Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 August	31 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. per A7, G3, take your pick... just a waste of bytes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this page is an unnecessary article, and explains nothing about the person. Unless this page undergoes serious edits, it should be deleted. --James C. Anderton (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Andertonian[reply]
Speedy Delete And tagged as such on the page. Doing a quick google search shows that the subject has never won this event. This is a hoax/non-notable person. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sekgoshole ernest[edit]

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

Patent nonsense, non-notable, stub, unsourced BLP. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not patent nonsense although it is poorly written by someone whose English language skills are weak. I could copy edit the article in minutes if the topic was notable. The fact that it is a stub is also not a reason for deletion. However, unreferenced BLPs violate policy, there is no plausible claim of notability, and the article is an autobiography. Therefore, it must be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 If he obtains notability in the future through playing in the NFL or another qualifying league, or through meeting GNG, the article can be recreated. Rlendog (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rose (American football)[edit]

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

Not notable for college career. Fails to meet WP:BASIC. Undrafted in NFL 2016 draft but was picked up by Giants. I was waiting to see if he made the team before nominating since if he made the team and played he would have been notable per WP:NGRIDIRON,; however, he was cut today at the 75-man-roster deadline. See http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2016/08/giants_cut_roster_to_75_analysis_of_each_roster_mo.html Meters (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSPORT. It would be nice if this could just be sent to a draft, because in the event that this guy gets picked up by another team later and plays an NFL game, he would become notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I have no objection to a draft article,~~ but it seems a bit unlikely that Rose will be picked up by another team given that he wasn't drafted, didn't play much in his three preseason games, and didn't survive the first round of cuts (from a 90-man roster to 75-man). There's still another larger round of cuts to come before the rosters are finalized at 53 men by 3 September. Meters (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Draft is fine if an enthusiastic editor wants to take custody of the article and work on it. My cursory search did not turn up significant coverage for his collegiate career. If others can search and find better results, I'll consider changing my position. Until then, we have a good quality college player but not necessarily a notable one. Delete and also try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, it only makes sense to convert to a draft if the subject is notable but the article content needs work to get to article status. If the subject does not qualify because the subject is not notable then it should not go to draft. No amount of work on the article will create notability. We should not keep articles around in draft just in case the subject later becomes notable.Meters (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He can still qualify via Gridiron. the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the third American Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league. Userfy to my account if delete is given. BlackAmerican (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Also, some of the leagues mentioned above don't exist anymore, so unless subject has access to a time machine, he can't satisfy WP:GNG by playing in them. Smartyllama (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:NGRIDIRON. If he ends up playing a game later, author should request article content via deleting admin then recreate. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 09:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 00:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Hartley[edit]

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

Clearly, this young lady is not notable. None of the references currently on the article are biographical in nature (nor are any of them reliable. More on that later), nor could I find any. Pretty hard to write a bio when all we have is supposition on what may have happened in a two hour or so period of her life. The crime story has some potential, but this article is so poorly crafted and mal cited, I'd advocate WP:TNT. John from Idegon (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the page is written well and cites are alright; I have asked the editor who contributed it to seek additional sources but I certainly don't think the article warrants deletion with the current sources. WP:N/CA also "The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable." This certainly meets that guideline.-- Dane2007 ^talk 23:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Disappearance of Evelyn Hartley or something similar. Dane2007 points out the applicable content guideline. Fifty years after she disappeared, news coverage of this unsolved case continues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The disappearance of Evelyn Hartley was covered in many newspapers in the United States in October-November 1953-thank you-RFD (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is just as notable as any other missing person, and belongs on the List of people who disappeared mysteriously - User:Davidgoodheart
Comment - The vast majority of the people on the aforementioned list would be notable if they had died at home in their beds with their grandchildren surrounding them (e.g. Glen Miller). Their disappearance is not why they are notable. Can you show that there is anything at all notable about this young lady? Her disappearance may be notable, but I only see a very few reliable sources online to that. I would like to see an explanation of what makes the sourcing currently on the article reliable. I see no sources in the sources nor any evidence of the fact checking that we require for reliable sources. In any case, Davidgoodheart, the scope of this discussion is limited to this article. WP:OTHERSTUFF is seldom a persuasive arguement. If you are a local to the area of her disappearance, actual citations to news articles would be immensely helpful to the firm establishment of the notability of her disappearance. Although this discussion has several days to run, the trending consensus seems to be that she is not notable but her disappearance is. John from Idegon (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as mentioned above, WP:VICTIM. There is persistent coverage per criteria 1 and no other article exists. I would not be opposed to moving it to a different title to focus on the disappearance. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by User:Espresso Addict per WP:G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo stiltonoot[edit]

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

Patent nonsense mistaken for BLP by CSD tagger. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Air Force Mountaineering Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organization tagged since July 2008. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom: This sport association gets only a small number of hits in works available in Google books, and the regular Google search results are rather thin. Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. SST flyer 04:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless I missed it I couldn't see anything in Google, Google Books or Worldcat.org that would indicate that the subject has significant coverage per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (twice) under A7 by Bbb23 and TomStar81. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kovach[edit]

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

Unsourced substub. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riza Azhar Suardi[edit]

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

No indication of notability, barley even a stub. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Davis Cup website, he has never played for Malaysia Davis Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Fyunck(click)'s legwork. Other references on the page show the subject playing in the Malaysia Masters, which wouldn't pass the tennis bar for WP:NSPORT. A Train^talk 16:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Coordinated_Universal_Time#History. Redirected per the IP comment below. Consensus was to remove this content as a POV-fork; have enacted this, but redirected rather than simply deleted as the article name has value as a search term. Will also protect the page to avoid recreation in the immediate period. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of UTC[edit]

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

POV fork of Coordinated Universal Time Jc3s5h (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I view this page as a POV fork of Coordinated Universal Time. Two main themes are that GMT is distinct from UTC, and UTC is different from UT. But as the "Coordinated Universal Time" article and it's supporting sources make clear, the status of GMT is unclear, and some authorities treat it as identical to UTC. Also, many authorities view UTC as one of several varieties of UT. I consider it inappropriate for a fork to exist that states as established fact positions that are actually quite controversial.

Also, the "Coordinated Universal Time" article is not so long that a separate article on the history of UTC is necessary. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I was just composing a question asking what POV is being advanced here, but you answered it before I even asked it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear POV fork and redirect the title to Coordinated Universal Time#History. The editor who created this would do better to seek consensus at Talk:Coordinated Universal Time for any changes rather than create a POV fork. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Have briefly semi-protected this AfD to prevent ongoing disruption by a banned user. Apologies to any legitimate anon editors wanting to add to the discussion - please feel free to do so after the semi-protection expires. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a suitable WP:SIZESPLIT. SST flyer 04:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of islands named after calendar entries[edit]

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

This list fails WP:SALAT since this isn't a notable way to list islands. At best it's an interesting bit of trivia, at worst it's original research. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find evidence that this topic has been discussed by reliable sources. I suspect that it's also original research, as a number of the entries (e.g. Winter Island, October Revolution Island) seem dubious. Pburka (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless it's The Twelfth of Never. No? Then delete. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. This subject has not been a topic of independent inquiry by reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as unnecessary WP:SPLIT. Arguments for "keep" are mainly WP:OTHERSTUFF (not acceptable argument) and "notability is established" (but, the notability was not questioned at all). I am not convinced (with arguments) that this topic warrants separate article. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Jill Stein[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SashiRolls (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary WP:POVFORK. I also have several additional concerns:

Content relating to Stein's political positions, philosophy, statements, etc. can be placed (and indeed is currently placed) at the main biographical article, Jill Stein or Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016, or Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2012. The source material on Stein's positions is not so voluminous that it requires a separate article. (Stein does not have a long record in public office).
A separate article not only atomizes content, but also encourages content sprawl and inclusion of long quotations or other unencyclopedic material.
Article is unlikely to be expanded.
Similar underdeveloped or unnecessary "Political positions..." articles have been found to not be independently notable in the past, e.g.: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Michael Bloomberg; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Ann Coulter; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Bill Richardson. --Neutrality^talk 21:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the article creator (tagged above), I am tagging the following editors who have weighed in on this article: @Snooganssnoogans:, @MrX:, @Tryptofish:, @Timothyjosephwood:, @E.M.Gregory:. Neutrality^talk 21:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not a sufficient amount of meaninful political position material to justify a spinoff article. Many of her political positions range from aspirational to down right ludicrous, and are not the type of information that we would typically document in an independent article. - Mr X 21:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:POVFORK and the well-articulated concerns expressed by User:Neutrality. Note also that this article was created during discussions about the "positions" sections on Jill Stein in which article creator had just proposed creating this page and a fellow editor has said [1] not a good idea. I am not suggestion that a single editor's opinion must rule a second editor, only that That discussion should have been continued before creating this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . All of the other main presidential candidates have a "Political Positions of" page, and those most active on Jill Stein's biography page (see Talk:Jill Stein) seem to wish to deny her this privilege. Note that no edits have been made to the page since it was split, and I am following consensus and editing at her bio page while her political positions remain on that page. To respond to Neutrality, Bloomberg never ran for President, Jill has done so twice, and to be honest I've never heard of Bill Richardson, so cannot comment. SashiRolls (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)SashiRolls is article creator. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, Darrell Castle does not. Stein has never held political office except for being a member of the Lexington town meeting. Few if any RS regard her as a "main presidential candidate."E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedian practices, see Political positions of the United States presidential candidates by political affiliation, 2016 (table that I did not add though I am a Wikipedian.) SashiRolls (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That page has had exactly 36 edits in the 2 months of its exisentce, almost all of them by the article creator, that gets~ 10 pageviews per day, and on which every single topic is marked "unknown" in the Jill Stein column. imho, the lack of active editing and paltry sourcing on that page demonstrate the problem with multiplying articles on minor political figures like Stein. As does Political positions of Cynthia McKinney although she, unlike Stein, was elected to Congress, and in that sense the article is not as absurd as Political positions of Ben Carson, although even Carson did have a period when he was polling serious numbers of voters. The McKinney positions page, sourced heavily to blogs, including 911truth.org, is a poster child for the problem of having articles of this type. It was created in 2008 when McKinney was the Green Party candidate for president, was written almost entirely by a single editor who has long since left this project, and has not been meaningfully improved in the decade it has existed.E.M.Gregory (talk)

Note that Political positions of Cynthia McKinney now redirects to Cynthia McKinney.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multi-time presidential candidate's with political positions covered in extensively by independent, reliable sources.--TM 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The parent article is not long enough to justify a fork, and can probably be trimmed a bit anyway. TimothyJosephWood 00:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The candidate is far less notable than Clinton, Trump and Johnson. Her political positions are not extensive enough to be covered in a separate article (they fit neatly into her main article). I provide other reasons on the Jill Stein talk page but those are the gist of my objections to a separate Stein Positions article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the political positions is not a POV fork but is a division of the prior article to fit existing practices as shown in other candidates, so it fits the WP:SPINOFF accepted section at WP:POVFORK. Also, conceptually the Jill Stein page is a BLP so it should focus on her life and chronology, and maybe change over time of politics -- but not a detailed focus. Markbassett (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One problem I am having in squaring this with the other pages in our category Category:Political positions of United States presidential candidates, 2016 is that, Trump excepted, all of those candidates have political records as holders of major office where they actually took positions. (Note the "Political positions of Carly Fiorina", like those of several other contenders for major party nomination, redirects). This means that their Political positions pages can be reliably sourced to secondary coverage of their positions on issues they were involved with as elected officials. Jill Stein's page, however, is heavily - and perhaps inevitably - primary sourced, not only to jill2016.com but all the way down to source # 16, ""Dr. Jill Stein on Twitter". Retrieved 2016-07-28.". sources # 3 and # 4 are Jill Stein press releases [2], [3]; no fewer than 6 items are cited to http://www.jill2016.com/plan It is also heavily sourced to partisan sites that may or may not be independent of Stein, the first source on the page is occupy.com, Many other positions are cited to obscure blogs/websites including: lumpenproletariat.org , Rainbow.org , www.p2012.org, and youtube postings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzwZtmTEMuw I could go on, there's more of this sort. My question is whether it is even possible to reliably source an article on a third party candidate who has never held a significant public office (she was a member of the Lexington town meeting) and who, therefore, has no press coverage on issue positions outside of what comes during a political campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your activism on both Jill Stein's page and Ajamu Baraka's make it such that I'm not surprised by your comments. Of course, given your activism, you know that none of the tweets mentioned have been added by the creator of this page, but have been primarily (if not exclusively) added by Snooganssnoogans (above). One might cynically believe the goal in preventing this page from existing, despite clearly established precedent, is to ensure that people seeking to learn more about Jill Stein don't have to click twice in order to see the writing I and others have slowly and patiently managed to tone down towards neutrality in the past weeks despite the user's consistent unwillingness to compromise (or even talk cf. lack of response to [User:AndrewOne|AndrewOne] here for one example among many). (It should be noted that Snooganssnoogans is the author of much of this page User Contribution Search. Since August, I have become more active providing balancing material in the past month, Snooganssnoogans continues to be active, and has provided us with, for example 16 references to the same Washington Post interview here, which strikes me (and others in print) as both an unbalanced source (given the questions) and undue weight. Nevertheless, in the spirit of "consensus" of those involved on a daily basis reverting efforts aimed at improving the article to remove the anti-bias tag on the Jill Stein page in late August, I have not removed those links, despite the obvious bias of the way in which the questions the Post asked her (already expressing the Post's negative point of view (as for Sanders)) have been used. But I'll assume "good faith" and admit that there are some things in life I could not understand behind that veil of ignorance. ^^

