as there is no third-party coverage to speak of about the relations specifically, all I could find was mention of the closing of the embassies as well as [22], which probably is a non-independent source(?). —  crh 23  (Talk) 09:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Has now been expanded substantially, so I'm retracting my Delete vote and switching it to Keep, as notability has been sufficiently shown. —  crh 23  (Talk) 14:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is between two countries, it is notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that is not a valid reason for keeping . Many bilateral Articles have been deleted therefore they have no inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage seems mostly about the downgrading of the relationship, yet ironically Wikipedia rules make that encyclopedic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep two OECD countries and even the closing of embassies got coverage. I've contributed to similar articles on other countries and found that it's not simple to Google the relationship and get the right info. I would leave it with a banner asking for more help. VanEman (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
being 2 OECD countries doesn't give a free pass to notability . Referring to other articles is just a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but the governments of OECD member countries tend to have a bit to do with each other through the organisation and are the subject of regular and good quality comparative studies on a wide range of topics so it does help meet WP:N. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's been expanded by Nick-D into a much more useful article.-gadfium 01:31, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blitz Identity Provider[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails the general notability guideline as there is no significant third party coverage relating to the software. sandgemADDICT yeah? 01:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 07:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 07:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Refs provided are companies with an apparent commercial relationship to the software. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:20, 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 already deleted by Brianga as an expired BLPPROD. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Mohamed Baharoon[edit]

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

Bringing this here because it will not qualify for CSD A7 - there is an assertion of notability. Despite this, no effort to prove notability is given beyond that he is well known locally in his home town, and a photo of him with a UAE ambassador (which, from what I can glean from some brief research, he met while studying in Malaysia) - and he won an art competition, apparently. Only thing I was able to find in the way of any press was a news article in which he had one paragraph, where he reflected on how studying in Malaysia effectively improved things for him. Good for his studies, but not for notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing in this article appraoches notability. If he is really "well known" in his city, we should have sources supporting and explaining this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italia Guitar Straps[edit]

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

No evidence of indepth coverage in WP:RS Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply nothing better for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renate Franz[edit]

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

Autobiographical article of non-notable author. Sole reference is her own writing, and does not address any biographical claims. No biographical sources supplied at all. Google search turns up nothing of note; fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR Scr★pIronIV 15:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete basically per nom. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG easily, can't find anything substantial at all. -crh23 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wang NewOne[edit]

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

No significant independent coverage (I've searched for both her English and Chinese names), fails WP:ARTIST. Zanhe (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created the article Stub. Wang NewOne is an artist in numerous exhibits, and has been profiled in magazine (note Vice and Dazed Digital citations) and has received commissions, which helps with notability. I don't know Chinese but could use help filling out more information from someone who does. Yellow Swans (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. I could find no secondary, independent, reliable sources that meets WP:GNG; the sources cited on the article are of his Facebook page and YouTube channel, a source that appears to be dead (and even if it met Wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines, that source is definitely not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage - enough in-depth coverage where an article can be written without the use of original research), and a few mentions from "NewHive" (a site that, by it's own words is a "multimedia publishing platform" that "provide[s] a blank space and custom tools to simplify the process of creating rich multimedia experiences on the web"). Also clearly fails WP:ARTIST. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, original writer here. I just wanted to note that the source you say appears to be dead works for me and links to Vice Magazine online, China. You state that there are "mentions" by NewHive but I want to clarify that they also commission artwork and online exhibits, both of which are cited here. Yellow Swans (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this source were to work and meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, it still does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guideline in that significant coverage must exist to the point that the article can be written without the use of original research. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case. Sorry :-( ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:59, 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. There seems to be consensus to keep, no matter how paradoxical. (non-admin closure) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

247 (number)[edit]

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

No sources to show notability per WP:NUMBER. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect. Restore the redirect to 240, as we do for numbers that fail WP:NUMBER. Doing this doesn't have to be done through AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I added two attributes and hope others can find more. Both are reasonably sparse sequences on the OEIS (A78972 and A326) that deserve inclusion. —Anticontradictor (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pentagonal numbers are a nice enough sequence, but at #13, this number is not particularly early in the sequence. However I think OEIS:A78972 obeys the metatheorem that all base-dependent sequences are boring, and it's even farther out on that one. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is interesting by virtue of its being the lowest uninteresting number. I added this to the article, including a reference. Brad 16:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added more properties to the number. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oh the irony. By keeping it it is no longer the lowest uninteresting number. But deleting it makes it retain it's interestingness. I am seriously conflicted. Jschnur (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this article gets deleted it would be the only 3-digit number not to have its own article on Wikipedia. Does that make it more interesting? Or is that proof that the number truly is uninteresting? Brad 18:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wouldn't be: a lot of the articles are redirects, which this would become. —  crh 23  (Talk) 08:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please try to address the notability of the topic while commenting. SSTflyer 00:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 00:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - now passes WP:NUMBER test "Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer ?". Gandalf61 (talk) 16:17, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dynasty Warriors characters[edit]