To respond to the substantive claim in your argument, to the best of my knowledge, Noam Chomsky, and Christopher Hitchens and Ralph Nader have never held political office, yet all three have political positions pages... SashiRolls (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Ralph Nader turns out to be a poster child for all the problems with Political positions of articles created for minor candidates during campaigns, especially bad sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that Political positions of Tim Kaine and Political positions of Mike Pence redirect to their pages, as several of us are proposing to redirect this to Jill Stein. Nor do we have Political Positions of Darrell Castle or Political Positions of Ben Carson, candidates who share the sourcing problem I perceive with Stein, that is, the fact because she has never been elected to a significant office or been a significant player in the national and international political conversation, we lack the kind of analysis by political scientists, policy analysts and political journalists ~~that enables us to reliably source articles on Noam Chomsky, and Christopher Hitchens and Ralph Nader.~~ Perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking part of my comment because on examining those 3 articles I find that I was incorrect; the Caldwell and Chomsky pages both suffer from excessive reliance on primary sourcing, while Political positions of Ralph Nader is so bad it that needs to be redirected or deleted. The point is that all 3 articles held up as models by User:SashiRolls appear to reinforce my hypothesis that sources (or something) makes it close to impossible to source good articles on the political positions of individuals who have not served in major political office.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, to meet WP:HEY an editor would have to remove the WP:FANCRUFT from the page along with all the blogs and everything that cannot be sources as per WP:RS, and turn this into at least an early version of something that might conceivably become WP:GOOD. I just spent a little time nosing around, and my impression is that RS do not at this point exist to either properly source such an article, or to support its notability. It is simply WP:TOOSOON to source an article of this type on Stein. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In principle, there can be both a bio page and a political views page for a particular political figure. However, to make it an editorially desirable separation, there should be a good reason for the political views page to explore content that does not fit at the bio page, and also, both pages must be equally balanced and neutral in POV. Here, however, this really is a WP:POV fork, intended to bypass content disputes at the bio page. The content is pretty much just copy-pasted, and it seems unlikely that there will be sufficient reason in the next year or so for this page to go into additional content. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK, and possibly containing OR based on primary sources, such "JS on Twitter" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources: [4] and [5] from Rolling Stone, [6] from Politico, [7] from Newsweek, [8] from NBC News, [9] from Bustle, [10] from CNN, [11] from The Washington Post, [12] from The Post-Standard, [13] from The Seattle Times, [14] from Slate. These articles not just "Jill Stein is running for President" stories; they analyze her political positions and compare/contrast them to other candidates. If the article is problematic, it can be fixed. I skimmed over it, and it looks like there are some questionable sources. But it's possible to find better ones. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I believe the above sources are best added to the main article Jill Stein. Since she's described there as a "perennial candidate" I believe it's best to keep the material on her political positions there. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreeing with K.e.coffman's comment just above, I don't think that anyone questions the existence of sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Instead, the issue is that satisfying notability does not make it mandatory to have a separate page. Here, there are issues of WP:SOAP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:IINFO. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note. SashiRolls has been topic-banned from Jill Stein-related content as an Arbitration Enforcement sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Keep arguments. It's a fork but a notable one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I really do not think that notability is the issue here. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ITSNOTABLE in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: simply asserting "it's notable" isn't really an argument at all. Neutrality^talk 22:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK as others have mentioned. While there is potential to have standalone political views articles of BLPs in the case of candidates, there isn't really justification for separation from the BLP in this case. The more appropriate case is to keep developing content on the parent page and create the daughter article if there is significant enough content to be standalone to avoid overtaking the BLP article per WP:SPINOFF. I don't really see that happening since political views are her main claim to fame. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improve content instead of deleting

The various suggested reasons for deleting the "Political Positions of Jill Stein" page strike me as odd and unconvincing. Clearly there is a public information value in having positions of the presidential candidates readily accessible on separate neutral Wikipedia pages. There are such separate pages for Clinton, Trump and Johnson, and they have evidently generated no such "debate" within Wikipedia. Trump has never held public office, and well into the primaries the "positions" listed on his website were far less detailed than what Stein's site shows. So what can be fundamentally wrong with having an objective separate Wikipedia page on such stances, instead of sandwiching that in with all sorts of other material, or leaving readers to wade through the candidates' own sales pitches?

Of course, "political positions" can instead be made a subsection of the "presidential campaign" page or the main biographical page (the latter is the case for Evan McMullin, the only other minor presidential candidate besides Stein showing well about 1% in a state presidential poll (9% in Utah in August), but his campaign is not even a month old, and if it grows in popularity that could certainly and quite understandably also lead to a "positions" page for him as well, even though he also has never held elected office before). The fuss about "primary" versus "secondary" sources also seems weird. Clearly both types of source are beneficial, but the actual stated positions (primary) are going to be more relevant and useful to most readers. Moreover, while the Wikipedia guideline on notability says "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article," that is evidently not very relevant here: There are now already many referenced news article and analyses, and many ≠ "no".

This tempest in a teapot discussion appears to have little tangible effect except to make things slightly more confusing for readers and editors than they need to be. I favor removing the distracting and misleading flags, and getting on with remedying the shortcomings of the political position text. If part of the problem here is that many of Stein's positions have been vague, not well-informed, or inconsistent (in "contrast" to the crystal clear, credible and unwavering utterances of Trump, Clinton, Johnson, and almost any other national politician), then by all means make that part of the Wikipedia text, but I vote (if that is in any sense the right verb) for taking off the flags and winding up this tangential talk page. DK Drewkeeling (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I meant, in my final sentence above, to advocate winding up this "article for deletion" discussion. Of course, Wikipedia pages generally have a "talk page" available, and I do not mean to suggest there being exception to that for pages on Stein or her candidacy. Drewkeeling (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think user:K.e.coffman gets it right above: "Since she's described there as a "perennial candidate" I believe it's best to keep the material on her political positions there." Note that Stein has never won any of the posts she has run for (except at her local town meeting) and that we have "political positions" pages on individuals who have held significant office, but not on Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney nor on notable perennial candidates Harold Stassen, Eugene Debs or Ralph Nadar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV Fork or campaign propaganda/anti-candidate coatrack. Not an encyclopedic topic, ephemeral current events political esoterica. The important stuff should be in the biography already. Carrite (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hillary must win. 184.101.237.225 (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for its usefulness for 2016 voters and other interested parties. I find it a bit spurious the comments of various that those positions may be less firm than those of established pols. And so what if they aren't referenced by "reliable" sources-does a ref from CNN et al convey legitimacy on the view of the candidate? If the media haven't reported on the Political positions of Jill Stein that could say more about the media than the views. Besides, it's a list of Political positions that voters may peruse and compare, not the candidates voting records or actions (comparing the 3 for some candidates/pols may make an interesting page). For me, if you delete this one then delete the Political positions pages of all candidates. I don't advocate that-I say let the views stay in wikipedia where they can be linked to the topics. A valid comment may be that after the 2016 election, what becomes of the page, as views change and become dated... eg Political positions of Hillary Clinton was created in 2006‎, but its intro refers to 2016 {disclaimer-I am not a US voter. I have recently edited the page} DadaNeem (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments really apply, because there are different considerations that come into play in each case. I agree that the information is of interest to voters, but the same information is available at Jill Stein. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - article is a direct copy-paste from the already existent Jill Stein article and there's not enough sufficient content on its own to justify a separate article. There is nothing to include in a separate article that can't already be included into the parent article. Usually I'm all for having separate articles for political positions, but Stein's notability does not amount to that of Clinton's or Trump's or Huckabee's or Bush's or any democrat or republican for that matter. That's further evidenced by the fact that, if such an event were to occur where this article would stay its own separate article, and any editor just came to the Jill Stein article and trimmed down the political positions section in the presence of a separate article (as does usually happen with splits), you'd hardly still have an article. Last and foremost, this is not a discussion of whether an article should be delete, its a discussion on if a section within an article should have its own article. —Mythdon 23:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al.. Stein is not a "main" presidential candidate; she is polling, at most, a single point. Almost all of the material in the article is "mirrored" from her own website, a violation of both WP:COPYVIO and WP:RS, or a run of the mill rehash of the Green Party platform. I would be less annoyed if criticism of her more controversial positions were analyzed in detail, such as her anti-vaccination stance, but right now, it's little more than crufty agitprop. I really don't see that it could be improved, but please, go ahead and prove me wrong. For what it's worth, I support the other woman. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the evidence assembled by NinjaRobotPirate shows, notability is not an issue, and the material is substantive enough that an article is justifiable. I find no evidence that it has been created to change the POV of the main article, and therefore it does not appear to be a POVFORK, but an appropriate spinoff. The question then becomes "can we fit all this content into the main article?" Purely on the basis of length, we could: but we would then have an article dominated by her political positions. If the existence of this spinoff allows the main article to be balanced in terms of content, then I would prefer to keep the spinoff. Vanamonde (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the two pages do not particularly differ in content at this time. However, the editor who created the Political positions page (now topic-banned) did so in order to fend off efforts to NPOV the bio page. There does not seem to me to be a problem of balance at the main bio article, so there is no need for the spinoff to fix that. She is notable as a political candidate, so it's appropriate to emphasize her political positions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. unjustified split. The motivation might be promotional for her political views, but it doesn't matter. It's justified only for major party candidate. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikulchev Evgeny[edit]

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

Claim of notability lacks independent sources. A stub without anything to substantiate WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As yet I have no opinion as to whether this should be kept or deleted, but I must point out that the subject is not the vice-rector, but one of six vice-rectors, and not the top one.[15] 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article title is backwards, which affects search results. His name is Evgeny Nikulchev:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. I'm not sure there's even a claim of notability; as the IP above pointed out, pro/vice-rector isn't a very prestigious or highly-ranked position. He's an academic, so WP:PROF could apply, but he has only a string of poorly-cited papers, many in predatory vanity journals, and I couldn't find any indication that he meets any of the other criteria. Joe Roe (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record too low for WP:PROF#C1, administrative position too low (not head of whole institution) for #C6, and no other evidence of notability present. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. A Train^talk 17:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Milton Keynes Dons F.C. season[edit]

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

Just a simple league table and no real content Qed237 (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – It is clear now that it is notable and my main concern is no longer valid as the article has gotten some major imrovement and actually contains some content now. Qed237 (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs improving, not deleting. This is a season in a fully-professional league and is notable per WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can not keep articles that is just a single league table and no other content. Then a lot of very poor articles will be created and kept. Qed237 (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a list of stats. Qed237 (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NSEASONS. Being in poor nick isn't a justification for deletion when the topic is notable. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NSEASONS. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the editor who began this article, in the same vein as the 2010–11 Milton Keynes Dons F.C. season article, the 2015–16 Manchester United F.C. season, and other such Wikipedia articles. If we were to delete this article, as according to this proposal, then in accordance, shouldn't the others be deleted as well? I also intend on adding more to the article, but have not the time to come around and add yet. Kerl126 (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kerl126: The Manchester United article has content and should definately not be deleted, surprised you cant see the big difference. The other MK Dons articlce is really poor and just stats and may be discussed. Qed237 (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Consensus has clearly established that for English football seasons where clubs have competed in the top four tiers of English football are seasons where clubs have, for the purposes of WP:NSEASONS, competed in a "top professional league". The quality of the article is not relevant for AfD. Fenix down (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. The article seems much improved to when it was first brought to AfD, maybe that helped it. Govvy (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agathoclea (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Fábregas Bosch[edit]

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

not notable other than playing in the olympics Wasabi,the,one (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non notable other than playing in the Olympics? That's like an oxymoron. Per WP:NOLYMPICS, "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games...". Therefore the individual meets notability. Sro23 (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject competed in the Olympic games he passes WP:ATHLETE. The fact he won a silver medal doesn't hurt either. Hut 8.5 21:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear keep per WP:NOLYMPICS. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOLYMPICS. Smartyllama (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only in case he qualifies WP:ATHLETE. Reliable sources are required. Umair Aj (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not difficult to verify that someone competed at the Olympic Games or won an Olympic medal - see e.g. [16]. Hut 8.5 20:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Olympian and medalist to boot. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like enough evidence of notability exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Fankhauser[edit]

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

Subject may not meet WP:MUSICBIO. There are some German sources, but I can't assess their quality as I can't read German. Adam9007 (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to read German is not a reason for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that? I said it's difficult to assess the quality of such sources because I can't read German. I can't rely too much on Google Translate. Adam9007 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did say that by nominating this for deletion. This is a forum for discussing articles that people have good reason for thinking should be deleted, i.e. because they have read and understood the available sources and found them not to meet our inclusion guidelines. If you can't understand the available sources then you can ask about them on the article talk page or simply leave matters to someone who can understand them. It is certainly not a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the article was already tagged with a BLP-PROD *and* multiple-criteria CSD-tagging. AfD-nominator removed those because 1. the article did have a source at the time it was tagged, making it ineligible for BLP-PRODding, 2. the promotional content (one of the reasons for CSD-tagging) could be removed while keeping an article that does somewhat hint at significance, enough to make the *other* criterion by which it was CSD-tagged also invalid. Removing the promotional content, however, results in an article that may hint at significance but certainly does not demonstrate notability (not that promo-speak does do that, mind), and combined with the *multiple* ways in which the article was nominated for deletion, nominating it at AfD so people with 1. knowledge of the subject or 2. knowledge of German could sort it out most definitely is the appropriate and reasonable way to deal with it. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, except in so far as agreeing that the speedy deletion tagging was even more ridiculous than this nomination, but life would be pretty boring if we all always agreed with each other. This is so far from being a deletion candidate that I needn't bother to put the word "keep" in bold, as I thought would be obvious from the amount of coverage found by clicking on the words "news" and "books" in the searches above, even to someone who can't understand the potential sources found. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very much satisfies WP:MUSICBIO#2 (single or album on any country's national chart). Love Man Riding peaked at #7 on the Swiss Album Chart (official Swiss Charts site), Watching From The Safe Side peaked at #19 (same site), Try My Love at #3 (same site), Home at #2 (here), Philipp Fankhauser Plays Montreux Jazz Festival at #7 (still the same charts) and Philipp Fankhauser & Margie Evans - Unplugged - Live At Mühle Hunziken at #4 (same).AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did some more digging. Suspect he also meets WP:MUSICBIO#1, between this, this, this, an interview in an independent source here, another interview in an independent source here, yet another interview here and so on. (All those sources are in German, mind—if anyone needs a quick translation to get the gist of them, let me know on my talkpage)AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Also main editor appears to be subject of the article. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the sources found and the points raised by AddWittyNameHere? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MUSICBIO, article reflects this, thanks to AddWittyNameHere. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep prima facie notability as a multiply charting artist per AddWittyNameHere. Hitting the chart sites is probably a WP:BEFORE for this sort of case - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telecom-Multimedia Platform[edit]

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

Original research, sources include clickbait article and another Wikipedia article, may be a promo. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's an ad for CallApp - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, romotional content based on sources that largely do not mention the subject of the article, are not reliable or are not independent. Huon (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; advertising only. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 00:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo Allison[edit]