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

This page seems like a major WP:NOTWIKIA violation. For one, in the Dynasty Warriors series, most, if not all, characters are strongly based on historical figures in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms novel. Also, to add more confusion, these fictional characters aren't exclusive to the Dynasty Warriors video game series: They are also present in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms video game series. In addition, this entire list has a fine line between being a character list and a large historical figure page. Almost every section has a hatnote referring the reader to the character's biographical-based person. Since there really is no way to put a definite distinction between the fictional and non-fictional figures here, this page serves to confuse and mislead on an encyclopedia and really only belongs on a Dynasty Warriors-related Wikia-like site. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, in the current state of List of Warriors Orochi characters, it looks like that list only includes characters that are exclusive to that series in the section that is not a table. (Which, by the way, doesn't have a series article either: see Warriors Orochi (series).) Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are there secondary sources for the independent notability of any of the three lists? czar 23:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: At this point, I would say "no" to all three of them. (I'm saying this in regards to List of Samurai Warriors characters assuming that the characters in that series are based on historical biographical figures as well.) However, the series-exclusive content at List of Warriors Orochi characters could probably be moved to a page regarding the Warriors Orochi series, if that was ever created, but probably not since it seems the only character exclusive to that series who is not based on a historical biographical figure is Orochi and some characters from Musou Orochi Z and Warriors Orochi 3. Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete mainly because of the already noted confusion that can occur between the Dynasty Warriors characters and their historical counterparts. Although later entries in the game series have gotten better about depicting the characters accurately, the game still takes quite a few liberties. If there was a way to better separate game from history I would be in favor of keeping the article, but I don't think this article itself could meet the game article requirements anyway. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can confirm that Samurai Warriors (the first one anyway) is based off the Sengoku period in Japan much like how Dynasty Warriors is based off the Late Han and Three Kingdoms periods in China. Samurai Warriors is, in a way, a spinoff of the success of Dynasty Warriors and are very similar games. The consensus made on this article would most likely apply to the Samurai Warriors Characters article as well. I'm not certain about Warriors Orochi but I think that is a fictional crossover of Dynasty and Samurai Warriors. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 00:06, 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, and thanks to Cunard for finding the biographical material from the Wall Street Journal, which I think was decisive here. This lady is marginally notable because there are a couple of reliable sources which have noted her, although compared to most people who have Wikipedia biographies she hasn't accomplished very much yet.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Elizabeth Koch (publisher)[edit]

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

There is one source. Notability is in questions. And the article was created by a single-purpose user, FactorHK, whose only changes have been vandalizing Koch-related articles with POV edits. Therefore I am concerned that leaving up this article creates the possibility of future POV vandalism. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:29, 31 March 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 March 31. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Placing vote here just in case it wasn't clear. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment many have stated that she passes WP:GNG because supporting users stated there are reliable sources. To be clear, the vast majority of articles related to Elizabeth Koch are related to different Elizabeth Kochs than this one (there is an elder and an unrelated musician). Of sources related to this Elizabeth, there are two, one of which is not reliable. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply none of this suggests any better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found after a short time searching, several references from RS to support GNG. Also, a comment Wiki does not have a policy to delete articles just because we're afraid they may be vandalized. If that's a concern, ask an admin to lock the page to prevent such attacks. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does "several references from RS to support GNG" not address notability? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and this habit of seeking to delete Koch family related articles because they might vandalized is not policy-based. A Google news search without the parenthetical "(publisher)" reveals enough cover to meet GNG, once again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Notability is. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Many of those are not about this Elizabeth Koch. Leaving the ones that are, there are a handful of articles. Wall Street Journal, fine, and then Salon, which is not a reliable source. Many of these sources, too, are about the elder Elizabeth Koch. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salon is a good source to show notability. There is nothing wrong with it. I am aware that many hits may be the elder Elizabeth, but there are still plenty for the younger, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick comment: Firstly, most of those are for a different younger Elizabeth Koch. Secondly, Salon does not count as a reliable source. Especially about politics. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't said how Salon doesn't count for notability. Please explain why you think it should be excluded. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for starters, its an entertainment site. The article it most recently published is titled "The Big Oral Sex Fallacy". And then their political publications are so far beyond a simple political bias (like how most newspapers have a bias but keep it reasonable), with articles titled along the lines of "Paul Ryan is an absolute joke", "Uh-Oh where does all the white rage go when Trump loses?" and "Mississippi vs. Everyone: State’s pushing obscene law that’s not only anti-LGBT, it could also force women to wear makeup". Its along the same lines as Buzzfeed for reliability. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those aren't good reasons to reject it as RS. Salon has an editorial policy which is on par with other journalistic sites. It may have a liberal slant (which they do not hide), but again, political leanings don't rule out RS. I've never read anywhere that Salon is unfactual. If there is slant, it can be balanced with other sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that she is notable as a publisher. People need to pass notabilty guidelines, and she does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist in 2 weeks This article is not yet developed enough to determine notability. Rather than legally vandalize it by deleting it, relist it so the authors can add more info, if available. On the other hand, if nothing much is added, it can go to the dustbin. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need to relist. It isn't the current state of the article that's an issue. The question -- the only valid question -- is whether or not she has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as best as we can determine searching by Google or other means. And regardless of whether those references currently appear in the article or not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No legitimate argument for deletion. If sources are insufficient to support a biography, the only appropriate outcome would be redirection to Black Balloon Publishing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: most sources related to Elizabeth Koch are for different Elizabeth Kochs. There is an elder and an unrelated musician. There are very few sources on the publisher, and even fewer (possibly only one) from reliable sources. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I find the same problem as many other editors are finding. Sources are not for this Elizabeth Koch, and the ones that are and discuss her comprehensively are pretty much just the two good ones already in the article. Others are simply discussion of Black Balloon or Catapult. I see no problem with a redirect to one of those if the closing admin feels it appropriate. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one is a published in which published novels, they should stand.KingOfKingsTheAssassin (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC) *Keep Koch is a published author and a significant publisher of fiction in New York. It seems that she has written for magazines and papers including the Los Angeles Review of Books, One Story, FENCE, Glimmer Train, Guernica, the Columbia Journalism Review and the New York Observer. She has also published at least twenty books, including 'Margaret the First' by Danielle Dutton and 'Springtime: A Ghost Story' by Michelle de Kretser'. Why does this 'DaltonCastle' user keep nominating anything related to the Koch family for deletion? In requesting deletion, the user 'DaltonCastle' makes a number of assertions about perceived future vandalism (?) that it seems there is no evidence for.--Plainswin (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 00:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As others have noted above, the Elizabeth Koch we are referencing lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. RS, outside of the two already included, only mention her in passing. Simply being a publisher and writer does not seem inherently notable. Meatsgains (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The Wall Street Journal article (link) provides significant coverage of her. Here is an excerpt:

    Elizabeth R. Koch is the literary member of the Koch family. She has an MFA in creative writing from Syracuse University, where she studied with author George Saunders, has published several short stories (some under a pen name), and is working on a novel. This month she is launching an independent publishing company called Catapult.

    Ms. Koch, who comes from one of the nation’s wealthiest families, personally invested the seed money for Catapult, which has an annual budget in the high six figures and aims eventually to publish 12 books a year. She is the daughter of Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist who, with his brother David, co-founded a web of conservative interest groups.

    In contrast to her father and uncle, Ms. Koch, 39, describes herself as apolitical. “We’re very close but we’re all different,” she said of her family.

    ...

    Ms. Koch grew up in Kansas, and wrote stories from the time she was young. She studied English literature at Princeton University, then held a series of jobs, editing books, working at magazines and doing a brief stint in journalism. She was an editor at Opium Magazine and co-founder of Literary Death Match, a raucous reading series in which authors compete for the best performance. “I was doing so many other things because I didn’t have the courage to write,” she said. “It wasn’t until I got into Syracuse that I felt, okay, now I think I have permission. That’s part of what we want to do at Catapult—give people permission. Don’t quit… We’re here, we’re with you, we support you.”

    Cunard (talk) 05:14, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_April_8&oldid=1142623777"