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

As much as it pains me as a Packers fan who wishes the best for Allison. He fails WP:NGRIDIRON because he has not yet played in a regular season game. It may be worth creating if he makes the upcoming roster cuts. Church ^Talk 19:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I would say this is a little premature, as he is still on the Packers' roster and has played in multiple preseason games. If he ends up not making the roster (which we should find out relatively soon, Sept 3 I think), than I would support the deletion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD will run for the week so I guess we'll find out. I'm evaluating him as he is now, which doesn't meet the criteria. WP:CrystalBall and whatnot.--Church ^Talk 23:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Since he is on a professional sports team right now, I would say keep for now. I will come back to the nom in a few days if he is let go to change my opinion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to maintain my keep, per the info below. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NGRIDIRON also takes college career into consideration. He had over 100 receptions and 1,400 yards for a Power Five program. Take that as you will, but Terrence Toliver, a player with similar college stats, was once taken to AFD on the same grounds. It may have been deleted if not for Cbl pulling rabbits out of his hat and decking the page out with references. Lizard (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Cbl do that in multiple deletion discussions. We should really ask his opinion on every football AfD lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, Geronimo Allison was released by the Packers today. [17]--Church ^Talk 07:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of whether a college athlete ever plays professionally, he/she may qualify separately under WP:GNG as WP:NGRIDIRON is an inclusive rather than exclusive guideline. Here, Geronimo was a two-year starter for a Power Five team. He was not a superstar in college, but he did tally 882 receiving yards and was honorable mention All-Big Ten in 2015. What matters most, though, is that he meets the GNG bar for having received significant coverage in multiple, independent, and reliable sources, including in-depth coverage in national outlets such as ESPN.com. Examples of such coverage include: (1) Nearly a 'never was,' rookie receiver Geronimo Allison catches Packers' eye, ESPN.com, Aug. 4, 2016; (2) Illini's Allison no longer playing catch-up, ESPN.com, Mar. 20, 2014; (3) Geronimo Allison emerging as leader of Illinois receivers, Chicago Tribune, Oct. 1, 2015; (4) Illinois receiver Geronimo Allison hoping to catch scouts' eye at combine, Houston Chronicle, Feb. 22, 2016; (5) Ex-Spoto star Geronimo Allison enjoys Shrine Game opportunity, Tampa Bay Times, Jan. 21, 2016; (6) With a name like Geronimo, Allison should stand out, "The News-Gazette", Aug. 7, 2013; (7) Allison has big goal in mind, The News-Gazette, Jan. 22, 2016; and (8) Geronimo Allison TD delivers Illinois win vs. Nebraska 14-13, USA Today, Oct 3, 2015. Cbl62 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Articles found by Cbl62 clearly show WP:GNG is met. RonSigPi (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 19:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gawad sa Kaunlaran[edit]

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

This award does exist, but existence does not equate to notability. The references provided appear to be only trivial mentions in handbooks of awards or mentions of someone receiving the award. There does not appear to be any non-trivial discussion of the award itself in reliable independent secondary sources. There are no subject-specific guidelines for retaining such an article, and it does not meet WP:GNG. KDS4444 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though a weak one based on a lack of available sources which may roll into WP:BIAS due to limited English language sources. I am not much of a wikilawyer, but past practice and precedent has been that awards of a national government's honor system have been sufficiently notable to be stand alone articles. I know that is a weak rationale, but I find nothing in policy that prevents us from covering this subject with an article. There is a fair amount of connectedness with this article which in my mind would also warrant it's keeping. EricSerge (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will grant that the article seems to be connected to several others, and that there may be some bias with regard to English language sources, and that precedents may be that such national governmental awards such as this are frequently notable enough to warrant standalone articles. But what this article needs is non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. If this article gets deleted, I would have no objection to its eventual recreation with such sources included. Right now, even the Tagolog Wikipedia has no article on it. KDS4444 (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tagalog Wikipedia doesn't have an article for its highest military award, and one that is likely inherently notable, the Philippine Medal of Valor (tl:Medalya ng Kagitingan). It would appear that military medals, as a subject, are not very well developed on that Wikipedia. EricSerge (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps that award is not yet viably notable. The fact that the military dispenses it does not make it notable, but discussion in the required sorts of sources would. If these do not exist, then notability it does not have... Yes? KDS4444 (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An honour like this is obviously notable. We have articles on even minor service medals. Ridiculous nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Nothing is clear. Or obvious. Keep the ridicule to yourself. Give me multiple non-trivial instances of discussion in reliable independent sources instead. Do you have any? Does anyone? These assertions of notability are not usually enough to be considered notable (per wp:ITSNOTABLE). Thanks, dude. KDS4444 (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly think a medal like this would be deleted if it was British or American? Do you honestly think deletion is doing a service to Wikipedia or its readers? As I said, ridiculous nomination. Common sense applies here. Oh, and by the way, calling me a pompous dick on my talkpage is immensely mature. Well done! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to my nomination as ridiculous in the first place is immensely immature. Touché. And what I "honestly think" has no bearing here. Neither does what you "honestly think." Last time I checked. As for "common sense", see WP:COMMONSENSE, paragraph "There is no common sense." Oh, and by the way, I thanked you for not being a pompous dick... Didn't you read the message?? (Oooo... I so dislike it when I leave users messages that they do not read!). KDS4444 (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination - KDS4444 (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirected by nominator and page creator per their rationale. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 15:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hypericum species in Adenotrias[edit]

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

Not needed anymore. List of Hypericum species covers this topic. I am the creator of the page and probably the only editor, so I doubt there will be any conflict. Other lists almost identical to this were also deleted without opposition. Thanks Fritzmann2002 19:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but List of Hypericum species#Adenotrias doesn't list these species yet. In any event, you don't need AFD to merge and redirect. postdlf (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct; it does not list them as of yet. The previous list was incomplete; I sorted it by section to easier find missing species. It'll be a long process, but I'm working on finding and moving those species. Also, my apologies, but I've been off Wikipedia for a few months, and I'm not quite sure how to properly redirect and close the page. Fritzmann2002 12:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just replace the content of the page with #REDIRECT [[List of Hypericum species#Adenotrias]]. See WP:REDIRECT for a full explanation. postdlf (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Nordic Nightfury 08:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sports engineering[edit]

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

An incomplete article, Article fails to qualify minimum requirement at WP:NSPORT, Nor meets criteria of WP:REF. The article doesn't show exemplary of Sports Engineering, Ideally, it falls under the degree of "Engineer".

I call upon Wikipedians to decide whether this article should be kept for further development or removed. Kindly concentrate your opinion and decide the vote. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 18:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not clear to me what the rationale is for this AFD. It's a stub, but the two references seem to show prima facie encyclopedic usefulness for the term. What's the actual problem? - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - If there exists a journal dedicated to the subject, with a reputed editorial board, then surely it must meet Wikipedia standards. ISSN 1369-7072 I didn't bother to look for more sources, which I'm sure there are plenty. - NQ (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, as no valid reason for deletion has been stated. Very nearly all of our articles are incomplete, WP:NSPORT says nothing relevant to this topic, the article cites sources per WP:REF and the rest of the nomination statement is equally devoid of any valid reasoning. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the reasons given by 86.17.222.157, who puts the matter well. Andrew D. (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per above. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a stub, but prima facie encyclopedic and not actually useless (I came away knowing more than I started) - David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - great idea for an article. Sole Flounder (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NSPORT - or how do you play golf with out a ball at a major tournament. Agathoclea (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, this is an established field of sports (just like, for example, sports medicine), universities study it, there are firms and people who specialise in it, books are written about it, journals specialise in it (here is another one in addition to the one mentioned above Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, organisations that represent it, and so on and so on, we could probably have a taskforce/workgroup or even a whole project dedicated to this .. if only we had more editors(sigh) Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn with no delete !votes (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 19:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Virginia Breeze[edit]

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

~~Non-notable, stub, only 2 sources. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strong keep The song was named by the state as the "Popular State Song" [18] which would establish it's notability. Page could use some expanding, but it's definitely notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: CSD G7. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Farkas[edit]

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

Here's a case where a musician was a member of several bands yet fails WP:GNG. In the supplied references, only one has more than a brief mention and I can't find any better sourcing. Perhaps other can, otherwise delete. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of podcasts that all have Larry Farkas, as well as Doug Thieme, Glen Mancaruso, and Roger Dale Martin of Vengeance Rising and Die Happy, so they cover all those bands plus Farkas mentions being in Deliverance for a brief time so there's another one. These podcasts were done in 2000, pre-Once Dead or any of these guest appearances. The only band not mentioned was Sircle of Silence which seems like a short-lived project. Metalworker14 (Yo) 9:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

So he's a guest on obscure podcasts. Interesting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I have found reliable sources for Farkas and maybe even the other members of Vengeance Rising/Die Happy/Once Dead etc. I just figured Farkas was the most notable out of all of them. These references are interviews and there are a few other sources that talk about him more than just briefly. Metalworker14 (Yo) 12:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 05:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abaana[edit]

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

No assertion of notability; no citations or references; originally created by a closely-related author (Abaana (talk · contribs)). Vectro (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page has already been deleted twice. Vectro (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. Content is strictly advertorial, no indications of significance and no independent sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits on Google News that appear related to the charity. Doesn't pass the bar of WP:ORG. A Train^talk 17:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra Norman-Bellamy[edit]

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

Desire to have page rebuilt with updated information including author name change. Attempts to redirect have failed. Need a fresh page. KendraB (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Kendra Norman-Bellamy Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendra Norman-Bellamy[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 August 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First of all, the nominator does not appear to want this article deleted, so it probably should not have been brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Second, if this page is supposed to be moved, what title should it be moved to? Third, and incidentally, is the nominator User:KendraB the same person that this article is about? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the nom probably intended to use WP:RM, all facts suggest that this is nothing more than a poorly sourced autobiography of a non-notable writer that ought to be considered for deletion. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No matter how it landed here, sources exist to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rewrote a bit of article, sourced to a moving profile in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, her books sell, there is more coverage in mainstream sources. This is a very simple AFD about a notable writer that needs a rewrite and better sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with E.M.Gregory. In addition, on EBSCO there are a number of reviews of her work in RS. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellerbeck Peak[edit]

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

the article contains only a few sentences of unscourced, unneeded description. article has been a stub since 2007, and no effort has been made to resolve the issue. Wasabi,the,one (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a significant geographic feature that, if it was in the developed world, would have plenty of sources and ancillary information. The lack of amplified content is almost certainly down to its remote location on an unpopulated continent. This has one reputable source. The facts are not in contention. It is not promotional. I see no reason to delete. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND, as a "Named natural features", the article with "information beyond statistics and coordinates", this and this are books that could be used to provide further information/references for the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject meets GEOLAND and is reliably sourced. This appears to be at the least a clear failure of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator. I think this nomination was Dead on Arrival and Suggest Speedy Close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. This is notable and shouldn't have ever been nominated. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:LadyofShalott per WP:G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://insfers.wordpress.com/, https://insfers.wordpress.com/about/". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Insfers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no claim of significance per WP:CCS and written like an advertisement. Ayub407^talk 17:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traders Securities[edit]

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

CSD A7, also no sources. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Does not meet the standards for corp. stand alone article. No RS citing; no independent notability. Kierzek (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable with empty sections. User:Andertonian —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 BethNaught (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lifenotlabs.com[edit]

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

Not notable, stub. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:A7, article about a website that "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". --McGeddon (talk) 17:00, 30 August 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 August 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Another which does not meet the standards for stand alone article. No RS citing; no independent notability. Kierzek (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted per WP:G12, Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.innovativepercussion.com/about_us. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Percussion, Inc.[edit]

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

Badly formatted, only 1 footnote, copyvio. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article speedy deleted per A7. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 22:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambanpola Gnanawijaya Thero[edit]

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

Substub, non-notable, unsourced, CSD A7. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as a one-sentence "is a monk born in a year", article was already flagged as such 40 minutes prior to this AfD. @KATMAKROFAN: "CSD A7" means that the article can be speedily deleted immediately and that there is no need to take up editors' time with a full AfD discussion. --McGeddon (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Clearly this does NOT need to go to AfD. Can go either under CSD G3 or G10. Non admin close. Safiel (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caddy Time[edit]

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

Appears to be an attack page. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you think it's an attack page, why are you talking it to AfD and not tagging it G10? Adam9007 (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article speedy deleted under A7. Furthermore, KATMAKROFAN, please see WP:CSD. Some articles, like this one, don't need to go to AfD; you can just tag an article with the appropriate CSD tag without filing an AfD. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 22:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar Lal[edit]

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

Patent nonsense. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. There's really no need for an AfD. Sjö (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10ngah[edit]

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

Stub, CSD A7 and G11, only 4 sources. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 05:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RSIBreak[edit]

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

Advert of nonnotable piece of software. Tagged/ not improved since 2010 Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, needs more than one passing mention in a list article - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:N. This source provides decent coverage, but additional source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:G11 and WP:A7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DivideBuy[edit]

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

CSD G11, also non-notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per G11, also to the nominator an AfD wasn't needed just yet, as the tag was removed by the author of the page and then replaced. This is a case where the CSD should still be used, and a warning placed on the author's page regarding the removal of the CSD tag. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam and blatant copyright violation from subject's website. 2601:188:1:AEA0:812A:2F3:B296:2BC4 (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 05:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gajendra Singh Ahlawat[edit]

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

"Significant coverage" is violated. No RS has detailed info; only passing references in news articles. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no notability.17:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs)
For the benefit of those of us who don't read Hindi, which I guess is the language of the non-English sources, could someone give a quick summary of what, if anything, those sources say about the subject? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor leader who is being "pushed" on various articles here seemingly to promote him. The sources are very thin. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 05:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amaxophobia[edit]

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

No WP:MEDRS references. despite being tagged for refs since 2014 Staszek Lem (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the lack of any sources and the lack of anything in searches strongly suggests this is either a hoax or simply an invention. It has no place here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Srleffler (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - indeed a pubmed search yields nothing see? Just fun with greek. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 05:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amirul waizeen[edit]

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

Unsourced, reads like a resume. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete unrefr. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands, completely uncited WP:BLP (quite apart from it being clearly a CV). He could be noteworthy, I await the RSes ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - nothing of note —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy because this thing doesn't have a single proper citation and is terribly written. There's also something curious about the three contributing editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a summary of one lecture is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreferenced BLP (and no, Facebook and yer personal Wordpress blog do not count as reliable sources). I must say, with phrases like "charismatic, prominent, famous, fiery, gifted, amazing, great, excellent", this page is a perfect example of WP:PEACOCK. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xwrits[edit]

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

Article is about a minor linux utility. Kept at AfD almost ten years ago, but has been tagged for notability for three years. I procedurally declined PROD, but I think it is worth taking this back into AfD to resolve notability once and for all. I personally think this falls short of WP:NSOFTWARE. Safiel (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

del no notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My bad as prodder; I don't know how I missed the "This article may have been previously nominated for deletion" notice. Anyway, delete on the complete absence, via Google, of independent RS offering significant coverage. —swpb^T 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands unless someone turns up refs - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization Partners[edit]

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

May be WP:TOOSOON for this company. Currently fails WP:NCORP as written, only source is essentially a self-interview with Inc. and the only additional RS I could find was a Boston Globe story on the Inc. listing. Username of article author is a possible COI. shoy (reactions) 15:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 05:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Abbas Holocaust Denial[edit]

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

The page is an opinion piece that lacks reliable sources and contains no encyclopaedic information. Violates WP:NOR, WP:NOTBLOG and WP:ATP. --Nazeer (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is not encyclopedic content; it has no RS sources and suffers from WP:fringe and WP:OR problems. Kierzek (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. A wholly unreferenced essay possibly consisting entirely of original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedic article; just propaganda. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been speedily deleted instead of coming here. The article creator started this article after being prevent by an Arbitration Committee ruling from adding the same material to The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism. This new article is also a violation of the same ruling and I believe that any admin is entitled to delete it immediately. Even me, though I'd prefer not to on account of being "involved". Zero^talk 03:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. I suppose it's remotely possible that a genuinely encyclopedic article could be written about this topic, but it would have to be based on a diverse pool of reliable source coverage about the topic and not just on one YouTube video by an academic with a vested interest. And it would have to address the topic in a neutral point of view, which this does not. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The real question is whether Mahmoud Abbas is guilty of Holocaust denial. This article is currently an unreferenced orphan. It has the feel of an ATTACK article to me, apparently based on the POV of one Jewish academic. If (but only if) it can be substantiated, it ought to be merged into the bio-article on him. If (as I suspect is the case) it cannot be, it must be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is already present in the main article on him as well as in the article on his book. Zero^talk 23:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Easter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Inadequate evidence of notability. Only one of the references cited is currently accessible, and that one has no "significant discussion". Maproom (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any WP:RS that talk about him in any depth. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, no evidence of prima facie passing notability and no good sources for this BLP - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is an interesting one because Easter does have some real form as a writer and an impressive CV. He was the main writer for Steve Wright's radio shows for more than a decade, coming up with most of the comedy characters on the award-winning Steve Wright in the Afternoon show on BBC Radio 1 and then later on when Wright moved to Radio 2. He then moved into TV scripts: he was Chris Tarrant's original scriptwriter for Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? when it began in 1998, and went on to write for You've Been Framed!, The Voice UK and many other mainstream light entertainment shows on primetime TV in the UK. All of which makes it quite surprising that we are struggling to find independent sources for an article on him, because he certainly isn't a nobody. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of people you'd think should be article worthy, it turns out we couldn't have an article unless we did the OR for it - David Gerard (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Metroidvania games[edit]

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

Per this discussion, there was no consensus to split this list off to its own page. The one person who was in favor of a split ended up changing his mind through the discussion (but didn't strike though his position). All the history is preserved at Metroidvania. The conclusion of the discussion was that "Metroidvania" is an impossibly vague term and it's not Wikipedia's place to define it strictly through this list. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the nom's principle and the past discussion linked - the full list of every possible game in a genre is just not feasible. I only note that there is a significant contribution from one editor beyond the split that we might want to consider a history merge at deletion just to retain those contribution. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a whole list of Category:Video game lists by genre, are you suggesting that all of them should go also, or that "Metroidvania" is inherently a more difficult thing to categorize? I'm not sure that I buy that argument, especially if there is WP:RS backup for each listing. shoy (reactions) 15:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I do argue that Metroidvania is a more difficult thing to categorize and that conclusion falls out of the linked discussion. "First person shooter", as a genre, has a set of necessary and sufficient characteristics. It is a game with a viewpoint from the first person. Shooting, of a sort, occurs. While there are games on the periphery that are more challenging to place, it's generally very cut and dry. For "Metroidvania", even the most confident of taxonomists (Szczepaniak, Parish) show considerable variation in their definitions and most sources that make reference to the concept use it in a casual, informal way, intentionally leaving the term ill-defined. In 20 years since the premiere of Symphony of the Night, the world of game criticism hasn't settled on a set of necessary and sufficient criteria to define the "genre" (sneer quotes). Its actual usage is that of evoking a feeling, not describing a trait/quality. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Axem Titanium: But basically every item in the list is sourced to an WP:RS already that calls it a Metroidvania game (or equivalent language). We're after verifiability, not truth here; it's not up to us to categorize the games. shoy (reactions) 18:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even in the face of VNT, I think it's disingenuous to present all instances of a term that is KNOWN to be vague as having equal weight. Most RS use it in an extremely casual way which has the effect of making the term's meaning so broad as to be no longer useful for categorization. If everything can be construed as a Metroidvania, then nothing is. It does the reader a disservice. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that "Metroidvania" is simply not a "vague" categorization. It has been agreed upon by the gaming press that Metroidvania is a genre unto itself, and it has been mentioned countless times in reviews, etc. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that Category:Video game lists by genre exists, the Metroidvania list deserves its own page. In addition, it clogs up the Metroidvania article and clearly some work went into the list, but it doesn't seem right to include in the main article itself due to its massive length.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Axem Titanium nicely explained, "Metroidvania" isn't a genre, and I'd move that it no longer be described as such on the Metroidvania article. The fact that the term is used "countless times" in reliable sources doesn't mean it is a genre, anymore than "Blast-a-thon" or "Shovelware" are genres. Sum point, we have no commonly agreed upon standards for inclusion in a list of Metroidvania games, making it inappropriate for Wikipedia. The content can easily be moved to other places on the web (Encyclopedia Gamia, for one).--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a useful list for an encyclopedia due to a host of problems, among them being the wide variation in definitions (including the name itself--many sources uses phrases like "Metroid-style" and other such terms interchangeably with "Metroidvania"), the informality with which the term tends to be used (i.e., it tends to be used to evoke a feeling, rather than actually describe the game), the lack of articles by anyone other than Jeremy Parish or John Sczcepaniak that attempt to chronicle the genre (rather than using it ad-hoc in reference to a specific game or two, as the vast majority of sources do), the recency of the term's proliferation resulting in a severe bias toward recent games, and the disagreement over whether the "genre" is actually a genre or not. I'm doubtful even of the main article's relevance to Wikipedia, let alone a list of such games. Phediuk (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as I'll even note he was notable alone with the named professorship at MIT (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Strano[edit]

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

This article lacks independent sources to establish notability. That may be down to the author's inexperience (he has no other contributions here before or since creating this article) but it looks more like a simple WP:PROF failure. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strano holds a named chair at MIT and therefore should be a snow keep per WP:PROF#C5. The article also lists a number of awards which would probably meet WP:PROF#C2. Joe Roe (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The awards seem of the young investigator type which count little towards meeting the guidelines, but MIT chair & Thomson Reuter highly cited (which checks out [19]) clearly meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, subject meets notability criteria in WP:PROF. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The honors and awards section of our article appears to be a copy and paste from his web site, and that should be fixed. But the named chair is a clear pass of WP:PROF, as is his citation record (e.g. 6 papers with over 1000 citations each on Google scholar; were they 10x less I'd still think this a pass). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF is a guide to people likely to be notable, according to the Wikipedia definition (i.e. having been subject of non-trivial indepndent coverage). Do feel free to add that coverage. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It "is a generally accepted standard", not merely a hint towards some other kind of notability, and the standard you used in your nomination statement. Also, even if we were considering a different coverage-based notability standard, the coverage would not be limited to what's already listed in the article. I can't "add to that coverage" because, to do so, I would have to be an independent reliable publisher, not a Wikipedia editor. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find this a baffling comment coming from an administrator, but it perhaps explains your recent spate of nominations of notable academics. WP:PROF states:

This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.

And from the GNG:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right [which includes WP:PROF]

We have a subject-specific guideline precisely because academics frequently don't meet the "Wikipedia definition" of notability (really just one of Wikipedia's definitions) – because people don't tend to write about the even when their contribution to scholarship makes them notable by any reasonable definition of the word. Joe Roe (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a pass of WP:PROF C1, C3, and C5. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Consolidation bill. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating act[edit]

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

An unremarkable law. 333 -blue 12:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~(see below) per this, this, etc. This is not a law, but a type of law. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the comments of my IP-based colleague immediately above. It is a type of law, subject to a fast-path enactment process in Parliament, and discussed in more than one source. I updated the article a bit to make this a little more clear. TJRC (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, Redirect to Consolidation bill. Turns out we already have an article on this subject, in far more detail than provided in the article under discussion here. TJRC (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that an older article on the same topic, Consolidation Acts, was merged and redirected to Consolidation bill two months ago. TJRC (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per TJRC. Well spotted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 00:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas D. Taylor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Frankly, this reads as a WP:COATRACK. It was originally apparently a promotional article, but by now all the puff has gone and we're just left with a minor controversy and the fact that he's in bed with OMICS Group, the fraudulent academic publishing house. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the judgment of previous reviews can be trusted, and there was full knowledge of material to be removed in the 2nd nomination. The subject is lightly notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The judgment of previous debates was: meh (no consensus) followed by, too soon after the last debate. Since then, no substantive sources have been added. Which is the problem. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even with the fluff removed, the subject still is notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the controversial material, which was a blatant violation of WP:BLP. Predatory journals frequently list academics on their 'editorial boards' without their consent or knowledge, and other than that there was no source to back up the claim that Taylor is/was actually involved with OMICs. The retraction is due to dodgy figures in a multi-authored paper, so a very minor controversy indeed, and the only source we had for it was the blog Retraction Watch. With that gone, there isn't much of the article left. Joe Roe (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's apparently no "blatant" violation of WP:BLP in what was removed. I have restored the material for now. I'd like to see a link to something that explains how predatory journals frequently list academics on their editorial boards. That part of the content may be of little note anyway. As for the "minor controversy", it appears to have enough weight for the mention it receives, but I'm open to discussion on the article's talk page. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have re-removed the part about the predatory journal due to lack of secondary RS sourcing, and I doubt there would be any for that. For the remainder, there is enough evidence that the retraction occurred. It's just a matter of research to see how much weight that carried in reliable sources. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Continued at Talk:Douglas D. Taylor#Removal of contentious material per BLP). Joe Roe (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject's citations according to Google Scholar appear to satisfy WP:PROF. I see no problem with including the retraction, though it's a shame the details are paywalled, but as the subject (per previous AfD) has denied involvement with the OMICS journal, that part should definitely be removed. What is really needed is more information about his undoudtedly notable research, but AfD rarely results in such improvements. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed that part per lack of secondary, reliable sourcing. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the previous AfDs, Taylor held a full professorship, is highly cited, and has received extensive coverage as the discoverer of exosomes, so is clearly a notable academic. The article is a bit coatracky right now, but that's a reason to re-add some well-sourced biographical material, not delete it. Joe Roe (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To that regard I started by adding one of the discoveries related to exosomes that was published in the journal Gynecologic Oncology. Just performing a Google Scholar search turns up a number of hits. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I appear to have been the sole delete commenter in the two previous AfDs, based on WP:BLP issues regarding the quality of sourcing of negative material in the article. I now believe that the retraction is covered at an appropriate level of detail and an appropriate quality of sourcing. Also, his association with OMICS seems to be covered only by OMICS-affiliated sources, was only at the level of editorial board membership, and (though dubious) does not rise to the level of academic misconduct; I agree with its removal from the article. So I think the negative material is now handled appropriately. Otherwise, his citation record gives him a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even if WP:CSD#A11 doesn't apply, WP:CSD#A7 clearly does. postdlf (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EarthVision 10[edit]

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

Non-notable online fan music contest. No coverage in independent, reliable sources. Kolbasz (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't even understand from the "official" website (a blog page) how this "competition" works – the participants (whoever they are) just pick ANY song by an artist from a "participating" country and vote whether they like it or not? How is the competition hosted in different countries if none of the "participating artists" are actually singing live? Richard3120 (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is something made up by the author as "a thing" for lack of a better term. It's not notable in the least. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete plain spam for a facebook-hobby The Banner talk 09:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 given that the nomination is itself saying this is private university, but not actually considering the fact it's a degree-awarding school hence notable as an overwhelming number of nominations have shown (for example, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools, "...independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept...except when zero sources show it exists). The nomination is simply basing it from WP:GNG alone and that the sources are unsatisfactory, but in fact, for schools such as universities, a school website is at least enough to confirm degree-awarding status hence notable. There's nothing else suggesting this would need deletion otherwise (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Polytechnical University[edit]

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

Private university with no independent sources. All references are directories or press releases, nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution as per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 05:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nene derby[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting of debate that got caught up in a bit of an unfocussed and inconclusive debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A62 derby.

I can't find any decent evidence that this derby is notable, and none is provided in the article. The rivalry may well exist (that is not being contested) but there is not sufficient non-routine documentation of it to pass the general notability guidelines. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a quick search of the internet doesn't seem to bring up much at all; no evidence that the article can pass WP:GNG Spiderone 06:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:NRIVALRY failure, proximity of clubs and the fact they have played does not inherently create rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I've gone ahead and deleted this under WP:CSD#G11, so this discussion is now moot.. Vanamonde (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PSTS Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Not much verifiable sources exist. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage, fails NCOMP. We are not Yellow Pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No RS on search. Maybe the full name of the company or sources in Tamil would help? shoy (reactions) 15:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:DIRECTORY. The article's content is strictly advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

60 seconds![edit]

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

Non-notable video game. I can't find any reliable references for the topic. Metacritic is useless. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only immediately find 3 sources, one a press release, one a very very brief "this game exists" article at Kotaku AU, and then a blog written by the developers but posted at Gamasutra. While the latter is a prime source we'd want to use, that really seems to be the only source of any significant content that we'd pull from, and there is otherwise a lack of 3rd party sourcing, so GNG is unfortunately not met. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several reviews by searching the tag "60 Seconds Robot Gentleman", and the game was selected as a pick for IndieCade in 2015. Definitely a notable game. Should be moved to 60 Seconds!--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Could you please link these references? By searching using the query you used, here's what I found: Gamasutra written by the dev, official websites (Steam, Twitter, FB, official, etc), and the Wikia. It was a finalist at IndieCade 2015 according to the Steam page, but there is a lack of third-party references for this; not even the IndieCade page says they were a finalist. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indiecade Page Kotaku Mention Review 1 Review 2 Review 3 Review 4 Review 5 Review 6 Review 7 Although I am not sure how notable the review sources are, but it did get a Kotaku mention which is a bit more major.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: I mentioned the IndieCade page in my message, and nowhere does it give any indication that the game won/became a finalist. The Kotaku page is a good start, but it's pretty much a "well this game is a thing". Check out WP:VG/S for reliable video game sources. Review 1 isn't listed, Epic Brew isn't listed but looks like an unreliable blog; Gamemoir isn't listed and is probably an unreliable blog (hosted of Wordpress, for a start); Sirus Gaming isn't listed and I'm not sure of the reliability; Riot Games is not in English, so I don't know about that site; I don't know about the reliability of Guns and Pixels and it isn't listed on WPVGS; same with ModVive- unsure. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant references. Some references to say it exists, but WP:ITEXISTS isn't enough to keep. Smartyllama (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 00:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of National Defense Service[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this medal, sources are official pages, not independent ones. Fram (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. We do not have Wikipedia:Notability (awards), Wikipedia:Notability (military) do not cover medals, and any coverage of this seems to be in Chinese only. That said, I think there is a presumed notability extended to ALL military awards; through I know well WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid argument, there are numerous awards about military medals and awards that have similarly no refs but primary ones. I will in fact ping MILHIST project, because I think we need to add a section about military awards to NMIL SNP. Anyway, in my opinon any military medal or award that has been recognized by the state is notable because it is significant in its field. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an award given automatically if you stay in the army for long enough. It doesn't indicate bravery, having fought in noteworthy battles, or anything else. That your employer gives you a token recognition for staying with the company for X years is not uncommon at all. I fail to see why such a medal would be in any way notable, even if it is "recognized by the state" (which is in most countries the employer of the soldiers in the first place). Why would this be "significant in its field"? Fram (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And of course, for everything that doesn't have a SNG, the GNG applies, not some presumed notability. Fram (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. Now, may I suggest you nominate Army Service Ribbon for deletion? The article's sources are no better, but I think the discussion would attract more editors than this one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I agree that this could probably use a good robust policy discussion. I would not want to see this article deleted on the basis of the absence of such a policy, in the case that there is general agreement that such a policy should be discussed, and likely (to some extent) developed. TimothyJosephWood 14:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we really need policies for all kind of articles specifically? The same was asked (by other people) at a recent AfD I started for a beauty pageant as well. We have a GNG which should apply to all articles, SNG are way too often a method to lower the bar for a certain type of article preferred by some group (a Wikiproject usually) which would otherwise have trouble meeting the GNG requirements. Basically, "keep because we don't have a policy for these" is simply an invalid reason, we have a policy (well, a guideline, all these notability rules are guidelines) and no good reason not to apply it here. Fram (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say the WP:NEXIST of this article in particular will be difficult to judge without input from someone who speaks the language.

Otherwise, I'm not suggesting a lowering of the bar so much as I think the bar, on these types of subjects, might not fit into a neat continuum. Looking at the US Army, with which I'm most familiar, the singularly important source re awards is AR 600–8–22, coverage elsewhere is just icing on the cake, and a lot of the sources you may find (armystudyguide etc.) I would expect to be mostly copy/paste or minor rewording of the official regulation.

Looking at the example above of the ASR, the award itself is not for outstanding actions, but the fact that it's going to be relevant to basically every notable soldier in the past 30 years, makes it seem a lot like understanding that award is going to be somewhat important in understanding all those individuals. TimothyJosephWood 14:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to discuss other articles at this AfD, as that only muddies the water in general. But in any case, the main source you give is a very fine one to use once notability has been established, but does absoluetly zero to establish that notability. And I doubt that the ASR is a notable aspect for any notable soldier of the last 30 years. It's like the certificate you get when you finish elementary school (well, in Belgium you get one, no idea if this happens in the US): almost every notable person will have it, but that doesn't mean that the certificate is notable or relevant for them. Fram (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right that we're getting well off topic. A discussion has been started at MilHist. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge From a quick look over of this discussion it sounds like 2 seperate policies are being conflated. A) The notability and suitability of the existence of this article on wikipedia, & B) does having this award confer notability on the recipient. "B" definately is a big no. However, "A" is what the discussion should be limited to. As to that, I can't read chinese so I can't assess the sources, but it sounds like it should either be kept or merged into another more general article on awards of the PLA (if such exists). cheers, Gecko G (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have numerous articles on medals and it is reasonable to have articles on them, since they are awarded to many people and are therefore notable. The thought of an American or British service medal being deleted would be laughable, so this is clearly a case of WP:SYSTEMIC. Nothing wrong with such articles being sourced from official websites. In what possible way is deleting articles on such topics doing a service to Wikipedia? This is not spam or someone's mate, local club or street. This is a medal given to many people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Any chance that you can use the Wikipedia definition of "notable" instead of your own? "they are awarded to many people and are therefore notable." squarely falls outside our notability reasons. Many non-soldiers get similar medals after 25 years of work or something similar, but we don't have articles on most of those. Oh no, systemic pro-military bias! Or perhaps I just nominated this one because I came across it during the Google translated articles cleanup process. I have nominated for deletion a British police force unit recently (it got redirected in the end), so using SYSTEMIC in your keep is a badly misguided attempt to poison the well. Usually, the more restrictive a medal is, the more notable it also is, not the other way around as you seem to claim here. Fram (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As has already been pointed out, do you really think Army Service Ribbon would ever be deleted? That's systemic bias summarised for you! And as for notability, why do you think this medal is non-notable? You don't actually really say. Apparently because you think it's non-notable. We think it isn't. Please don't attempt to claim that your opinion has any more validity than those who disagree with you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Since there are some sources about it (like [20] or [21]) it would probably not be deleted no (although if these are the best, it would hardly qualify as notable anyway). A merge would be the best (there isn't that much that one can say about it), but I can imagine that there are too many people who believe that everything to do with the military and/or the US government is notable and deserves a separate article. That we may have an incorrect pro-US bias should not be "corrected" by loosening the rules for other topics as well, but by educating those biased editors. Fram (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for the notability of the topic up for deletion, it is not up to me to prove a negative, it is up to you (plural) to prove the positive, i.e. that there are independent reliable sources with some indepth coverage of this. What you think is of no concern, what you show is what counts. Fram (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Playing the devil's advocate, I think Fram has the policy behind him: those medals fail GNG. At the same time, we seem to have a consensus here that they should be notable, so it is time for discussing some form of notability guideline for awards. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I am, however, somewhat tired of editors who do not appear to be able to apply basic common sense to AfD nominations. Wikipedia works on discussion, consensus and common sense, not on bureaucratic, unbending "rules" that must be applied no matter what, even if it is to the detriment of the project. And deleting an article on an award made by a major sovereign state to members of its armed forces clearly is to the detriment of the project. It's certainly not in any way to its benefit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to disagree on that then, as I don't see anything detrimental in this deletion. For me it's basic common sense that if something has not been the subject of independent reliable sources, then it doesn't belong here: we should never be the first unrelated entity to give significant attention to anything, as we are not a secondary but a tertiary source. Your common sense is "this should get attention", mine is "it hasn't received attention". Changing the scope of the project to include more things is imo much more detrimental than excluding a few things but maintaining the scope, the basic purpose of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Through over the years I keep moving closer to the deletionist camp, and I see where you are coming from Fram, I'll point out that we have numerous exceptions for "if something has not been the subject of independent reliable sources, then it doesn't belong here". For example, numerous biographies are considered notable due to the virtue of positions (politicians) or being "significant in their field" (scholars with high citation count) or winning games (sportspeople) or being popular (musicians) even if nobody wrote a single in-depth news piece about them. Outside biogs, we assume notability for most vehicle models (cars, planes, etc.) without in-depth coverage, an entry in some vehicle alamanc is sufficient (my personal gripe there, but hey, that's consensus I failed to overturn), and I am sure we can list a ton of similar ideas. So bottom line, lack of coverage for some subjects with majority of editors considers "commonsenscal" is fine for notability, and I think government-issued medals and awards qualify here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I posted on WikiProject:China to see if we can get some native speakers who might be able to comment on the reliability and depth of coverage in foreign language sources. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Fram (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good! If kept, the article definitely needs help to be improved. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. JAGUAR 16:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Any evidence for this? Fram (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two of the articles references are dead, so archiving the links reveal them to be decent sources. The first one looks like a reliable secondary source, whereas the second (non-dead) link looks like it's a primary source which doesn't hinder its validity. The third link (which I archived) gives out a load of information about the medals, including their history and how they are awarded. It's enough to warrant an expansion. JAGUAR 14:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely no one on Wikipedia is more critical than me of categorizing biography articles based on automatic awards. (Think that's an empty boast?: take a look at all my recent nominations of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals). But, I agree with @Gecko G: here: this nomination is conflating WP:NOTABILITY in the article space with how WP:DEFINING in the category space. Put another way, just because this medal isn't defining for the recipients who receive it, doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on the award itself.RevelationDirect (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Human Kinetics (publisher)[edit]

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

This advertorial lacks substantive sources. It has been tagged with serious issues for years with no resolution (and none apparently possible). Virtually all substantive content is by a small number of WP:SPAs. While it has superficial referenciness, the references themselves are press releases, namechecks, product listings or directories. None of the purported sources establishes notability per WP:GNG, none of them amounts to any independent article about this subject. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:WEBHOST. With sections such as "Corporate responsibility initiatives" one knows that this unambiguous advertising. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and this is another case where I would consider speedy, only complete PR is listed and nothing is convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Knight[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. This source provides some minor coverage, but it's routine about the horse's performance in a race, and additional source searches are only providing passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not close to meeting WP:NHORSERACING, which requires winning a group level race.Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; a vanity page for an unremarkable horse. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A10 Speedy delete by Maile66. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 08:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiConference[edit]

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

No sources, not really something that notable, could be redirected to another page discussing what the conferences are. Andise1 (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per recommendation in WP:CNR, although if not, Wikipedia:WikiCon is a viable redirect target. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia community#Socializing -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a separate lowercase redirect to Wikipedia community#Socializing would be better. Widefox; talk 22:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joox (music streaming)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This music streaming company/service does not appear to satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. I just closed the first AfD as no consensus for lack of participation and will try again. Safiel (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete - may be a WP:TOOSOON. I see the following minor but proper coverage [22][23] and a few that look like articles but read like press releases. I'm willing to be convinced ... - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I planned to comment at the 1st AfD but have been unavailable recently; none of this actually comes close to both independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability nor significant RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Joven[edit]

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is nothing in this disambiguation that could justify its existence. All the results are partial, and excepting, maybe, Joven Clarke, none is simply known as Joven. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 05:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've made substantial changes, making this a {dab|given name|surname} page. Tequila was clearly a valid entry and numerous given name and surname mentions throghout Wikipedia. Also a word that is easily misspelt, so added a useful see also section. Numerous valid entries now, located using dabfix. No benefit to readers if deleted; can help them find what they are looking for. Do the changes convince you to withdraw the nomination Tbhotch, or do you still think the page doesn't meet guidelines? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lexprompt WRITE[edit]

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

There is absolutely no credible claim of significance for this software. But it is technically not eligible for A7, so sending it to AFD. A previous draft Draft:Lexprompt WRITE was declined at AFC. I am unable to find any significant coverage in reliable independent sources. This is simply a plug-in for MS Word which has been recently launched. WP:TOOSOON and clearly not notable at this point. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, no claim of significance. Ayub407^talk 14:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I frankly am nearly speedying as G11, it's blatant PR but I would also not be surprised if we'll need G4 in the future. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as discussed. If the company in the future, say, does more product, or appears in more in-depth coverage, maybe company might be notable. But not every app. W Nowicki (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Euryalus (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New challenge arts and sports club[edit]

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

Non-notable (A7), no sources, and appears promotional. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article was speedy deleted for blatant advertising per G11. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision 2016 Family Travel[edit]

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

Does not cite any sources, notability questionable, wrong language in large parts. (No apparent relation to Eurovision Song Contest 2016.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: unless the editor Gregjarlot can convince us otherwise, this looks like it's simply the itinerary of his family holiday, done up in a style that makes it look like it's an international contest. It's certainly nothing to do with the Eurovision Song Contest. Richard3120 (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of American children's television series (Q–Z)[edit]

These pages are unsourced lists that should really be done as categories, NOT as list pages. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All – These qualify as articles per WP:NOTDUP relative to respective associated categories (e.g. Category:American children's television series, Category:Australian children's television series, etc). The articles are also functional navigational aids per WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one editor contributing and maintaining these pages; we have a category system for a reason, so that when these 'list of' pages are inevitably abandoned when the editor loses interest, the category system will keep things up to date and nicely organized. These lists (especially in the US) will never be comprehensive and complete. Nate • (chatter) 04:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While strictly speaking it's true that categories and lists are not automatically deemed to duplicate each other, but rather are allowed to coexist in some circumstances, it's also true that not every category needs to have a directly matching list of the same topics — and I'm not seeing any strong reason why these categories need their own standalone matching lists. Given that the categories are split out by nationality but a user might sometimes not actually know what nationality to check when looking for a particular show, a "one-stop shopping" list of all children's television series — List of children's television series, although admittedly it needs major reorganization too — is a valuable complement to the tree, but each individual national subcategory does not need its own standalone set of proprietary lists separate from the general one. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rowena Sánchez Arrieta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as [24] (translated article) and [25]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources include in-depth here and in-depth here and a mention here and in-depth here she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Meets WP:BASIC: [26], [27] (long articles with in-depth coverage), [28] (5 ¶). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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" is disregarded for advancing no argument. Sandstein 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J8ded[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as [29], [30]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence whatever of notability. No independent sources cited at all, and little of value found on searching. (The previous discussion was closed by a non-administrator as "no consensus", but it was close to a consensus to delete, with the only editor arguing for "keep" using such weak arguments as number of Google hits, and citing very minor coverage, amounting to passing mentions, which did little to suggest notability.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CouplandForever (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CouplandForever, the administrator closing this discussion should completely disregard someone who just says "keep" without giving any reason. A deletion discussion is not a vote: see WP:NOREASON. If you think there are good reasons for keeping the article, you need to say what those reasons are, so that they can be taken into consideration. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per WP:PROMO; an advertorial page and largely unreferenced. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 19:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upsilon Sigma Phi[edit]

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

Being "oldest" does not make it notable; having notable alumni does not make it notable; having existed under the reign of Ferdinand Marcos does not make it notable. Having been created by a WP:SPA [31] argues against its notability. What would make it notable would be non-trivial discussion of it in reliable independent secondary sources... Which appear not to exist. KDS4444 (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination , as interest level seems to be low. KDS4444 (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Orange Report[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. Several source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as [32], [33], [34], [35]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 30 August 2016

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Since sources on page are not dispositive, but political blogs can be notable, I ran a couple of searches, finding very little that supports notability. However, one thing I did find in a major newspaper does not look good: "Variations of the rumor have been perpetuated on Web sites that publish unsubstantiated rumors that the mainstream media won't touch. Among those that have mentioned the rumor are the Burnt Orange Report..." (this was a 2011 rumour that Governor Rick Perry was divorcing his wife [36] in the Austin American-Statesman.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Space Studios[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as [37], [38], [39]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:CORP. I'm not sure why the first AfD failed, seeing as the two keep arguments (one from the article's creator) were essentially "a famous album was recorded there, so the studio must be famous as well". Anyway, it looks very much as though the studio is now closed – the official website is dead, its Facebook and Twitter accounts haven't been updated since September 2014, the trading company appears to have been dissolved in November 2015, and its business address is currently up for sale or rent. So no chance of any future recordings adding to the studio's notability – there's really nothing else to say about the studio apart from the fact The Holy Bible was recorded there. Richard3120 (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find anything. Dissolved. Though something of this name appears to exist. Apparently the current or recent one isn't even the original faintly noteworthy one - David Gerard (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability and not available sources to meet GNG. Notability is not inherited from the famous bands that recorded there. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Briner[edit]

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

Funimation voice actor with some recent lead roles in Seraph of the End, Heavy Object and My Hero Academia. However, I cannot find any independent secondary source coverage. None of the above titles mentioned have notability on television, maybe Funimation subscription service at best, otherwise have to wait until the DVD maybe. ANN articles are all cast announcements. One appearance in anime conventions. WP:TOOSOON? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one anime convention. Therainbowsend (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very limited sources, possible future article if he keeps getting major roles, but not enough right now. Esw01407 (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator withdrew nomination.. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 08:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines School of Labor and Industrial Relations[edit]

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

~~Non-notable subunit of a university. Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.~~ KDS4444 (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination , will convert into a Redirect myself failing the appearance of any votes to Keep or Delete before closure. KDS4444 (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The article was speedy deleted by Acroterion per WP:G3. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chigamauga pruitt[edit]

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

Unsourced, possibly a hoax. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G3. Clearly hoax. Ueutyi (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator withdrew nomination.. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 08:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UP Circuit[edit]

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

Non-notable student organization of a university. Article's references are all primary ones generated by the organization itself or its university. No independent notability. Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. KDS4444 (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination for lack of interest, will convert to a Redirect if no consensus is formed otherwise before closure. KDS4444 (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. No outstanding delete !votes.. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 08:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines College Admission Test[edit]

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

This is a college admissions exam. It is not even a subunit of the university for which it exists, it is only a test to get into that university. No subject-specific guidelines exist for retaining this kind of article, and it does not meet WP:GNG on its own terms. KDS4444 (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is THE college admissions exam for THE national university of the Philippines, a system of constituent campuses. This is the only way into the most important university in the country (though arguably Ateneo de Manila is equally important) and determines not only admission, but which campus and which major. Does that make it important enough to be included in Wikipedia? It is not a nationwide test like the US ACT or SAT but it is significantly more determinant and for a top university. Neither the ACT or the SAT is the sole determinant of admission nor do they determine campus or major. Imagine a single test given to decide if a student entered an Ivy League school, which school, and what they could major in. Would that be notable enough to have its own article? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would make it notable enough to have its own article would be evidence of it having been the non-trivial subject of discussion in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Its mere existence or any argument that may be made for its importance are not by themselves enough. If the test is not discussed in such sources, then it does not qualify as notable by Wikipedia standards. KDS4444 (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination , for lack of other's interest. KDS4444 (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources such as here and here many others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 08:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute for Science and Mathematics Education Development[edit]

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

~~A non-notable extension research arm of a University, unreferenced and unlikely ever to become so. As a university subunit, delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.~~ KDS4444 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination for lack of public interest. Will convert into a Redirect if no consensus forms otherwise before closure. KDS4444 (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Flavours & Fragrances[edit]

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

Subject doesn't appear to be notable. Nominated for CSD twice, and the article appears to have been created via AfC, but I'm not sure if whether it's been properly accepted or not. Adam9007 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still A7 and G11 material but the nominator apparently believes being "an accredited member" is sufficient ~~(they are violating their interaction ban against me as it is)~~. This has nothing at all for independent notability and substance. I'll also note this was actually moved to mainspace by the author themselves, a recent concern regarding Drafts, so it was never actually reviewed (the author moved it twice without consultation of reviewers). SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have striked out part of the statement above, as there is no interaction ban in-place between Adam9007 and SwisterTwister. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The nominator? You mean me? Interaction ban? To whom are you referring? I'm not on an interaction ban with anyone. Oh, and I'm not the only one who's contested the A7. Adam9007 (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin: No one else ever actually contested an A7 here, and I have kindly asked the user to stay away from me given they continuously remove my changes (see User_talk:Adam9007/Archive_2#Article); one other time before I mentioned my concerns about their removing my changes, also. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the talk page? Adam9007 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should have died at CSD - David Gerard (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't see any in-depth coverage. One of its products was nominated for FiFi Awards, I don't think that cuts it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. There are multiple reviews for this film, which seems to clearly meet WP:NFP. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3000 Nights[edit]

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

Unremarkable movie with only one reference, no one notable in the film. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The page needs additional references but it doesn't look like that will be an issue [40]. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nom should read WP:BEFORE. I found these reviews in seconds: one, two, three, four, therefore easily meeting WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The film is very notable and won this list of international awards. DO NOT DELETE THE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY: -Circle Jury Award, Washington, DC International Film Festival, USA - Young Jury Award, International Film Festival on Human Rights, Switzerland - Jury Award, Women’s International Film and Television Showcase (TheWIFTS), USA - Audience Award, Annonay International Film Festival, France 2015 - Audience Award, Valladolid Film Festival, Spain 2015 - TaoEdu Youth Award, Taormina International Film Festival, Italy 2016 - Best Screenplay, Carthage Film Festival, Tunisia 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nourchamoun (talk • contribs)
Keep - This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Source #1 - Variety (magazine) - Dubai Festival: Doc Helmer Masri Moves Into Fiction With ‘3000 Nights’

Source #2 - Variety (magazine) - Toronto: Palestinian Drama ‘3000 Nights’ Picked Up By Mad Solutions For Distribution In Arab World (EXCLUSIVE)

Source #3 - The Hollywood Reporter - '3000 Nights': Film Review

Source #4 - Hindustan Times - At Dubai fest, stories of suffering women and their battles

Source #5 - Screen International - '3000 Nights': Review

Source #6 - The National (Abu Dhabi) - Toronto International Film Festival: 3,000 Nights is a metaphor for the Palestinian occupation

This !vote was decided based on the General notability guideline. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons already above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Lourdes 04:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies[edit]

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

At ticket:2016082210003947 an employee of the organization requested the deletion of this article, and in response, I am nominating this for for deletion.

This article was started in 2006. So far as I can tell, none of the information in it has ever been backed by a citation. It seems fair to consider whether this article meets Wikipedia's own criteria for inclusion. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written fails WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IPCS reports are widely cited in books, academic journals, and newspapers (see Google News/HighBeam/NYT search links above). This satisfies the spirit of the notability guidelines - many independent sources have taken notice of the organization's work, the organization has had a significant and demonstrable effect on the world. (It is also cited extensively in Wikipedia - 124 articles from 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and 1988 Maldives coup d'état to Wali Ahmad (Sandakai Mulla) and Water supply and sanitation in Bangladesh),

The University of Pennsylvannia's Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) (the gold standard for evaluating think tanks) ranks IPCS in 2015 as 77th among all foreign policy and international affairs think tanks (the highest rank for an Indian think tank in that area), and 48th among all think tanks in China, India, Japan, and South Korea.[41]. They ranked 24th on the latter list in 2012.[42] So much has been published by IPCS that it can be tedious to find material about the organization, but some does exist, such as [43] Trim article so that it doesn't just echo the organization's website, keep, and improve. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and yes, please improve. I am swayed by Worldbruce's expertise, and by the number of Google Book hits and JSTOR hits. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was looking into the sources myself but Worldbruce beat me to it. My conclusions are exactly the same. It is a very notable organisation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Nordic Nightfury 08:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh women's cricket team tour of Ireland 2016[edit]

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

No indication of significance. Promotional at best. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International cricket tour by two top-tier teams. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International cricket tour by two national team. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maintains WikiProject guidelines & also important for all of national team, which arranges a tour. So, keep it. And close the discussion immediately. - Suvray (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly satisfies notability guidelines per above. Close this now. Smartyllama (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly satisfies notability guidelines per above. Discussion is unworthy tbh. User:Raiyan24r (talk) 1 September 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiyan24r (talk • contribs) 14:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Suvray and the article fairly satisfies the notability guidelines. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Obviously notable, just because it's women's cricket doesn't make it any less notable. Joseph2302 16:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Gillespie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Essentially the same as the 1st AfD except that he has a few other things to his career now, but they are still trivial because he's only an assistant coach for 2 professional teams and then a coach for a non-major basketball team, there's nothing convincing for his article. SwisterTwister talk 02:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements as an assistant coach in the NBA. Meatsgains (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears like this article fails to meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Dolotta (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cantaloupe Aqua[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUSINESS. Little assertion of notability in the article itself (once all the self-promotional material is removed) - relies on either WP:PRIMARY or WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:SELFPUBLISH sources. Dan arndt (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as corporate spam under G11: unambiguous advertising. No indications of notability and sufficient RS coverage to meet GNG cannot be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page reads like an advertisement and the hotel lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - puffed up, but no claim or evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also consider this speedy material, none of it is coming close to substance and simply boils to PR. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikkaWiki[edit]

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

Unreferenced since creation in 2004, survived a very early VFD (see Talk:WakkaWiki). No evidence or statement of notability; two passing mentions in RSes. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WackoWiki (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WakkaWiki. David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - age relies heavily on primary sources and lacks independent coverage. Meatsgains (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the lack of commentary, this is a WP:SOFTDELETE Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WakkaWiki[edit]

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

Unreferenced since creation in 2004, survived a very early VFD (see Talk:WakkaWiki). Long dead software product. No evidence or statement of notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikkaWiki and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WackoWiki (2nd nomination) - David Gerard (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Aizumi[edit]

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

Aizumi is an activist and writer who has not received coverage of the level that would signify being notable. No sustained broad coverage of the level that would pass the General notability guidelines for Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough reliable sources that profile Aizumi. In addition, he continues to be in the news--with several outlets citing him as a transgender activist. I've added sources to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the subject's coverage in RS are only local. Meatsgains (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by David Gerard. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FirstOne TV[edit]

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

No independent sources Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:PROMO as spam. The article largely consists of:

The following countries are available:^[1] Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece ... Etc. (cited to itself)

References

^ "Countries | FirstOne TV - Watch TV when and where you want!". www.firstonetv.eu. Retrieved 2016-08-15.

... an incredible amount of coat rack for one paragraph. The article created by a single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Lars-Marcel with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied per tag - David Gerard (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Again, lack of participation. Nobody cares about ministerials, it seems... Sandstein 17:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Energy Ministerial[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources to prove notability. The sources used in the article are primary or otherwise unreliable sources. First AfD was closed as no consensus for lack of participation. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confessing I have not read the article, scanning it, I find it surprising it would be targetted for AfD. WP is littered with pages which are complete trash and stay there whereas this one describes an important multilateral body/talkshop, is a serious page on a serious subject (not some third-rate footballer in Outer Mongolia) and an effort has been made to source it. In the context of so much that needs deleting, this one definitely stays, in my view. sirlanz01:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the low participation, this is a WP:SOFTDELETE Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video Production Association[edit]

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

A search shows only 12 hits for this award on Google News, and only 15 on Google Books... None of these appears to discuss the awards themselves but instead are mentions of some production company or another receiving the award. While there are lots of plain Google hits, the number of reliable, independent, verifiable, published, non-trivial discussions seems to suggest this award is, in fact, not notable. Article has existed for 8 years with no new references beyond its own official website and its awards site (which are the same site). Maybe this one does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. KDS4444 (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If a developer article is created, a merger can be discussed on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Season Monster Defense[edit]

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

Looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I see but a few results; Metacritic listings, and tables of releases. No several, in-depth, significant coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as "Vampire Season" and weak keep. Reviews from three vetted WP:VG/RS: [44][45][46], which I'd consider the barest of minimums. I'd merge to a developer article if one already existed, due to the lack of secondary source development info. czar 03:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Czars comments, the rs game reviews should be covered in more detail in the reception section IMO. passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The Maven Boys. Sandstein 17:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zale "Zalezy" Epstein[edit]

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

Not sure this artist meets notability requirements. The references are line listings with little substance. The artist purports to be Grammy and Juno nominated, but the artist was not nominated, he appears to have been involved on the periphery - a song he may have contributed to was part of an album that was nominated. In spite of what the article states, he has not charted with an single - again he appears to have been a minor contributor. reddogsix (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands given failed verification of claimed sources - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Maven Boys. As suspected, the Grammy and Juno nominations are not direct ones – the "Grammy nomination" was for Schoolboy Q's album Oxymoron, but Zalezy only features as co-writer and co-producer for one song, "Yay Yay", which only appears as a bonus track on the iTunes version of the album. Likewise, the "Juno nominations" are as co-writer/co-producer (among many others) on individual tracks on the Down with Webster album – I can't find any evidence yet where he contributed to the P Reign and Tre Mission albums. But the real point is that even all these "nominations" were as part of the Maven Boys production group, so there is nothing to indicate any individual notability outside of that group. Richard3120 (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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" does not identify reliable sources about the topic, which is an insurmountable problem in view of WP:V. Sandstein 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diagramming software[edit]

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

Ill-defined list that's never been otherwise since its creation in 2004. Functionally a spam magnet list of software, redundant with category:Diagramming software; I removed the spam magnet sections (one was half inline links) and there's hardly anything else to the article. Tagged as such since 2012. PROD was removed, though without the editor doing anything to fix the problems. This article is not useful and attracts spammers. If there is a useful article at this title, I strongly suspect WP:TNT would be needed first; those who feel this is a "keep", I urge you to convince by editing it to demonstrate another path out of its present problems, because waiting for others to fix it hasn't worked. David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's really not much content here to lose, and it looks like everything of use here can be found via the category. - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is a notable subject that could be expanded on. Surely there are scholarly papers or articles from the early days of graphics programming that would give insight into the theories behind this type of application. --George100 (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have actual sources that would do the job, then by all means! But you appear to be positing hypothetical sources that might exist - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belmond Eagle Island Lodge[edit]

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

I do not see anything special about this lodge, and there are no reliable sources. The article was redirected in the past, but the author reverted. Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lest someone else misread the lead of the article when skimming, this is a tourism company in a notable region. It does not appear to have any claim to notability itself, and indeed neither the sources in the article nor my own search turned up anything but promotional content. If this isn't the first time it's been created, there may be cause to salt. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertorial and insufficient sourcing to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna athal[edit]

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

athal is an activist who seems to be lacking the level of coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the low input, this is a WP:SOFTDELETE Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Assistance Response Unit[edit]

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

Not seeing any useful sources in my searching. What I am seeing is our own article, other wikis, blogs, press releases, social media of various kinds, and You Tube videos. None of which meet our needs. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Owens[edit]

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

Lacks notability independent of his non notable band. Junior award is not major. Outside of a little local interest driven by Far Young promotion he lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. This is just some more Tim Coons promotion duffbeerforme (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a borderline pass of WP:BASIC as has New Zealand press coverage,referenced in the article, of his awards and involvement with the band Far Young, the article needs to be updated if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantic306 (talk • contribs) .21:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything to show notability apart for some newspaper articles when the group started. NealeFamily (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and, with nothing in mainstream media for 2 years, WP:GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 23:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Alderson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Alderson is a non-notable minor league player. He was a first round draft pick, but no evidence suggests he ever played a major league game. There is a little coverage of him earlier, but it is localized and not enough to pass General Notability Guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reviewing the 2nd nomination and the article itself, I'm convinced of his notability by the arguments that led to it being kept the second time. Notability is not temporary and I think the arguments lade out seven years ago still hold today. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't temporary, but our views of notability sure have changed. In the last discussion, I only saw three sources presented to make the case for notability. The PPG source is good, the EVT link is dead, and Baseball America is a trade publication and its Prospect Guide, not a regular article, should receive less weight in determining notability. EVTrib does have an article on Alderson being drafted and one on being player of the year, but at this time I don't think that coverage is enough to meet the bar of notability. Also, his career is done, so his odds of meeting WP:BASE/N are almost nil. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what little coverage there is appears to be routine. Lepricavark (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --sports career is non notable; fails GNG per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Radio Show[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It was mentioned in Billboard and The Pittsburgh Post Gazette in passing but no coverage beyond those two mentions. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability. WP:PROMO also applies -- the content is advertorial and only serves to promote the show. This article is part of the apparent walled garden centered on Frankie Dee (radio host). Please see User_talk:MattAeditor for more details. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- a IP contributor attempted to remove the AfD template: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if better sources can be found - see WP:GNG for guidelines on what "better" means here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Asantewaa[edit]

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

Non-notable disc jockey and radio presenter John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While there are potentially valid notability claims being made here, in that BBC 1Xtra and CBBC are national services rather than local ones, this drops the ball for properly sourcing the claim — of the three sources here, one is a primary one, one is a Q&A-style interview in a "magazine" that looks for all the world more like a publicity platform for youth entrepreneurs than a real or neutral magazine, and the third is a dead link whose content is unverifiable. Even being a national radio or television host is not an inclusion freebie for an article that's this badly sourced. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source it better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 03:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bishop Lamont. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Reformation G.D.N.I.A.F.T[edit]

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

début album, just a track list Jimfbleak (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bishop Lamont. Being a debut album (if it could really be considered as such given his other releases) is not a reason for deletion. There's a little more here than a tracklist, but I'm not finding sufficient coverage to justify an article at this time. The best I've found is [47], [48], and this which may relate to a previous version of the album. --Michig (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect for now, revisit the idea in a month or two to determine if we should delete or if a full article could be written.Kellymoat (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Nordic Nightfury 08:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 345[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated as a G4 recreation CSD. The article was slightly expanded with a few extra sources from the original, so I refused the CSD, but it is mostly the same as the previous version deleted at AfD, so bringing here. Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - This is a likely search term, therefore, it should be kept or redirected to Southwest_Airlines#Incidents_and_accidents. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as G4 tagger per the previous afd. Pppery (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the last AfD is completely irrelevant because nearly all who commented believed that it would not be a hull loss. Essentially, the article was nominated prematurely; that is, not enough information as of late July 2013 to make an accurate assessment of delete vs. not delete. Since then, a lot of new information has come in, and the aircraft is indeed a hull loss. For this reason, I voted a Strong Keep (see below). --Eye Pee Pee Address (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Though there were no fatalities, this was a hull loss accident and I thought that this was generally considered sufficient to justify an article on wiki? The article has weaknesses, notably a lack of a definitive conclusion of pilot error (though this sounds like the conclusion) but does have a variety of sources. Nose wheel collapses are not uncommon, but landing on a nose wheel (as happened in this case) is much less common, as I understand it. Several delete !votes at the previous AfD noted that it was not a hull loss accident, or speculated that the aircraft would be repaired; according to the article, these suppositions were incorrect. EdChem (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as hull loss does appear sufficient under AIRCRASH. EdChem (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the previous discussion referred, repeatedly, to WP:AIRCRASH, but as a hull-loss, this incident passed that criteria. Epson Salts (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hull loss, death and/or injury is not necessarily a requirement to sustain an article. Also, recreation was not by original creator, but another editor. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Citing WP:AIRCRASH is completely inappropriate in this discussion; as the page itself says, Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Given that both AfD discussions for this stand-alone accident article have incorrectly relied on AIRCRASH, I think this needs other notability-based arguments to back up any !votes. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southwest_Airlines#Incidents_and_accidents; I'm not seeing individual notability, but it does meet the guidelines for inclusion in WP:AIRCRASH. ansh 666 21:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect; if the latter, then to Southwest_Airlines#Incidents_and_accidents, which has info on the landing. Like Ansh666, I do not see individual notability, and as noted above, WP:AIRCRASH does not apply to individual articles like this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meets the criteria for a keep, in part, because it was a hull loss (plane destroyed). For years to come, readers will look up crashes of major airlines. This is one of them. There are many reliable sources that document this crash of a Southwest Airlines flight. Southwest Airlines is one of the largest airlines in the world but not the largest. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article meets the criteria for a keep; see also WP:AIRCRASH. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ... which is an essay about whether accidents should be mentioned in airline/airport/aircraft type articles. Pppery (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - And which discusses notability guidelines sufficiently enough. Regardless, this is a notable accident. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's still an essay which explicitly recomends not to be cited in deletion discussions (see the quote provided by BlueMoonset above). Pppery (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - And it still discusses notability guidelines sufficiently. You are not adding anything further at this point, nor are you persuading me to change my opinion. This is a notable air crash. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the circumstances of the hull loss, backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources, justifies retention. Alansohn (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - clearly an incident that caused a $15.5 million written off (total hull loss) must be included. It caused changes in Southwest's cockpit resource management (CRM). Also refer to Dallas News article and USA Today article. --Eye Pee Pee Address (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- An accident that causes a major airline to overhaul its training practices is certainly notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Space: 1999. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Space Commission[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.~~ Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions~~. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Errrm.... Northamerica1000... Thanks for your enthousiasm, but the organisation is a fictional one. Sorry if I did not make that clear enough. Kleuske (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't list it at the above delsort pages, a different user did. I have removed the entry from the delsort pages (diff, diff) and struck the delsort notices atop. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... My bad. Kleuske (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious redirect to Space: 1999 - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Space: 1999. Aoba47 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on deletion although I see agreement that the two terms aren't synonymous. This looks to be somewhat more than a dictionary definition so I am not inclined to delete on that basis. I will leave it to the community to redirect or merge as appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allamah[edit]

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

Reason Similar to existing article Ulama. It is just overlapping title Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 19:44, 1 August 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 August 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Allamah is not that similar to Ulama'. One is an honorific title and the other is a term for a class of people. However, I'm not sure what to do with this article. Although the title is mentioned is some encyclopedias like this one, it's hard to find coverage in RSs for it beyond a dictionary definition. Eperoton (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the ulama-allamah relation similar to king-majesty or priest-monsignor? In other words, are people that have the occupation ulama addressed to with allamah? If so, I would not mind merging/redirecting --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can say yes. It is not exactly occupation. I will say that if a person is considered as well educated or knowledgeable on his subject preferably religious subject then he is titled as allamah.Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see only a handful of names associated with that title. Not sure if that's because it's very selective or just not very common. Eperoton (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And by that I meant in books. It occurred to me that one often hears the combination "Allamah Dr." in the Arabic-language media. So, perhaps you are right in that can now be applied to any member of the Ulama as a personal mark of respect. In the absence of RSs on this point, I won't venture to say. Eperoton (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alim is used for male, Alimah for female, but this use is in its singular form. It is title for respect to some scholar often used for religious scholars. It is upto the reader how to perceive it as a claas or as a title.Uluma or Ulama is same but its plural form. It also sounds good if it simply merge to the original page Ulama. Rahmatgee (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Allameh means polymath in the context of Muslim society while Ulama is the plural form of Aalim. In addition, there are a lot of people who have been described by this title such as Allameh Muhammad Iqbal , Allameh Tabatabai, Allameh Helli, Allamah Mawdudi, etc.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MezzoMezzo: While the article looks as a dictionary one, the issue, itself, is notable. When Polymath has an article, it is reasonable for Allamah as well. Please, reconsider your vote.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. It is plausible that the article could be expanded and sourced to rise above being a dictionary definition, but in its present form it is not helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and expand. The term is not the exact equivalent , and is more than a directory entry. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ulama. I agree the subjects are not identical, but there is overlap in the sense that both deal with those who have distinguished themselves in a scholarly way. I think that the content could be placed after Ulama#Usage of the word 'Alim' in the Quran and make sense. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Verónica Orozco. Don't usually close on 2 however participation is extremely low and to be honest relisting for a third week's gonna be a waste of time,
Anyway I'm Merging instead of keeping as whilst Billboard is a rs, There's nothing source-wise except that and the sources in the article are extremely poor so IMHO this is better off merged in to the singers article, Had there been even 2 sources I would've happily kept but inshort it's a non notable album which if kept would only be sent here sometime in the future, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verónica Orozco (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Usual story of an actress singing a theme song in a movie, and then making an album to capitalise on it. No reliable references and no substantial coverage found of a record that wasn't a particularly great success even in her home country – ten years on and she still hasn't made a follow-up, preferring to concentrate on her acting career. Richard3120 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Verónica Orozco per this from Billboard, which states "The actress and singer/songwriter's self-titled pop-debut went gold in Colombia". I'd say that constitutes a pretty decent success in her home country. The chances of coverage in Colombian sources not existing are extremely slim. --Michig (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Michig's comments, Billboard is a rs and if the album went gold that constitutes a pas of WP:MUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cylon Heavy Raider[edit]

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

This topic currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. No evidence of independent notability. I am open to being convinced otherwise. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gets a few hits here and there on Google News and Google Books, but I don't see significant coverage. If there were a source that described how they were designed, who designed them, and what kind of legacy they had in science fiction media, maybe we'd have something. But this looks like it belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyFlie[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have been unable to find any suitable sources. For example, the first couple of pages of results from a Google search for "CrazyFlie" contained several pages on the web site of the company producing CrazyFlie, web pages selling CrazyFlie, YouTube, several github pages, Twitter, instructions on using CrazyFlie, etc etc, but I found not a single case of substantial coverage in an independent reliable source. Trying adding other words in the search term along with "CrazyFlie" made no difference. The article was proposed for deletion, with lack of independent sources given as part of the reason. The creator of the article then removed the deletion proposal, and added a number of references, but they are merely reports on projects which have used CrazyFlie; while they all mention CrazyFlie in the course of describing the projects, none of them actually gives substantial coverage of CrazyFlie itself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JamesBWatson, I created the page for Crazyflie this morning. I tried to add a few more sources to save it from deletion last time. But it seems it has been marked for deletion again. I am a grad student and this is my first time contributing to Wikipedia. I can see from the talk page that the deletion has been requested due to lack of independent sources. I would like to know what sort of sources I could get in order to improve the article. Because you are right when you say that googling Crazyflie only gives company links and github projects. Sadly it is a very small enterprise made by students like me. So finding myriad sources for it can be tough. Mostly people use it for projects and such. My motivation to create a page ironically, was because when I started working on the project and decided to Google Crazyflie, I didn't find any Wikipedia page for it and I wanted to add one,so that students like me , who want to work on Crazyflie have some basic information to start with. I have also not done this due to any collaboration with the company or to advertise about them. Infact I even mentioned a few problems it has, to be as unbiased as I could. I really want to save the page. So any help or insight will be highly appreciated. Thank you.Jayneeshw (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayneesh (talk • contribs) [reply]

@Jayneesh: (aka Jayneeshw) I fully understand what you are saying, and I do sympathise with you, as I have explained at greater length on your talk page. However, I'm afraid that what you are saying is actually confirmation that the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for an article. A "very small enterprise made by students" for which finding sources is "tough" pretty certainly won't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I waded through the refs somehow expecting to find a notability gem that had been overlooked. I was out of luck. This gives all the appearance of a student business project. If so it is way too soon to be making an article here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting thingie, but the independent coverage isn't there. It's too soon for a Wikipedia article.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Pryor[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker. This was part of a promotional walled garden with the two films done deleted by AfD. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The List (2015 film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submission (2017 film)) Peter Rehse (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Making a non-notable video does not make someone notable. A couple local interest stories about a non-notable video do not indicate its creator is notable, nor do they provide significant coverage indicating he is notable, as a WP:CREATIVE professional or otherwise. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Lane[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of Mjnm2015 (talk · contribs). They offered no rationale, but after looking into the matter, I believe that the notability of this company is unclear. The company does exist, which is good as far as it goes, but I don't see anything in third party, independent sources that talks about the company as a company. I see lots of PR newswire-style market movements - Hamilton Lane added X company to Y fund and such - but that doesn't confer notability. Even if the company were notable, we lack sources with which to build a proper article. I'm happy to withdraw this if someone can find sources showing the company to be notable, but I'm coming up blank. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- searching for "Hamilton Lane" "private equity" yields some coverage, such as "Hamilton Lane Slams Secondaries as Zombie Lifeline" & more (link). But it's mostly about the deals it participated in, other firms it plans to acquire, and funds it raised. So it appears to be an entity of some note, as an advisor to pension funds, but I'm not sure if this is sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. Ping Northamerica1000 for comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on second thoughts. I cannot find anything better that what I included above. Insufficient to meet GNG and COPRDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Qualcomm Snapdragon. And merge as desired. Sandstein 11:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snapdragon chipset 821[edit]

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

DePRODed and detagged without addressing the issues. Concern was: UNsourced speculation about a non notable software or hardware component Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that I had to delete the initial prose in the article as a likely copyright violation of the GSMArena article Qualcomm announces Snapdragon 821 chipset, ups performance by 10%. --Mark viking (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Qualcomm Snapdragon. Although I found lots of sources that were heavily based on the original press release (from reliable sources like Forbes and Android Police, as well as from several nonreliable sources - [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]), it doesn't look like there's enough coverage for a standalone article. People are searching for this topic, though, so it would be fine as a redirect. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 19:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rahal-Hogan RH-001[edit]

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

Article fails to meet notability as presently written. Draft version of this article was previously declined for failing notability but User:Rowde moved the article to mainspace without any improvement. Article currently has two external links which discuss the car, but I believe they do not firmly establish notability. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the article must be written differently and more about the cars and how it began, middle and ended. Rowde (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rowde, I legitimately ask you because I know your understanding of English is poor: Do you know what notability means? The³5₉ (Talk) 19:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources Rowde (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A great-looking article but where did you find all of this information? Is there some written book you could cite? Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From one or two websites Rowde (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the article could use inline citations and overall improvements to citation and tone. The subject is inherently notable under the auspices of WP:MOTORSPORT and WP:AOWR. -Drdisque (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

János Balázs, Jr.[edit]

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

The sources are largely not reliable sources. The prizes seem to give no indication of actually being at a level to indicate notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet GNG as I cannot find reliable sources on the subject. All awards are non-notable. This appears to be a vanity page, so WP:PROMO applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands may well be notable, but we need the RSes right there for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Baron[edit]

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

Baron's work as a filmmaker does not seem to rise to the level to establish notability John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON at best - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. This is a vanity page that serves to promote the subject. For example,

His short films and music videos have over 6 million hits online, and have been screened at film festivals internationally.[1] (cited to "Official website")

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hands on Me (Ariana Grande song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, no media coverage, no charts. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSONGS, virtually no content present, and what is there, is the equivent of someone converting an infobox/track list to prose. Better covered in respective album article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - everything said above. Kellymoat (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSONGS as already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Project Orion (nuclear propulsion). Opinion is evenly split. There's not really a consensus to merge, but it seems a reasonable middle ground in a muddled landscape. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Mars By A-Bomb (film)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. GHits are YT, Wiki, IMDB, Reddit, BBC (who aired it) and the like. 14 interviews in an hour also doesn't seem to give weight to any one individual within the film. MSJapan (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to my surprise I can't find any real coverage in reliable sources for what sounds like a fascinating BBC doc. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added a couple of decent-looking refs. Search w/o "(film)" I do own a copy of Project Orion by Dyson. Jim1138 (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- "To Mars By A-Bomb". BBC Four Documentaries. 8 February 2006. Retrieved 16 August 2016.
- Mark R. Hasan (2008). "To Mars By A-Bomb: The Secret History of Project Orion (2003)". KQEK.com. Retrieved 16 August 2016.</ref>
Keep There are reviews of the documentary and the video is on Christopher Sykes' YouTube channel here It could use more work. Jim1138 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to find reviews in reliable sources either - and that's surprising considering that this seems to be an interesting documentary. I will go with WP:NRVE here and delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I have been able to find a lot more sources, although some quite brief. Blythwood (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seem to be enough sources though the article could use improvement. - Reidgreg (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources: I'm not convinced by the sources. We require sources specifically about the film. As for the sources in the article:

The Guardian TV Listing This is essentially a TV listing. Even if I consider this a review, it is a capsule review which still doesn't satisfy WP:NFSOURCES.
Listing on BBC - This is clearly not an independent sources. I mean BBC is obviously going to write about it.
The Cosmic Compendium: Interstellar Travel - Self Published Book I don't think this is a reliable source considering that this is a self published book (by Lulu.com).
KQEK Doesn't satisfy WP:NFSOURCES. This seems to come under WP:USERGENERATED/WP:SPS. The site doesn't seem to be well known and I'm unable to see if they have an editorial process.
Achieving the Rare: Robert F. Christy's Journey in Physics and Beyond Reliable but trivial coverage. I looked at the book and there is simply a passing mention of the movie in a sentence about Robert Christy being consulted. Essentially the entire coverage is one sentence.
Race, Ethnicity and Nuclear War: Representations of Nuclear Weapons and Post-apocalyptic Worlds Again, the name of the film is simply listed in the book with no other information.

Looking at the sources, I'm not convinced that we should keep this article. I'm willing to however redirect it to an appropriate target such as Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)#Depictions on film. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO, as there appears no other reason to include those who were interviewed in the film as "starring" in it in the infobox. Lemongirl942's analysis of sources is compelling. It's possible to redirect to [[Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)#Depictions on film as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code Name Project Orion (film). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge to Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) - I believe it scrapes b on sources, but not by much. Artw (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems bizarre to say the least that what appears to be a well-done, popular documentary has generated little in terms of reliable source coverage. And yet that's what has happened. I agree with the analysis of the sources stated above. If kept, this article couldn't be enhanced with additional information that's sourced properly, and that's a shame. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Smoorenburg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. Adam9007 (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to point out, WP:NACTOR is actually the guideline that would apply here. Silver seren^C 04:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a number of references to the article. The most important ones include this, this, and this news video. The difficulty with this guy though is that, due to his birth country and where he's worked, sources are really disparate across multiple languages and that makes them hard to locate. There are sources in Dutch from his homeland, sources in Chinese from his early martial arts films with Jackie Chan and others, sources in Thai for the various other martial arts movies he did in Thailand, and recently sources in Hindi and others for his work over the past few years in Bollywood films. Silver seren^C 21:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not notable as a martial artist and I couldn't find anything to support the claim he meets WP:NACTOR. Didn't find enough coverage to convince me GNG is met. Astudent0 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename/move to List of dictionaries by number of words. (non-admin closure) MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of languages by number of words[edit]

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

No purpose to this page: measuring the "number of words" in a language is exceedingly difficult to assess given the vastly different structures of languages compared. Article already sparked a name controversy on its talk page after just two weeks in existence. Better delete and forget. — JFG ^talk 02:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep. The list is useful as a list of dictionaries. There is a relevant discussion on the talk page. Uanfala (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is a "word"? This is a list of dictionaries. We already have lists of dictionaries Lists_of_dictionaries--Savonneux (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Each dictionary will have a pretty precise idea of what it counts as a word. Of course, these aren't always directly comparable across dictionaries and much less so across languages, but they do give a reasonable indication of the size and comprehensiveness of the dictionary. This list doesn't overlap with Lists_of_dictionaries, which is a list of lists. Uanfala (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that it is a list of lists. The lists that the list lists are lists of dictionaries though. The article Headword says These values are cited by the dictionary makers, and may not use exactly the same definition of a headword. In addition, headwords may not accurately reflect a dictionary's size. So we have one page that says dictionary word counts are arbitrary, for lack of a better term, and not comparable across languages and this list which does directly compare them. Good thing we have Category:Articles contradicting other articles--Savonneux (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the lists there are language- or subject-specific and I can't see how they could possibly overlap in scope with the list brought to this AfD. As for the caveats that go with the number of headwords as a measure of dictionary size, they are quite reasonable, but they are from making it anywhere near arbitrary. Much greater caveats go for example with the use of GDP, but it's still a useful indicator of a country's economic development and we won't think of deleting any of the Lists of countries by GDP. Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GDP is all in units of money. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet but is ice cream one word or two.--Savonneux (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are definitions for both words and headwords. Each dictionary needs at least a de facto (case-by-case) one for each of both terms. Of course competing definitions must be aknowledged for, as should other issues too (see the original discussion). I agree that the title might not be the best one, but I think it is relevant to have a list of languages by number of words on authoritative dictionaries (or maybe replace words by entries, and detail each type when available). Because of languages and not because of dictionaries. It should include clarifications on how a language/dictionary pair treats issues that might affect the number. The article is relevant both to show how dificult it is to compare between languages as well as for the value of the specific comparison itself. Comment: I think the very fact that there was a discussion for renaming (currently closed without consensus) serves as argument that there is (at least some) support for it to be kept.Cato censor (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is literally the definition of synthesis.--Savonneux (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I follow you. All I proposed may be sourced and worded in a way that does not add qualifiers or coordinating conjunctions that could make it amount to WP:SYN. Cato censor (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The experts in every dictionary must define to obviuosly difficult matter of what counts as a word. Is ice cream a word or not? Well, for that question spanish has the Real Academia de la Lengua Española and french has the equivalent. Instead od deleting it, it could be improved explaining the caveats of each language in a new column. --Jbaranao (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is at best a synthesis of not-totally-comparable data. It's vanishingly unlikely that, say, Duden and Shogakukan will have the same standards for what counts as a headword. Apparently the Svenska Akademien has only completed A-T, so there's obvious incommensurability among the dictionaries. Furthermore, any such list necessarily privileges the selected dictionaries' definitions of "word" above other, equally valid possible definitions and possible counts. The selection category is words "included in the dictionary considered the most authoritative or complete", but considered by whom? the Wikipedian who added that line to the chart? I don't see how this can be anything other than original research. Cnilep (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cnilep: what do you think about restructuring it into a list of dictionaries by number of words (in the absence of a readily available better indicator of size)? Uanfala (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a very problematic way of comparing languages, and constitutes WP:OR, incompetently done. Example: The entry for Dutch, based on the 14th edition of the Van Dale lists the number of Words as 90,000. Had one of the contributors instead used the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal the Approximate number of words would have increased fivefold, to 450,000. The aim of the article per [[54]] appears to be to establish the POV that some languages are "richer" than others. To use the word count in a dictionary for that is ahem, unscientific.Mduvekot (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mduvekot:, do you have any objections to repurposing the article into a list of dictionaries? Uanfala (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: I have a problem with the premise of the article, regardless of its name: that something meaningful can be said about a language on the basis of the number of lemmas in a dictionary. Unless you can find several reliable sources that says that the number of headwords in a dictionary correlates to some property of the language, we should not have an article that is based on the assumption that such a correlation exists. Mduvekot (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm no expert on WP policies, but I think most of the concerns raised here are a matter of WP:AQU. Instead of discussing its deletion two weeks after creation and even before the article's name is settled, shouldn't we be focused on improving it and attemtping to make it viable first, as per WP:BEFORE crit. C? As far as I understand, the concern for a number of commenters in this discussion is about form rather than substance. Cato censor (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: of course this may be a problematic way of comparing/listing languages, but it may become objective and sourced as well. Just as you can compare/list flags by color, as long as you don't use that to measure beauty. Cato censor (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colours don't vary between languages though. Here's an entire paper on the concept of what a word is [55] The gist of it is that -> Linguists have no good basis for identifying words across languages (basically that morphology and syntax are very important, which vary drastically, in providing meaning). It's a false comparison.--Savonneux (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's keep it a list, without any reference to comparison? Cato censor (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So, first of all, it definitely cannot keep the current title/frame. There is no objective number of words. Language is constantly developing, and even if we took a snapshot, none of these publications actually capture the whole language. In English, for example, you'd have to combine the OED with all manner of specialized/technical/scientific jargon, throw Urban Dictionary in there, etc. It is interesting, however, to think about a list of dictionaries by number of words -- and there are plenty of sources in the history of dictionaries/lexicography as well as the histories of reference, encyclopedias, writing, etc. that would support such a list. The difficult thing is finding sources that span up to the present, and then presenting them in a way that isn't WP:SYNTH. Ideally, we'd be drawing from other reliable sources' similar lists -- and this list does not appear to cite any such sources, as far as I can see... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At this point the list is a list of dictionaries with most headwords. It has little to do with contemporary languages as many of the dictionaries collect, well, linguistic units in use for centuries (e.g. the Deutsches Wörterbuch and the Oxford English Dictionary) or even for millennia (the Zhonghua Zihai). Apart from the seemingly unsurmountable difficulties of defining word across languages at least the Zhonghua Zihai doesn’t even pretend to collect words, but only characters (many of which were only used on one occasion or in one name). There are descriptive dictionaries like the OED that claim to record all words in (current and historical) use and prescriptive ones like the Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia that claim to include only words considered worthy to be recommended for formal style. I am afraid there is little hope for this mess to ever turn into something tidy and encyclopaedic. A well-defined list of descriptive word dictionaries of contemporary standard and dialectal language use, for instance, simply doesn’t seem feasible. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also recommend reading How do British and American attitudes to dictionaries differ?. Every nation — let alone speech community — has their own notion of what purpose a dictionary serves. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral; found a source, see below 04:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC) I can't find any RS comparing languages by any kind of vocabulary-size metric, including sources comparing dictionary size, so the topic fails WP:NLIST. Nation & Waring 1997 note that some research has tried to extract workable values for word family count in particular dictionaries, but don't say anything about interlingual comparisons. Discussion participants have presented good arguments that this is probably because it's a fundamentally poor (that is, unencyclopedic) question: there's too much variation in the cultural roles and scopes of a dictionary, and there's no evidence that a language's total vocabulary size (if measurable) even matters, especially considering that no native speaker can know all the words in their own language. FourViolas (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dubious original research. I am pretty much sure the comparison is 'oranges vs apples', because different vocabularies are quite possibly based in different language registers; eg. some include obsolete words, while other are not, etc. Also, coverage of slangs, argot, jargons, regionalisms an other corpora. In other words I concur with those who say this article must be based on RS which compare languages by word count. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename List of dictionaries by number of words as recommended by an RM nominator here. — AjaxSmack 02:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of dictionaries would still need secondary sources to meet WP:NLIST, discussing many dictionaries' relative sizes and providing some reason why this is a topic worth discussing. I've tried to find them, but haven't; do you know of any? FourViolas (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. http://doi.dx.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.188 (Metacognitive and Other Knowledge about the Mental Lexicon)contains a detailed analysis of the number of words in the OED (1st and 2nd ed.), Webster's Third New International, Webster's Unabridged, and the Random House Unabridged. There's some secondary material about what counts as a "word" for different purposes, and the relation between dictionary size and the number of words in a language (with estimates from several scholars for the latter). This makes me wonder if List of dictionaries by number of words or at least List of English-language dictionaries by number of words meets NLIST. Not sure yet. There's also a whole journal called "Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America", which I'd missed and which looks promising. FourViolas (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm not sure that the topic of List of dictionaries by number of words has received much attention from independent reliable sources, let alone the topic of the article under discussion. Borders on WP:LISTCRUFT. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G7, author requests deletion. The only author of the page has requested deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Blancpain GT Series Endurace Cup[edit]

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

Spelling mistake Vettelisthebest (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for 2017 Blancpain GT Series Endurace Cup Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Blancpain GT Series Endurace Cup[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Therapy Sessions[edit]

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

Music event with no sources other than event listings, and no claim to notability; the article has been tagged for questionable notability and lack of sources since 2013. I can't find any sources that are independent of the company behind the events, Freak Recordings and I'd say a mention of Therapy Sessions in that article is sufficient. bonadea contributions talk 06:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 07:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; no indications of notability and advertorial content. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robinsons Place Dasmariñas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

as per last AfD. fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. no inherent notability of shopping malls.

also nominating:

LibStar (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nominator. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:PROMO and WP:DIRECTORY. These article exist for promotional purposes only. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Countries | FirstOne TV - Watch TV when and where you want!". www.firstonetv.eu. Retrieved 2016-08-15.

[1]